Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 185 posts

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#21

Post by textninja »

dogma1138 wrote: post #9
fnord77 wrote: post #3

dumb question maybe, but with out an atmosphere, isn't there virtually unlimited solar potential on the moon? why is a nuclear reactor needed?

Because you have a cycle of ~14 days of darkness and light on the moon so solar will need a backup. Batteries are an option but 14 days worth of storage for a lunar base is probably asking a bit too much. Also nuclear provides another benefit on the moon - heat which you’ll definitely need during those 14 days of darkness.

Another benefit might be protection from asteroids and meteorites if built underground.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#22

Post by iancmceachern »

m4rtink wrote: post #14
krasin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat will be an asset, not a problem: the Moon sub-surface temperature is around -20C ([1]), which means there's an easy way to dissipate power. And if we have any humans living on the moon, that heat will very much be appreciated around all livable areas. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19906/constant-lun...

Interesting!l, havent ever thought about that! What is the heat conductivity though ? If it is low, you might have to sink too many heat transfer channels, not to mention with possibly ending up with a hot "bubble" that would no longer provide a temperature gradient.

Your forgetting about radiation. You don't need to conduct it all away, there are 3 modes of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation. In this case it's the radiation they'd rely on.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#23

Post by ianai »

mLuby wrote: post #19
ianai wrote: post #4

Is there somewhere someone’s done the numbers on bootstrapping industry off world? Like what would make most sense very first, etc. It strikes me that at some point it makes a lot more sense to build the stuff to build more stuff out there.

NASA did a study in the 1980's. For something more recent, I suggest checking out Dr. Casey Handmer. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19830007081/downloads/19...

Wow awesome thank you!

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#24

Post by FridayoLeary »

krasin wrote: post #11
credit_guy wrote: post #6

There's a problem with nuclear power on the Moon. How do you get rid of the heat? Here on Earth, we just use water, of which we have plenty. But on Moon water is extremely scarce. It would make the sci-fi novel Dune look like an oasis. When we'll have some type of an economy on the Moon, it's very likely that water will be more expensive than gold. One thing is absolutely certain: we will not be able to afford to vap…

Heat will be an asset, not a problem: the Moon sub-surface temperature is around -20C ([1]), which means there's an easy way to dissipate power. And if we have any humans living on the moon, that heat will very much be appreciated around all livable areas. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19906/constant-lun...

I don't know if that will cool the reactor enough to prevent a meltdown.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#25

Post by throwayyy479087 »

mixdup wrote: post #13

We can't even reliably build them for anything approaching a sane cost on Earth. I hope they're going to build a bankruptcy court up there, too

Reactor going pop on the moon is a science experiment, not an biological tragedy.

Big fan of this idea.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#27

Post by sanp »

krasin wrote: post #17
m4rtink wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting!l, havent ever thought about that! What is the heat conductivity though ? If it is low, you might have to sink too many heat transfer channels, not to mention with possibly ending up with a hot "bubble" that would no longer provide a temperature gradient.

Under the layer of regolith, Moon crust is mostly basalt ([1]), which has about 1.6 W/mK thermal conductivity ([2]). Not great, not terrible. We all know how cold it is to stand on a stone floor - unlike wood or plastics, it keeps sucking that heat off. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities

Nice Chernobyl reference!

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#28

Post by fosk »

dogma1138 wrote: post #8
stephc_int13 wrote: post #2

"The UKSA will now provide £2.9 million (around $3.52 million) of funding for the project." A nuclear reactor on the moon? I don't get it. Meta spent north of $30 Billions to build a "metaverse" that I would not even consider to be alpha-level quality, and some people at Rolls-Royce think they can build a nuclear reactor for how much?

FAANG spending isn’t the norm, the total program cost of the Mars 2020 rover was $2.7 billion. Meta spent $30 billion on something that looks like SecondLife on the Wii… But also this ain’t the total cost just how much money the UK government is funding the project for right now.

It’s really mind boggling how much money Meta spent on this thing.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#29

Post by kjellsbells »

Is it me, or is the UK government launching an unusually large number of boondoggles lately? Nuclear reactors on the moon. Attempts to become a major player in battery technology. It feels to my jaundiced eye like the UK is trying just a little too hard to remind the world that they still matter.

Some Brexit insecurity might explain this, perhaps, but that was over five years ago.

Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon

#30

Post by krasin »

sanp wrote: post #27
krasin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the layer of regolith, Moon crust is mostly basalt ([1]), which has about 1.6 W/mK thermal conductivity ([2]). Not great, not terrible. We all know how cold it is to stand on a stone floor - unlike wood or plastics, it keeps sucking that heat off. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities

Nice Chernobyl reference!

?
Post reply on HN