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

101–110 of 185 posts

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

#101

Post by lostlogin »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #88
jodrellblank wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy.

It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule.

https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/...

Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/

It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

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

#102

Post by jandrese »

ceejayoz wrote: post #62
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.

And both sides have 14 day long days, and 14 day long nights. Only at the poles is there access to solar power all cycle long. Hence, reactors.

…or build at the poles and have the solar arrays set up on a system that lets them pivot?

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

#103

Post by 8ytecoder »

cdot2 wrote: post #97
nonethewiser wrote: post #91

… but why Rolls Royce? Also interesting that they didn’t pick a US nuclear company. This is obviously a boon to the contract winner. These decisions always have a political aspect to it. What does this signal? Edit: wow, massive oversight. I thought this was NASA. Nevermind! Still, the Rolls Royce choice isn’t obvious to me.

Along with making fancy cars, Rolls Royce is a significant aerospace engineering company well known for their jet engines. https://www.rolls-royce.com/

Car brand is owned by BMV. RR now is primarily known as a defence contractor and jet engine manufacturer (and other powerplants).

To answer your original question, Rolls Royce is a major job provider in the UK. This is probably an attempt to revive it in addition to building it. A lot of these are job programs first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Motor_Cars

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

#104

Post by rch »

nonethewiser wrote: post #91

… but why Rolls Royce? Also interesting that they didn’t pick a US nuclear company. This is obviously a boon to the contract winner. These decisions always have a political aspect to it. What does this signal? Edit: wow, massive oversight. I thought this was NASA. Nevermind! Still, the Rolls Royce choice isn’t obvious to me.

This could be politically relevant:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2023/13-03-...

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

#105

Post by nonethewiser »

cdot2 wrote: post #97
nonethewiser wrote: post #91

… but why Rolls Royce? Also interesting that they didn’t pick a US nuclear company. This is obviously a boon to the contract winner. These decisions always have a political aspect to it. What does this signal? Edit: wow, massive oversight. I thought this was NASA. Nevermind! Still, the Rolls Royce choice isn’t obvious to me.

Along with making fancy cars, Rolls Royce is a significant aerospace engineering company well known for their jet engines. https://www.rolls-royce.com/

Still, I would be surprised if the US government commissioned a reactor from Pratt and Whitney.

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

#106

Post by zopa »

wongarsu wrote: post #72
Zigurd wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 trai…

Sure, but many fewer of them. There are over a hundred people on a submarine crew; it’ll be a good while before a moon base gets anywhere near that big.

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

#107

Post by bayesian_horse »

credit_guy wrote: post #98
bayesian_horse wrote: post #82

I'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.

The same plan as for all the countless cases when they sent radioisotopes in space. Perseverance and Curiosity each have 4.5 kg of Plutonium-238 on board. Did that worry you?

Yes. And the lunar reactor will require more power and thus more fuel.

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

#108

Post by thinkingemote »

zabzonk wrote: post #90

This 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)?

also wondering the same. Most nuclear reactors including those in submarines (which rolls royce make) are basically steam engines.

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

#109

Post by TheRealPomax »

zabzonk wrote: post #90

This 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)?

If we had those answers already, there wouldn't be a project to fund to find out those answers.

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

#110

Post by TheRealPomax »

nonethewiser wrote: post #91

… but why Rolls Royce? Also interesting that they didn’t pick a US nuclear company. This is obviously a boon to the contract winner. These decisions always have a political aspect to it. What does this signal? Edit: wow, massive oversight. I thought this was NASA. Nevermind! Still, the Rolls Royce choice isn’t obvious to me.

Ever flown in an Airbus or newer Boeing? You're flying Rolls Royce.
Post reply on HN