In short: The smallest of the three public microreactor names at "around $400 million." Same position as Nano Nuclear in the article — public, modestly valued, and outside both the Army selection and the criticality cohort. Note that its underground siting concept bears directly on Hyde's security-cost objection, though the article does not make that link.
Deep Fission is the smallest of the three public microreactor names, at roughly $400 million. Like Nano Nuclear, it appears in this article as part of the count of what is already listed, not as a participant in the Army program or the criticality cohort.
One thought worth carrying forward, which the article does not make: Deep Fission's concept is to site reactors underground, and the single strongest objection raised in the piece is the cost of guarding a small reactor at a remote surface site. Burying the machine is at least a plausible response to that specific problem. That is a reason to keep watching it rather than a reason to own it today — nothing here confirms the economics work.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.