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

181–185 of 185 posts

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

#181

Post by hulitu »

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.

Heat , what heat ? I've heard that the moon is cold.

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

#182

Post by mikepurvis »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #163
mikepurvis wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the moon, wouldn’t heat be a useful byproduct? (At least during the night) so a combined heat and power station would put those radiators where the people are

Up to a point, but you'd still need a story for dealing with the surplus.

Also, if you want to actually turn heat into electricity with a turbine, then you need the ability to heat and cool your medium repeatedly [1]— locating power plants on shorelines is very convenient for this, since you have a heat source from your combustion, nuclear reaction, whatever, and then a functionally bottomless cooling source in the water.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankine_cycle

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

#183

Post by jodrellblank »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #179
jodrellblank wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel w…

> The US Navy made a nuclear reactor Still wrong, made != owned

If you want to make a shitty throwaway account to just post "wrong wrong wrong" and ignore citations and evidence, can you do it somewhere else?

Change "Navy made a nuclear reactor" to "Navy comissioned, owned, operated, bungled, mismanaged, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on, a nuclear reactor". Happy?

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

#184

Post by rozal »

whatshisface wrote: post #41
rozal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Secretly? QC companies have been shouting every tiny bit of progress from the rooftops, usually before it gets made.

That’s because the military already had it. They are just now getting bits and pieces.

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

#185

Post by rozal »

panick21_ wrote: post #150
rozal wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it terrible? Using microwave emitters in a superconductive hull, and with enough energy, can engineer the pulling mechanics of the superforce.

This is all stuff the military has explored

Post reply on HN