NASA Developing Small Nuclear Reactor For the Moon 431
marshotel writes "NASA astronauts will need power sources when they return to the moon and establish a lunar outpost. NASA engineers are exploring the possibility of nuclear fission to provide the necessary power, and they are taking initial steps toward a non-nuclear technology demonstration of this type of system."
Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same thing that happens to everything else we brought to the moon that we didn't also use to get people/objects back. It's going to sit there. It's not like it'll be hurting anybody/anything either.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
One big problem with putting a slingshot on the moon capable of achieving escape velocity. I read an analysis [wikipedia.org] on the topic several years back:
First we establish the means of hurling stuff off of the moon sufficient to achieve escape velocity. Soon we realize the potential of using that mechanism for mining and establish a mining colony. Miners realize that, after several years in 1/6 gravity, they cannot return to Earth and their resources are being irreversibly diminished because hurling ore at Earth is much cheaper than hurling water at the moon. Through the aid of an advanced computer, they decide to declare war and start "throwing rocks" at us.
Sure, moon culture may turn out to be pretty cool and incorporate some groovy polygamy, but nobody wants a rock war.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Paper beats rock, and we have plenty of trees here on Earth. We can't lose!
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Ob... (Score:3, Funny)
Zapp Brannigan: It was almost the perfect crime. But you forgot one thing: Rock crushes scissors. But paper covers rock...and scissors cuts paper! Kif, we have a conundrum.
[Kif sighs.]
Zapp Brannigan: Search them for paper. And bring me a rock.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
robotic mining is cheaper in 1/6th G, since you can use weaker propulsion systems. with an atomic reactor to power the robots, they can mine all the titanium needed to build more mining robots until we can finally built giant space habitats and then build the giant robots to invade the earth er... ahem.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not going to be bothered with the math nor will I try to defend Heinlein's supposition that large loads would produce mushroom clouds upon impact.
But, an object that leaves the moon at roughly escape velocity will be moving much faster by the time it hits Earth's atmosphere. You've got quite a bit of potential energy relative to the Earth just by being so high above the surface - That's quite a long fall with no air to slow you down. You can't factor in strictly the kinetic energy from the launch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Um let's see...
m = 1 kg
v = 12 km/sec = 12000 m/sec
KE = 1/2*m*v^2 = 1/2 * 1 * 12000^2 = 72 MJ for a 1kg object
I was always happy when my lab partner and I came within an order of magnitude of the correct answer in my EE lab.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:4, Funny)
if only the sun would stop moving...
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
And if only it were massive enough to materially affect the trajectories of the planetary bodies near it!
Doesn't work (Score:5, Funny)
In the thin/nonexistent atmosphere of the moon, the rubber bands dry out and crumble quickly.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Well the sun is a hellish inferno of radiation as it stands, dumping a million tonnes of the nastiest crap we can find into it would be like spitting into niagara falls.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
I personally think it's easy to send things into the sun because I've never had to do it before and it always works great for superman. Also because I rarely figure out the calculus and physics behind wild "what if" scenarios. What's the fun in that?
It's jerks like you who make foreign policy boring by saying stuff like "Yes we could invade Iraq, but then what would we do about the insurgency, building democracy blah blah blah I hate america." Let us build the ever loving nuclear reactor on the moon then chuck it into the sun when we're done with it! Next you're probably going to whine about how tax dollars might better be spent on education or some crap like that!
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:5, Funny)
The reactor is going to explode and contaminate the moon, turning it into a place where a human cannot survive without some kind of protective clothing. Clearly, this is unacceptable.
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, you got it wrong. The reactor is going to explode, sending the moon out of Earth's orbit [wikipedia.org]. Moonbase Alpha [wikipedia.org] will boldly go where no man has gone before. Exploring space one crazy alien at a time.
Oooh nuclear... scary... (Score:4, Informative)
The same thing that the SNAP-27 RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators) did on the moon since the Apollo 12 (and other Apollo missions) landed on the moon.
They are still there and for many years preformed unmanned experiments on the moon surface after the astronauts left studying moonquakes, meteor impacts, temperature, magnetic field, atmosphere, and gravitational field in addition the long term feasibility of RTG study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_Nuclear_Auxiliary_Power_Program [wikipedia.org]
Re:Can't wait to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Leela: When you were organizing this protest, did you realize that spaceships can move in three dimensions?
