Well ... this depends. I think the original design is okay.
See, it is labelled an "interstellar" ship, which implies cruise duration on the order of decades. As such, long term GCR shielding is a must, and this requires MUCH thicker shielding than the wimpy neutrons from a mere fission reactor (or even the fast neutrons of a fusion reaction).
The original design appears to have propellant tanks surrounding a central core (which may include the crew compartment?).
However, the number of radiator fins does seem excessive, and they do have a lot of mutual irradiation near the center. A smaller number of fins with larger area would be more optimal...
...well, you'd have to study it in more detail to figure out what's ideal. Hard to just guesstimate.
#dnd thought: Using Doctor Faust as a model for warlocks is not particularly novel. Instead, consider using CryptoBros and other TechBros as an inspiration:
"I have found the perfect way to get POWER and RICHES. THIS CANNOT POSSIBLY GO WRONG!"
"Law of Equivalent Exchange? How silly, I'm not an alchemist. No, in order for me to conjure a minor spell, several major deciduous forests must burn down. Or the entire tundra."
I think that AI garbage may actually be the death of "algorithms". The big problem with "algorithm" suggested content has already been that bots are better able to game the algorithm than the staff can "fix" the algorithm. AI just makes the bot problem even worse.
The alternative? Plain old reverse time order timeline. And instead of "the algorithm", you just have human curated content because you follow humans, not bots. Or if a bot does indeed serve up content you like, ok!
Personally, I haven't had a problem finding humans to follow and interact with, for human generated content and human-to-human interaction. It's just not that hard (at least on the platforms I tend to use, like Diaspora, Mastodon ... even Tumblr).
The big money big boys can either figure out how to squeeze out the AIs squawking with each other or they'll swirl down the drain. They need to hone in on the humans, because only human eyeballs can pay the bills.
Another option is to smash stuff into the Moon. I mean, smashing enough stuff directly into Earth to alter Earth's orbit tends to ... ehh ... make the entire exercise moot.
But smash stuff into the Moon, and Earth gets tugged along for the ride without the Judgement Day side effects.
You could set up a mass launcher on Iapetus to shoot ice projectiles at the Moon...
Sorcerers have a strong "I am MISUNDERSTOOD and SPECIAL!" vibe which they share with many protagonists of Young Adult Fantasy Fiction.
But I think another valid approach is to view them through the lens of unexamined privilege. What is it like to be able to do stuff with ease that others can only accomplish with great effort - or not at all?
And YA narratives of this kind often only gain respect through use of the awesome powers they possess. But should "getting respected" have to rely on the privilege of innate powers?
Whether or not it's "actually pretty cool" depends one's point of view.
If you have a hierarchical view of society that people deserve according to what they are (rather than what they do), then a hidden talent indicating that one actually belongs to a higher class is a pretty cool valid mechanism of upward mobility.
If you have a "labor theory of value" view of society that people deserve according to the effort they put in, then ... maybe not so much.
... The valid positions are either all even coordinates or all odd coordinates.
So, your graph paper has a scale of 2 for each line. You can either be on an intersection (all even coordinates) or on a square center (all odd coordinates).
Either way, movement is intuitive. Either move 2 in an orthogonal direction, or (1,1,1) in a diagonal direction.
I'd say this all compares favorably with the better known rhombic dodecahedron tiling.
So apparently, RAF and US military jets participated in shooting down drones headed for innocent civilians, thereby preventing a regional war.
And ... this has upset a lot of people.
I'm not an expert in Middle East stuff, but ... come on, people.
There's only two people who benefit from a regional Middle East war - Netanyahu and Putin. I personally despise both of them, so I entirely have no reason to cheer on such a war. You know ... on top of the horrible death and suffering ...
If you like science fiction and naval history, may I recommend Chris Weuve's "Starfleet Tactical" on YouTube?
Next episode is tonight (Apr 13) at 10pm EST:
"Starfleet Tactical #136: Torpedo boat carriers (with Chris Carlson)
"Chris Carlson joins Chris Weuve to talk about torpedo boat carriers like the French "torpedo boat cruiser" LA FOUDRE, and how such things might work in science fiction."
Whenever I see "there is a planet in the habitable zone, but it's a gas giant" I always think gas giants can have rocky moons so it's still a viable candidate for habitability.
Finding a gas giant isn't a downer. I would even go so far as to say a large gas giant in the habitable zone potentially increases the possibilities of a habitable world. Even accounting for radiation belts. The number of moons they can have ups the dice rolls.
Yeah, you'd think that the Avatar movies would have raised awareness about the possibilities of habitable moons (if not Return of the Jedi).
The number of potential moons is a bonus, as is the fact that they wouldn't be tide locked to the star (although it's unclear how much of a problem that is).
It may also up the chances of active geology, which may be important.
I must admit I'm more fascinated by the possibilities of icy moon life than Earth-like planet/moon life. If the biosphere is powered by tidal heating, there might be no ambient light ... no reason to evolve either bioluminescence or photoreceptors ...
So, life forms could be so weird to us, even very different from deep sea life forms.
Hey. I just realized that my impression that there can't generally be a moon of a moon might be based on outdated scientific understanding.
I mean, I'm not sure ... it just feels to me like the kind of thing that scientists might believe in decades past but then improved computer modelling or something disproves it.
The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article indeed suggests it IS possible:
The focus on China is a little odd considering Starlink is a defense problem TODAY, in an actual hot war, costing lives of our allies every day.
The Space Force could be justifying their existence by taking control of Starlink to deny Russian use and to allow Ukrainian use. This isn't some nebulous potential future threat. It's TODAY. Soldiers are dying.
(And I'm very much serious about the military threat from China. I'm pro-TI with family on the island.)
You couldn't do it from a ground based telescope, though - way too much light pollution to distinguish a visible wavelength photon from Voyager 1 from a visible wavelength photon scattered by Earth's atmosphere from somewhere else.
We have gotten really good with ground telescope techniques to deal with the problems of Earth's atmosphere and the stuff in it, but you get diminishing returns.
It's certainly physically possible, and indeed it's one of the compelling arguments against the expense of interstellar missions - it would cost less and have better science returns to make extremely big space telescopes instead.
"Eyeglass" was one proposal that stuck in my mind when I studied it.