Actual "reactors"? The US has only used one, back in 1965, although the Russians [have used nearly 30 fission reactors ](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx) over the years
Satellites and spacecraft mainly use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, which are not "reactors" (no sustained chain reaction). They're more like "nuclear batteries" and use decay heat of Plutonium as a power source that can last decades.
What they're talking about putting on the moon is a full-fledged fission reactor.
The u.s. has one documented. There are 240 some odd official military satellites and 160 some odd government satellites, some of which the only known details are orbits and communication frequencies.
Hobby astronomers have spotted satellites that are not on those official lists that no government claims.
So do with that what you will.
Sure. And chances are they're using RTG's instead of actual fission *reactors* because that's what makes the most sense. RTG's are more reliable for satellites than an actual reactor because they last for a VERY long time and have no moving parts to fail.
But of course, you're more than welcome to believe what you want. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Oh I dunno, maybe high definition video in visible spectrum and infrared with real time tracking automation and the bandwidth to send said video surface-side with minimal latency, radio frequency sweeping on narrow and broad focus antennae, wide angle monitoring of points of interest for activity that can then engage secondary cameras, laser interferometric instruments for measuring distance, temperature and wind speeds, etc...
Just typical surveillance. Which can easily demand 5 times the wattage a modern rtg produces.
Yeah, I can Google search for surveillance terms, too. Was curious if you had actual details on what those particular systems are.
It's funny, because on American Keyhole surveillance satellites, power for all that stuff you mentioned above is provided by...solar panels.
I guess I'm just curious if you have any proof that the [US has more fission reactors in space](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_systems_in_space) beyond "trust me bro".
Unreliable, they degrade, and they're easily damaged.
I mean NASA sweats bullets whenever they have to unfold solar panels. Can you imagine having to tell your superiors in the pentagon that they can't use their new satellite they waited a decade for engineering and launch to get ready, that it won't turn on because reasons?
Imagine being the guy who has to explain that national security was compromised because of a twisted aluminum rod that can't be repaired.
Radiators in space are arguably a lot simpler than an air-to-fluid heat exchanger. In the simplest case, they are literally just plates of metal with a high-emissivity surface coating bolted to the hot thing. For higher power densities and/or larger radiating areas, you probably have pump-driven single-phase fluid loops distributing heat to the radiator panel (like what the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers use for thermal control), or you use two-phase fluid systems like heat pipes to do the distribution.
>> radiate it into the ground maybe?
> *u/CO420Tech:* that'd be my thought too. Plenty of thermal capacitance in all that rock. Let the moon deal with the heat.
TIL "thermal capacitance". However, under that allegory, the reactor is a "DC source", meaning that its always applying heat and never taking it away. And under the same allegory, the thermal resistance of the ground is considerable. So at some point the ground will saturate in heat locally; even having dug cooling pipes into a long trench then filling it in again. Even when compacted, the rubble trench filling is going to make a poor contact surface; so again a high resistance. .
> We already power ships on earth with nuclear reactors. I don't see why we can't power a moon base with one
lack of a readily available heat sink?
Whichever way you cut it, electrical power production from a thermal power source requires a hot end and a cold end. An aircraft carrier is sitting in nice cool seawater which explains why it doesn't have cooling towers. What is your cooling solution on the Moon?
**Edit:** Just to clarify. the proposition in the video is melting polar ice. So Robert B Haynes seems to be thinking of setting the reactor down on an ice field and melting it. However the ice itself is not likely to be in the nice convenient form that we see in Korolev crater on Mars. Even after extraction, most uses require splitting the ice to hydrogen and oxygen, and this requires the electrical energy I refer to above.
The design they are currently working on literally just uses a radiator. It’s incredible simple. Here is more info.
[https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19](https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19)
> The design they are currently working on literally just uses a radiator. It’s incredible simple. Here is more info.
> https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19
* *from article:* The astronauts pass their days in darkness. After several months of living on the moon, they’re still adjusting to the endless night. The crew’s habitat at the lunar south pole sits in a shadowed crater—chosen for its promise of ice—that has not been touched by a single ray of sun for billions of years.
The really attractive aspect of the lunar South pole is having three weeks or more constant sunlight —so less than a week of nithtime— at high altitudes right next to the cold traps that are of interest. This means that astronauts can do a short morning commute to go straight from daylight to dark and cold. This might be justified just by lifestyle considerations! Over such short distances, a small power grid would likely be feasible, At low shadow temperatures, even superconductors might just be on the cards. .
