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

141–150 of 185 posts

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

#141

Post by imglorp »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #80
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.

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.

In flight, it can be shielded with water and polyethylene, which would be needed anyway by colonists. On the surface, as someone else noted, you want good ground contact for heat dissipation so you might as well throw it into a hole and bury it, dirt being plentiful.

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

#142

Post by vkou »

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?

1. Meta had to have spent vastly less than $30 billion on their "metaverse". That's ~80,000 person-years of senior SWEs.

2. Literally half the companies who have video games as their core competency would have been able to build way more for way less.

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

#143

Post by Reptur »

philipkglass wrote: post #133
Reptur wrote: post #129

Can we build them for earth too? We need to quit oil yesterday.

The largest terrestrial consumer of oil is road transport (cars and trucks). https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming... You can't put a nuclear reactor in a car. You can charge an electric car's battery using nuclear electricity, of course. But if you're just charging a terrestrial battery then nuclear power's attractive attributes for the Moon (like continuing to produce during a 14 day period o…

  You can't put a nuclear reactor in a car. You can charge an electric car's battery using nuclear electricity, of course. But if you're just charging a terrestrial battery then nuclear power's attractive attributes for the Moon (like continuing to produce during a 14 day period of darkness) are less salient. Electricity sources like wind and solar power are likely to charge up the car's battery at lower cost.
You don't need batteries if the energy is readily available throughout the route.

Examples:

1. Buses that use capacitors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_electric_vehicle

2. Trains / Bullet Trains / Trolleys that could have that energy along their line.

Car dependency could be rapidly reduced if we truly wanted.

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

#144

Post by __turbobrew__ »

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?

Imagine if we put effort into humanities and science instead of trying to get people to buy stuff they don’t need.

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

#145

Post by Reptur »

simonh wrote: post #135
Reptur wrote: post #129

Can we build them for earth too? We need to quit oil yesterday.

They already do: https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...

nice! now we just need people convinced they are safe and them deployed. it is odd the site doesn't mention safety concerns at all.

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

#146

Post by kurthr »

Reason077 wrote: post #126
kurthr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because it's too cold there? Probably too much water ice on the poles to be interesting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/science/moon-ice-water.ht...

oops

https://web.archive.org/web/20201101003308/https://www.nytim...

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

#147

Post by ceejayoz »

jandrese wrote: post #102
ceejayoz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I specifically mentioned the poles.

It's likely we'll want to go other places eventually, though, and then you're back to reactors, or carting around enough batteries to last you two weeks.

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

#148

Post by Prbeek »

AYBABTME wrote: post #38
kjellsbells wrote: post #29

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.

Their economy is in decline, they need to do something to change the trajectory.

They tried launching satellites two months ago in their first ever rocket mission and it failed.

Something pretty routine for Russia, US and China and even heavily sanctioned Iran.

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

#149

Post by kwhitefoot »

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.

RR the aerospace company and RR the car company were split apart in the 1960s. The have had nothing but the name in common for many decades.

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

#150

Post by panick21_ »

rozal wrote: post #35
kjellsbells wrote: post #29

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.

USA has secretly gotten ahead of the quantum race. Part of their disclosure plan is it work with allies on multiple needs. With fusion on the horizon, we will need batteries. With electromagnetic craft, moon trips will be easy.

Fusion isn't on the horizon. And batteries are needed for EVs and Solar/Wind.

And electromagnetic craft are a terrible way to get to the moon.

Post reply on HN