Breakdown of Se sabe que la radiación habría dañado el simulador.
saber
to know (facts) / to hear from (someone)
que
that / than
se
(impersonal) one / passive marker
haber
(auxiliary) have
Questions & Answers about Se sabe que la radiación habría dañado el simulador.
Why is habría dañado used here instead of the simple conditional dañaría?
Habría dañado translates to "would have damaged", which is the conditional perfect. You use it to talk about an action that would have been completed in the past under certain conditions (even if those conditions are just implied). The simple conditional dañaría would mean "would damage" (in the present or future). The conditional perfect is formed using the conditional of haber (habría) plus the past participle dañado.
Since this sentence uses que, why don't we use the subjunctive form hubiera dañado?
The phrase se sabe que (it is known that) declares a fact or a certainty, which triggers the indicative mood (in this case, conditional) rather than the subjunctive. If the sentence expressed doubt or denial, such as no se cree que (it is not believed that), then you would need the past perfect subjunctive hubiera dañado.
How does se sabe translate to "it is known"?
This is the impersonal se. In Spanish, instead of using literal passive constructions like es sabido (is known), it is much more common and natural to use se + the third-person singular verb to express general facts or things people generally know. You can also think of it as translating to "one knows" or "people know".
Why do we need the article la before radiación when the English translation just says "radiation"?