Free Waterfall, Sr.: No, I did not.
At least getting rid of the waste won't be hard (Score:4, Funny)
Unless the NIMBY crowd change to NIMOrbit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cmon, you never saw Space: 1999? It's a disaster in the making!
(On the other hand, there's Catherine Schell...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The episode (and book) was called "Breakaway"
I would have thought Solar power would have been a better idea. There's many reasons for Solar, not least of which, if some panels fail, then others will still keep working, so it
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If we assume that at some point were going to want to use the majority of the moon for something, be it rocket launches, mining, science experiments etc, we probably dont want amount of waste sitting around, either to prevent radioactive contamination, or if we populate the earth, the wrong hands being laid on it. On the other hand, to bury it to a reasonable degree would require a considerable amount of machinery which would be extremly costly to ship to the moon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
thing is that it's the moon, there's no rain, no wind, no groundwater.
no need to bury it.
just find a crater a little out of the way and make it into a big pile.
If in future the prospect if the land being needed comes up then you just load it up into a truck and deal with it properly since that that point there would likely be more machinery around.
Hell,the place is already radioactive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, though, this is the Moon. Unlike on the Earth, the waste isn't going to be blown around by the wind or leached out by groundwater and carried into drinking water supplies. There's not going to be some giant moonquake to destroy the structural integrity of the disposal site. Your biggest risk is being at the center of a new crater, and that's kinda low.
So give a guy a shovel - or whatever they'll be using to dig foundations for the lunar base - and put it in a hole a few feet deep, stick up a si
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time. If we get to the stage where the moon is getting full then we must have industry and living at least on the same scale as we have on earth, so burying the reactor shouldn't be a problem.
Re:At least getting rid of the waste won't be hard (Score:4, Informative)
You do realise there is more land area on the moon than on earth? Plenty of space to leave things for a good time.
I agree with your conclusion, but your premise just plain wrong [wikipedia.org]. Sorry.
The surface of the Moon is less than 1/10th that of the Earth, and only about a quarter the size of the Earth's land area (or about as large as Russia, Canada, and the U.S. combined).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're needlessly concerned, methinks. The moon has a surface area of 37,930,000 km. NONE of that space is covered by large bodies of water. The amount of land on earth is 148,940,000 km. That gives the moon about 25% of the useful land that earth has. That's quite a bit!
Now consider the cost of developing the entire
Dupe! (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999 [wikipedia.org]
Asking for trouble... 'cos this didn't work out too well for Moonbase Alpha.
Re:Dupe! (Score:5, Funny)
Yes! This can be a source of power! (Score:4, Funny)
Umm, water? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Umm, water? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it depends on the reactor type. Some can use liquid sodium, etc. Think "micro-reactor" similar to the proposals by the Japanese space program or Toshiba for small output, "4S":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's how it's done normally, yes; and I assume this reactor will work that way (although I suppose capturing thermal energy and cooling the core are both tasks for which you could design a water-free approach if you wanted to).
Now, if only we had a way to transport a necessary material from here to the moon... but alas, we'll have to build the reactor entirely using materials already there...
(Ok, well, I think I'm funny anyway...)
FWIW, I'm pretty sure you could send a finite amount of water and just keep
Re: (Score:2)
"That's no moon".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Umm, water? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The core needs to be cooled, but there is absolutely no reason water inherently needs to be used for that purpose. It just happens to be sufficiently cheap and abundant here on Earth that we use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Umm, water? (Score:4, Informative)
An RTG is not a reactor. It does not "split uranium". In fact, RTGs don't use uranium as it's not radioactive enough. RTGs also produce a LOT less power than reactors. The last ones sent to the moon with the Apollo missions generated a mere 60 watts. These new reactors will work on actual nuclear fission and are intended to generate 40 kilowatts. A 600x increase in power output.
Send Homer. (Score:5, Funny)
Confused on Nuclear waste (Score:2, Insightful)
The response is usually "Oh won't somebody think of the children if one rocket ever dropped!".
But apparently we can send it to the moon safely?
Could somebody, who perhaps knows more about the difference between uranium before and after it has been used, enlighten me as to why this would be safer?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
well, if the moon (and all of its nuclear waste) falls onto the earth, I'm pretty sure the radioactive bits won't be the first thing on people's minds.
