Could be. But I think reactors suffer from the same "NASA Problem" (and also some dose of second-system syndrome) as rockets
> It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated."
Correct. That's why you design once and build multiple ones
How did SpaceX manage to get the costs down?
Re-prioritizing is also important. Safety of course should be the main issue. But I suspect most current designs focus too much on efficiency and max power as well.
SpaceX learns by building and failing. Learning to land was using the basically free discarded first stage from various launches paid for by other people. You can't really do that with reactors.
> It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated."
Correct. That's why you design once and build multiple ones
How did SpaceX manage to get the costs down?
Re-prioritizing is also important. Safety of course should be the main issue. But I suspect most current designs focus too much on efficiency and max power as well.