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

121–130 of 185 posts

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

#121

Post by guiriduro »

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/

More relevant for this case is that they are also involved in Submarine propulsion, which usually means nuclear. So I would guess that they have significant experience.

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

#122

Post by Reason077 »

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.

> "the Rolls Royce choice isn’t obvious to me."

Well, this is being funded by the UK Space Agency, and Rolls-Royce is the only UK company that manufactures small nuclear reactors that could be adapted for the lunar environment. Seems pretty obvious to me!

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

#123

Post by throwaway4aday »

lostlogin wrote: post #101
throwaway4aday wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.

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

#124

Post by Reason077 »

guiriduro wrote: post #121
cdot2 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

More relevant for this case is that they are also involved in Submarine propulsion, which usually means nuclear. So I would guess that they have significant experience.

Yes. Rolls-Royce reactors have powered the UK's nuclear submarine fleet since 1966:

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

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

#125

Post by huijzer »

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.

NuScale also still plans on a first reactor by 2027 even though are ahead in the small nuclear reactor space

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

#126

Post by Reason077 »

kurthr wrote: post #116
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)?

When all you have is a hammer, nothing looks like low cost continuous solar power with direct conversion to electricity at the poles.

I guess they aren't planning to build the moon-base at the poles, which could provide access to continuous solar power nearby. The rest of the moon has long (+/- 14 day) lunar nights, and getting enough batteries or whatever to the moon to last that long is likely to be impractical/expensive.

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

#127

Post by akvadrako »

huijzer wrote: post #125
wongarsu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

NuScale also still plans on a first reactor by 2027 even though are ahead in the small nuclear reactor space

Small nuclear reactors are not proven though and are quite a risky idea since nuclear benefits significantly from scale.

If your goal is to produce something that's useful in a short time span, it's better to use proven tech.

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

#130

Post by Gwypaas »

huijzer wrote: post #125
wongarsu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

NuScale also still plans on a first reactor by 2027 even though are ahead in the small nuclear reactor space

At incredibly high cost.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-plants...

Post reply on HN