Re:Confused on Nuclear waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting anything into space, and all the way out of earth orbit, is monumentally EXPENSIVE.
Digging a big hole in the ground is monumentally CHEAP (at least in relative terms).
The people you've heard from, that are scared of sending radioactive material into space, are monumentally STUPID.
Also, fissile nuclear material is a highly valuable, relatively scarce, and non-renewable resource. It's more than likely that we'll need to dig that stuff up again in a century, and reprocess it. Quite a bit harder to do so if it's on it's way to Pluto.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Quite a bit harder to do so if it's on it's way to Pluto.
Why would they want to send it to Pluto? It's a Mickey Mouse planet!
Volume (Score:5, Informative)
A 40kw reactor like they discuss in the article would use a small amount of uranium, probably less volume of radioactive material than used for the RTGs in the cassini probe. Whereas we have tons and tons of nuclear waste to dispose of, not just spent fuel rods, but reactor internals, coolant, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not safer. It's equally as safe. I assume they're planning on ignoring the people who have the typical response, and instead trust that they've properly engineered their containment devices to properly withstand the launch vehicle blowing up.
Think of the data. Thinking of the children makes people irrational.
It's not really waste (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear waste is not really waste. It simply needs to be used in a different reactor. Storing this waste and doing nothing with it is really a waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused on Nuclear waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it is a horrifically bad idea.
Nuclear waste is not waste, it is nuclear fuel that has been partially used, but still retains 90% or so of its functionality. Using feeder breeder reactors we could easily reprocess this "waste" while generating close to 10 times the energy of a standard nuclear reactor (for the same amount of fuel) while producing waste that is only potentially dangerous for a few hundred years, vs potentially thousands of years.
The only problem is that people are dumb. And the idea of building anything nuclear (pronounced Nook you ler) invokes the same kind of response as declaring that you worship satan in a southern baptist church.
Not solar? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping someone can explain to me why the far better-established and easily-maintained option of Solar Power isn't first on the list.
I mean: negligible atmosphere, established support-structure (the ground), 100% predictable yield, negligible material costs after setup, and land-area isn't such a big issue... can't really think of a better case for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good questions, I agree. Still, solar generation requires no additional material once it's going - how often would you have to supply fissile material to a fusion reactor? What if the launch is delayed/fails? Does that mean a moon-base full of people with bad haircuts and skin-tight body-suits will freeze to death? You could keep shipping solar arrays up along with the rest of the constructions, such that energy supply scales permanently with demand.
I appreciate there are issues with solar, but aren't they
Re: (Score:2)
how often would you have to supply fissile material to a fusion reactor?
Not very often, we'll probably be mining the moon for Helium-3 for our fusion reactors on earth in the future. But for now, we're talking about fission ;).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"how often would you have to supply fissile material to a fusion reactor?"
I think you are missing a sense of scale. Nuclear fuel is INCREDIBLY energy dense. Commercial reactors refuel about a third of their rods every 18 months (I think - it's been a while since I worked at a plant), and that is after running balls to the wall, 24/7, at full output, which is up around 1000 MEGAwatts. Navy ships refuel only after YEARS of operation, and a carrier sucks up WAY more energy than a moon base would.
I imagine a
Re:Not solar? (Score:4, Insightful)
A 40 KW nuclear reactor is about the tiniest nuclear reactor imaginable. I'm sure NASA isn't considering it because of its power density or its mass. Each one of the solar panel assemblies on the ISS could potentially generate 32 KW. The problem is the 28 day lunar 'day.' Solar power plants on the moon will see a significant drop in power during the lunar night (about 100% of rated power at most locations except perhaps the poles). Therefore, long duration missions would require batteries. Supplying 40 KW for 14 days would require massive batteries (and also more than 80 KW of solar arrays). Based on my back of the envelope calculations, you would need something about 3 times the size of the Fairbanks Battery Backup [wired.com]. Additionally, nuclear power is more scalable. Knowledge gained with operating tiny nuclear reactors on the Moon could also be used with larger reactors that far outstrip any potential competition by solar power.
Re:Not solar? (Score:4, Informative)
As for the reactor life, I'm betting 10-30 years with the included fuel, and it is probably not meant to be serviceable. I get the feeling those who don't know much about nuclear reactors think that there are these big, daily freight trains, like with coal plants, but full of uranium. Fact is, nuclear power isn't all that resource-intensive.
