> SpaceX charges what the market will bear, and because they have no good competitor their profit margins can be very large.

Is your premise that SpaceX will ship nuclear waste at or below cost? Because the 74 million is a publicly available price. And when SpaceX ships stuff for the government the prices go up, not down.

> Anyway, the number is from fairly old Musk interviews.

Yes, Musk is famously honest and accurate with his claims.

> At least I didn't trot out a string of obvious errors like you did.

What obvious errors are those? You don’t seem to like that I’m using publicly available pricing.

> When people do that, it's a strong tell they're engaging in broken thinking. What you did, I think, is believe something, then try to rationalize it. When your thinking reached a justification you liked you just stopped thinking

Pot, meet kettle. You are basing your entire premise on a speculative future that doesn’t exist. You should have just proposed sending it up the space elevator.

None of this idea makes sense from a financial, physical, or risk stand point. “This stuff is too dangerous to store in a hole, let’s launch it into space in 3000 rockets, and then we’ll push it away from earth with another thousand solar electric rockets, and then we’ll use solar energy to evaporate it all! What could go wrong?”

Honestly if you’re betting on a hypothetical future where all this is effectively free, why not just bet on a future where reprocessing uranium drops in price as well?