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

71–80 of 185 posts

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

#71

Post by bmgxyz »

mkl95 wrote: post #68

> The new boost to Rolls-Royce’s research pot follows a previous $303,495 (£249,000) study funded by the U.K. Space Agency in 2022 > helping to create jobs across our £16 billion space tech sector If the space tech sector is £16bn, why is it news that some corporation (£13bn+ revenue) earned a 249k grant? It reads like a Monty Python script.

I think this means that a previous iteration of this effort had a value of £249,000. The article is mainly about the current iteration, which has some other total value that is presumably larger. It isn't clear how much the current iteration is worth, at least from the article alone.

In general I agree that this might not be significant, unless the total value of the current contract is large or there are notable research or engineering results.

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

#72

Post by wongarsu »

Zigurd wrote: post #66
wongarsu wrote: post #55

The US army used a miniature nuclear reactor to power Camp Century in Greenland in the 60s [1]. Obviously that base had some important differences to a moon base (like being surrounded by water ice and atmosphere) and technology has advanced a bit since then, but I wonder how much you would have to change the design to make it a viable moon base. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century

A VC I'm familiar with is in two modular fission reactor ventures. I was generally skeptical about a future for fission reactors, but it behooved me to learn. Among the things I learned is that there is a huge distance between making a small reactor and making a reactor of any size that can run unattended or with minimal supervision. Taking a reactor out of a nuclear powered submarine just gets you the small reactor…

But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D costs, latency to the moon is small, and for any hands-on tasks you can presumably train the astronauts (or train a couple experts as astronauts if you want to vindicate the plot of Armageddon). After all, just like a submarine a moon base would be staffed by trained specialists.

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

#73

Post by loeg »

jodrellblank wrote: post #59
wongarsu wrote: post #55

The US army used a miniature nuclear reactor to power Camp Century in Greenland in the 60s [1]. Obviously that base had some important differences to a moon base (like being surrounded by water ice and atmosphere) and technology has advanced a bit since then, but I wonder how much you would have to change the design to make it a viable moon base. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century

The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to diesel. https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-...

(1961)

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

#74

Post by wongarsu »

nickdothutton wrote: post #64

It will be interesting to see a modern design, rather that the something based on 1930s physics, 1940s construction methods, built in the 1950s and put into use in the 1960s like some of these military reactors they used for remote bases.

"Rolls-Royce plan to have a reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029". With that deadline I would expect something closer to a proven submarine reactor adapted for an environment without abundant water and fewer convenient ways to get rid of heat.

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

#75

Post by LightBug1 »

buran77 wrote: post #54

> The new boost to Rolls-Royce’s research pot follows a previous $303,495 (£249,000) study funded by the U.K. Space Agency in 2022 Wish them all the best, really. But I'm really curious what the study actually provided/concluded in terms of the stated goal of using the money to research the development of such a reactor. Because unless the British are so much more efficient than the EU for example, this kind of money…

Probably nonsense. A press release to feed the Brexit part of our politics and population that we're still relevant in terms of global influence and technology.

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

#76

Post by wongarsu »

bmgxyz wrote: post #71
mkl95 wrote: post #68

> The new boost to Rolls-Royce’s research pot follows a previous $303,495 (£249,000) study funded by the U.K. Space Agency in 2022 > helping to create jobs across our £16 billion space tech sector If the space tech sector is £16bn, why is it news that some corporation (£13bn+ revenue) earned a 249k grant? It reads like a Monty Python script.

I think this means that a previous iteration of this effort had a value of £249,000. The article is mainly about the current iteration, which has some other total value that is presumably larger. It isn't clear how much the current iteration is worth, at least from the article alone. In general I agree that this might not be significant, unless the total value of the current contract is large or there are notable res…

Specifically, this new stage of the project has £2.9 million of new funding, according to the linked press release. Still feels like pocket change, I wonder how much they can really do with that little

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

#77

Post by Maursault »

stevenjgarner wrote: post #61
coding123 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Dark side of moon" gets sunlight. That's just what we call it because it never faces us.

You're right of course. Bad choice of words. I was meaning the the moon's "Permanently Shadowed Regions" [1] [1] https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/97/the-moons-permanently-sha...

While solar obviously would not work there, is there any compelling reason to need nuclear power in those permadark locations?

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

#79

Post by m348e912 »

Maursault wrote: post #77
stevenjgarner wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right of course. Bad choice of words. I was meaning the the moon's "Permanently Shadowed Regions" [1] [1] https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/97/the-moons-permanently-sha...

While solar obviously would not work there, is there any compelling reason to need nuclear power in those permadark locations?

It's not that reactors are needed in the permadark regions, it's just they they tend to be very cold and it should be easier to dissipate heat from the reactor.

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

#80

Post by bayesian_horse »

wongarsu wrote: post #74
nickdothutton wrote: post #64

It will be interesting to see a modern design, rather that the something based on 1930s physics, 1940s construction methods, built in the 1950s and put into use in the 1960s like some of these military reactors they used for remote bases.

"Rolls-Royce plan to have a reactor ready to send to the Moon by 2029". With that deadline I would expect something closer to a proven submarine reactor adapted for an environment without abundant water and fewer convenient ways to get rid of heat.

I'd think a similar design, or at least at a similar scale, would get ruled out by the necessary shielding. That would be quite a lot of mass to land on the moon.

Some innovation is in order. Mass reduction and radiation safety are among the highest design priorities I'd say.

Post reply on HN