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar cells don't last forever.
In a space environment, I believe the power output from them drops by 5% every year. Solar cells on earth don't degrade that quickly because they aren't exposed to the same amount of radiation.
Also, once the solar cells have degraded, thats it. You can't repair them, they must be replaced. A nuclear reactor could have new shipments of fuel sent up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping people will RTFA before asking stupid question...
Returning to the moon is a dry-run for going to Mars. Mars is further away from the sun, and has lots of nasty dust storms.
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why you supplement the solar power with wind power. Haven't you watched any of those greenie off-the-grid shows?
I know what, you could supplement it with wave power from the Sea of Tranquility.
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Night time on the moon is kinda long (weeks). What do you do then?
Really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long wires.
Re: (Score:2)
Night time on the moon is kinda long (weeks). What do you do then?
Yup, but I thought that was why NASA was planning on setting up the moon base on one of the poles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not solar? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ISS has an acre of solar panels, and they can be designed incredibly light-weight because they are in microgravity. Panels on the moon would require vastly more infrastructure to support them, which would increase the weight and bulk considerably.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Attach a plow blade to the moon rover, make a flat area, and carefully lay out the ultra thin and fragile panels? It's not like they're going to get blown away by wind, and I'd be willing to bet the astronauts can be trained to respect the "don't walk on solar farm" signs.
I think the problem has more to do with nighttime energy and installation effort than it does with mass or fragility. Even with high power light weight reactors, panels would be lighter per watt generated. It's only as you head out beyo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping someone can explain to me why the far better-established and easily-maintained option of Solar Power isn't first on the list.
I mean: negligible atmosphere, established support-structure (the ground), 100% predictable yield, negligible material costs after setup, and land-area isn't such a big issue... can't really think of a better case for it.
You answered your own question by acknowledging the source of power with the words "after setup". I think it's safe to assume that NASA plans to use that power source to do a bit of "setup" themselves. Pandering is only a source of power for politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of a least three possible reasons - cost, size, and maintainance. It's possible that solar would simply cost too much to develop something that can generate enough power for a moonbase. Related to that, it's possible that the size of solar panels you'd need would be too big to get on to the moon. Lastly there's the question of maintainance; moondust would kill the productivity of a panel. Astronauts roaming around, landers delivering things, and meteor strikes could potentially throw up enough d
Re: (Score:2)
With very few exceptions, any place on the moon you put your solar power station will be in the dark two weeks out of every month.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping someone can explain to me why the far better-established and easily-maintained option of Solar Power isn't first on the list.
Okay, genius, what do the astronauts do when there's a cloudy day on the Moon?
Sheesh. You should really think about these things before you post.
Re: (Score:2)
14 days of darkness. 14 days of light. That is a lot of heavy batteries to send into space.
Vs. Earth 12 hours of darkness and 12 hours of light (average)
Why do you assume they can't use both? Why doesn't anyone assume that there could be a slew of power sources that can be used. Having Nuclear Energy doesn't mean we can't have Wind or Solar (on earth). Some places are not conducive for Wind or Solar so Nuclear is a good option. All those Nuclear Energy opponents seem to thing if we give Nuclear a green ligh
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious? (Score:2)
Maybe this is just a tad obvious to me, but surely being on the moon and without having that pesky earth atmosphere getting in the way, Solar power would be a better choice?
I know they're not very efficient and all, but satellites have been using solar power for years and it's not like the Moon is lacking the space for it. Hell, you don't even have to deal with things like leaves, rain and such getting in the way - there's no bloody wind on the moon.
14-day nights (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing, then I thought of some reasons why it might not work.
First, there's still meteorites and such which could potentially be much more damaging than the elements on earth. You've seen pictures of the moon's surface. Imagine really bad hail all the time.
Then there's the fact that you won't always have exposure to the sun wherever your moon base is. I don't know what the longest period of "night" is on the various parts of the moon, but I'm sure it's significant to the point that
this idea is lunacy (Score:3, Funny)
you have to be a lunatic to put fission on the moon. it seems once a month i encounter some sort of hairbraned scheme like this. i wish there were a silver bullet solution to these sort of moonbat ideas
Design from scratch? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Russian space technology tend to be simple, inefficient, based on the oldest technology they can get away with, and remains unchanged pretty much as long as they aren't forced to improve it.