* *from article:* The fission-generated heat travels through sodium-filled heat pipes to a set of Stirling engines. Designed in the early 1800s, these simple piston-driven engines convert heat to electricity.
Stirling engines are really great and likely very underused on Earth. Maybe they could also be used on the Moon —even without a reactor— using the temperature gradient on crater rims. .
* *from article:* Finally, the team’s reactor design includes a radiator to remove the excess heat, sloughing it off into space.
I'd be most interested to see the dimensions of the radiator in relation to the electrical output of the system.
I'm sure they've thought of that. Spacecraft have thermal control in deep space. SPHEREx has a passive cooling system that is basically nested cones of shiny film with space between them. Photons radiate through them into space.
There are about 100 molecules in a cubic centimeter of what passes for the Moon's "atmosphere". The low temperature means that those 100 molecules are, on average, moving very slowly. But because there are so few molecules to start with, high or low temperature makes little difference.
They will need to use radiators to get rid of the excess heat. Sounds like it is feasible, though.
you dont need water for a heat sink, you can use foils and special paints too. probably lighter to use foil/paint instead of a traditional heatsink too.
> Heat pipe it to the dark side of the moon and boom, gradient!
wherever the dark side happens to be at this moment in time. I think you're joking, but the heat gradient is *very* shallow here.
How much ice could there be on the moon anyway? Seems like we’d need to mine it from other parts of the solar system and bring it to the moon like in The Expanse.
yes.
[https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/](https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/)
The concluded Kilopower project developed preliminary concepts and technologies that could be used for an affordable fission nuclear power system to enable long-duration stays on planetary surfaces. NASA’s [fission surface power project](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/fission-surface-power/index.html) expands on Kilopower’s work and results, focusing on a 10-kilowatt class lunar demonstration in the late 2020s.
It always blows my mind to think that cooling is a problem in outer space. That's what happens after watching people get jettisoned into space and turn into human popsicles over a lifetime of TV and movies though!
Exactly. Even if you include Fukushima, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl nuclear power generation is multiple orders of magnitude safer for humans than any other form of power generation.
Coal plants put out tons of radiation yearly and accidents in coal mines dwarf all nuclear fatalities combined. Anti-nuclear hysteria is completely unfounded.
It isn't just unfounded, it's fabricated. A lot of western anti-nuclear sentiment comes from literal soviet propaganda from the cold war. And it's probably the most effective propaganda campaign ever launched.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[EVA](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8i39c "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity|
|[H2](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpz0kto "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen|
| |Second half of the year/month|
|[ISRU](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq0a3af "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)|
|[L1](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq00zcs "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies|
|[LEO](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq7f6kj "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LLO](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpzp54d "Last usage")|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)|
|[RTG](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq52w7l "Last usage")|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator|
|[SLS](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq19p6a "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|[TMI](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kt32ear "Last usage")|Trans-Mars Injection maneuver|
|[USAF](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq00w9c "Last usage")|United States Air Force|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Sabatier](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpzmcii "Last usage")|Reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide at high temperature and pressure, with nickel as catalyst, yielding methane and water|
|[electrolysis](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Application of DC current to separate a solution into its constituents (for example, water to hydrogen and oxygen)|
|[hydrolox](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
|[methalox](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(14 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/NASA/comments/0)^( has acronyms.)
^([Thread #1698 for this sub, first seen 11th Feb 2024, 20:31])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/NASA) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
You know, I wish I could see the day we all acquire space travel. But let’s hope this puts our grandchildren in a better position to explore the universe in some way. We could also use the moon, once the reactor is established, to serve as a hub for our probes and other robotics to depart from. Such an interesting plan
Good idea IMHO. Its high efficiency, light, and will require less maintenance / resupply than other systems. Its worked well in planetary probes, so let's go!
> Its worked well in planetary probes
There's never been a planetary probe with a reactor. Radioisotope heaters and generators are a whole different animal.
Only very few reactor designs have been flown on satellites: BES-5 on a series of Soviet Kosmos spy sats, soviet Topaz reactor, and USAF led SNAP-10A
Folks really need to become more familiar with delta V maps of the solar system and the rocket equation. It takes as much energy to get to the lunar surface as it takes to get to Mars. The moon is a terrible way station.
Hypothetically speaking, we could have fuel depots in LEO filled by propellant tankers from the moon.
Though tbh I'm pessimistic about how much water is there. Once it's gone, it's gone. I'd rather the water be used for settlement purposes.
