are there any fissionable materials that can be refined on the moon?
UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
81–90 of 185 posts
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#82I'd still like to know how they plan for a potential explosion of the space craft carrying the fuel inside the atmosphere. They better have a good story on that.
Even if the rocket breaks up and the fuel reaches ground in perfectly sealed containers, that still doesn't mean the danger is over.
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#83The 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…
Submarines also operate in the world's largest heatsink.
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#84I'd still like to know how they plan for a potential explosion of the space craft carrying the fuel inside the atmosphere. They better have a good story on that. Even if the rocket breaks up and the fuel reaches ground in perfectly sealed containers, that still doesn't mean the danger is over.
I imagine step one is to launch from the coast heading out over the ocean. If Starship is fully operational by then it would be the obvious choice and depending on the reactor design there might be enough weight capacity to build in some extra shielding. I also wonder if the fuel can be shipped separate from the reactor.
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#85It 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.
Once you're on the surface you can sink a fair bit of heat into the ground. The issue in space is that you can't do convection, and there's nothing to conduct to, so you're really just left with giant, inefficient radiators.
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#86It 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.
No matter the design, it’ll be built by lowest bidders around the world. /s
Any evidence that high bidders do a better job?
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I thought that it's hard to radiate-away heat in vacuum?
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#88The 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-...
This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#89Amongst other things, it would provide for powering installations on the dark side of the moon where there is no solar power.
The "Dark side of moon" gets sunlight. That's just what we call it because it never faces us.
"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun."
Re: UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
#90This article does not cover what I consider to be two key issues:
- how to boost the mass of something like a shielded nuclear reactor to the moon?
- how to extract the heat energy from the reactor? turbines (more mass)?