I see potential for nuclear energy in the future, and spaceships will have to resort to nuclear energy because fuel isn't going to cut it for energy intensive long term missions.

And if they figure ways to do it with minimal risk, we wouldn't have to depend on solar energy and hope it gets more and more efficient in the future.

I feel like the risks with nuclear energy are overhyped. With proper security precautions, nuclear plants wouldn't be so dangerous are many think. Except unexpected natural disasters of course. But is it really that hard to reconcile the advantages vs. disadvantages? Many coutries aren't low on space like Japan and can handle things going wrong in the nuclear plant area.

This wouldn't be a problem if nuclear fusion is achieved of course, but I waiting for someone to make a law related to "It'll be there within the next decade". Net positive energy nuclear fusion will nicely fit in with quantum computers that exhibit quantum supremacy.

To conquer low Earth orbit, chemical engines have been enough.

To conquer the solar system, we'll need nuclear.

To go much further beyond, we'll need total mass conversion.

That sounds cool, are there any links you'd suggest reading up on that? Are you talking about mass-> energy conversion in general or something specific which has already been theorized successfully?

And I was thinking not just exploration, but sustained energy intensive missions. Chemical energy will be enough for entry to space, but solar energy might not be sufficient for long term missions.

If heavy machinery needs to be operated (like space mining) we need nuclear energy, and this can happen soon enough that humans haven't yet figured out complex energy production measures like the 'total mass conversion' you mentioned.