NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon
#2What happens if there's a RUD during ascent?
My instinct is that 10 kW is really small and it won't make much difference, if it explodes on the pad it won't go far enough to be bad, if it explodes at altitude it'll be too diluted to be bad.
That being said, solar and batteries seems a heck of a lot safer and easier to service for Moon or even Mars missions.
Re: NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon
#3What happens if there's a RUD during ascent? My instinct is that 10 kW is really small and it won't make much difference, if it explodes on the pad it won't go far enough to be bad, if it explodes at altitude it'll be too diluted to be bad. That being said, solar and batteries seems a heck of a lot safer and easier to service for Moon or even Mars missions.
15 days of blackout seems like an accident waiting to happen. All 3 together provides a more diverse and sustainable grid.
Re: NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon
#4What happens if there's a RUD during ascent? My instinct is that 10 kW is really small and it won't make much difference, if it explodes on the pad it won't go far enough to be bad, if it explodes at altitude it'll be too diluted to be bad. That being said, solar and batteries seems a heck of a lot safer and easier to service for Moon or even Mars missions.
15 days of blackout seems like an accident waiting to happen. All 3 together provides a more diverse and sustainable grid.
I agree, diversifying energy sources seems to be the best policy. We've been sending radioactive materials into space for a long time (pu-batteries), albeit quite small amounts. -- Perhaps we should be "smurfing" fuel to the space station.