Russian tech is really the complete polar opposite of NASA tech, so such exchanges very rarely work out.
They relay useing NAQUADAH REACTORs and just sayin (Score:2)
They relay useing NAQUADAH REACTORs and just saying nuclear as a cover up also Homer Simpson will be on the mission.
obIMAO (Score:2)
A note of reality injected here (Score:3, Insightful)
Please allow me to inject a note of reality here.
There is a serious possibility that the Americans will not be establishing a lunar base in the next twenty years. Regardless of the technology or science available.
The problem is one of money. Basically the US government is broke. It runs huge deficits. This didn't make any difference in the past when there was no other place but America for super-wealthy people and governments to put their money. That has changed.
What has also changed is that oil has gotten incredibly expensive. Cheap oil allows the economy to grow. A growing economy allows huge expensive social programs like pensions and medical care to people over 60, moon projects, massive government bureaus, and permanent endless war on the other side of the world.
When the economy stops growing, house prices stop rising, and the sources of easy credit dry up, serious choices have to be made. Everything can't be afforded: some things must be abandoned. This is reality in 2008. It's not 1967 anymore.
The moon projects are easy targets. Although these projects are popular among the young and educated, these projects are expendable. There are no voters on the moon. There's no oil there. There's no one there who can be shaken down with atomic bombs to be persuaded to buy USA Treasury bonds to finance the endless deficits.
It's easy for the NASA administrators to hold press conferences and announce grandiose plans. It's easy to put big budget programs into future federal budget projections. But the coming years, when the true extent of the bankruptcy of the US government becomes apparent, these space programs might be quietly dropped. This is reality of the 21st century. Again, it's not 1967 anymore.
Re:A note of reality injected here (Score:5, Informative)
How about some perspective on that reality?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png [wikipedia.org]
Here's a hint: The NASA slice is the 0.6% one. Double NASA's budget and you're still not up to the level of "Other Off-Budget Discretionary Spending."
the moon shall rise again! (Score:3, Funny)
Do we really want them to have access to nuclear power? On the other hand, the theme park does have a lot of lights.
Why NASA? (Score:3, Funny)
Why does NASA have to do this for the moon. Why doesn't the moon just develop it's own nuclear reactor if it wants one? It's not like NASA has extra money and resources to be doing every other planet's work.
Perfect place... (Score:3, Informative)
... to test a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor [wikipedia.org]. No oxygen to support combustion of the liquid sodium, and high efficiency so that you don't have to refuel it as often.
I'd love for us to use these [nationalcenter.org] here on Earth, but there's still too much flat-out wrong information floating around for them to be accepted.
LIttle matter of cooling (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh, any idea how they'd cool the thing? It's fine to split atoms to make heat, but on the Moon you need to have a closed-loop cooling system. So you have to cool off the turbine exhaust so you can feed it back into the reactor. Problem-- no atmosphere and no lakes or rivers to carry away the heat. No groundwater either. Many many many meters of loose insulating moon-dust and rock fragments before you get down to bedrock, which in itself is not all that great at conducting away heat.
Methinks the Moon is not a great place to be running a reactor or power plant of the heat-cycle variety. Maybe solar cells.
Uhh, big heatsink? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't heat radiate directly into space? I dunno if there are any materials that currently do this efficiently.
Could the heat be recycled somehow? Seems to me if you are dumping heat out of the system, you are dumping *energy* out of the system?
Take some of the excess heat and use it for environmental heating of human dwellings/workspaces, hot water for showers (could a shower be invented which works well on the moon? dunno), cooking, etc? (Granted, there's probably more 'waste heat' than you would need for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC there is a large amount of fissile material already on the moon. You just need a reactor up and running first to power all the tools to mine for more fuel.
Re:Goodbye Earth, Goodbye Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume, for a moment, that the LHC destroys the Earth by turning it into a black hole. Know what would happen to the moon?
The Moon would be unaffected. It's just as happy to orbit a 5.9736*10^24 kg black hole as it is to orbit a 5.9736*10^24 kg planet.
Black holes are just gravity, people. The only difference between them and anything else with mass is that you can get closer before you hit the event horizon than you could get before you hit the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Flesh Godron and the Large Hardon Collider [today.com] is of less than immaculate scientific accuracy? That's unpossible. You must be a Democrat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)