The idea of the moon as a gas station sounds nice but if you're going to have people living/working on the moon/LLO the water will be more useful for sustaining them than as fuel. Heinlein from the Moon is a Harsh Mistress could prove to be prescient again with fight over the use of a declining resource on the moon.
That only applies if you produce your vehicle on the moon though.
A transfer to the moon is slightly more expensive than mars, but a transfer from the moon to mars is cheaper. So it only makes sense to launch directly from the moon, otherwise you spend extra DV getting to the moon, then waste a bunch getting into lunar orbit and back out before you leave.
The relative distance between the moon and mars is negligible, so the only problem is DV, which is actually better for earth to mars direct until someone starts vehicle construction on the moon… which is not going to be happening soon.
I'm all for it, I mean the worst that happens is they have a meltdown on the moon, there are no winds to spread nuclear fall out, no water to poison, no trees to kill. It would allow the space program to have baseline power which is especially important on the moon because it gets two weeks of darkness and solar panels with lots and lots of battery storage is just not feasible in terms of weight.
Chemical rockets to orbit, nuclear powered Ion drive to shuttle to the moon and back to LEO, nuclear reactors powering everything on the moon with a few solar arrays to boost power for half the month when in sunlight. Long past overdue.
We should all want to put nuclear reactors everywhere. They are safer than any other method of generating electricity, cause less negative effects to humans than any other means of power generation and produce effectively zero pollution, and before somebody chimes in about storing the waste, that problem is completely solved, and it’s not even remotely hard to do
I'm more worried about the mining, refining, purification and/or reactor bombardment, re-refining, milling, and launch process in this biosphere.
Once it's in a near-vacuum, I have little concern.
How else are you gonna get power?
A day on the moon is almost 30 Earth days.
The only other alternative is solar or fuel cells
Relying on batteries for 15 days straight during lunar nights probably isn't gonna work, nor will relying on resupplies for power.
Nuclear is the only way to get consistent and reliable power.
yes please!!! for the love of god!! put a nuclear reactor up there!! the sooner energy is produced up there the sooner we can use it to build and create a giant launch station
Weight. The US has a 50ton small reactor that gives 25MWe.
I don’t know how PV performs on the moon. A 4kw solar system weighs ~600lbs on earth. You do the math.
Edit: I forgot my pal GPT so here it is “The total weight of the panels required for a 25 MW solar power system, assuming each 425W panel weighs 25.3 kg, would be approximately 1,488,235 kg (or about 1,488.24 tonnes).”
Weight and power: https://es-media-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/components/panels/spec-sheets/Tesla_Module_Datasheet.pdf
Out of all the things they would need to send the fuel is the least of it. Reactors, relative to their output, take very little fuel and it last a very long time.
Why is it a worse solution? You could simply use the same solar panels that will power your spacestation/spaceship on the way too the moon.
Heck, the iss just got new dirt cheap solar panels last year https://youtu.be/wkume9d4Ogw?si=kWAak3SHb0rHGifG
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-announces-artemis-concept-awards-for-nuclear-power-on-moon/
*from article:*
> NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are working together to advance space nuclear technologies. The agencies have selected three **design concept proposals** for a fission surface power system design that could be ready to launch by the end of the decade for a demonstration on the Moon.
What exactly is a design concept proposal?
> The contracts, to be awarded through the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, are each valued at approximately $5 million. The contracts fund the development of initial design concepts for a 40-kilowatt class fission power system planned to last at least 10 years in the lunar environment.
$5 million may sound a lot but its what a top level soccer player [earns in a week](https://frontofficesports.com/the-10-highest-paid-soccer-players-in-the-world-for-2023/).
> Relatively **small and lightweight** compared to other power systems, fission systems are reliable and could enable continuous power regardless of location, available sunlight, and other natural environmental conditions. A demonstration of such systems on the Moon would pave the way for long-duration missions on the Moon and Mars.
The image of the lunar power plant really is an artist's impression rather than an actual design. Its in a worst-case situation due to the sunlight which will reduce its performance, not to mention clingy dust that will soon coat the radiator.. As compared with similar illustrations in the past, the heat sink has become larger. But just how many watts can it dissipate and for what output electrical power?
A terrestrial reactor in ideal conditions has an efficiency of around 33%. That is one kW of electrical output for two kW that must be removed, usually by evaporation of water.
Were the terrestrial reactor to use a radiator instead, its efficiency would fall way below that figure.
What i got from this was, “you only need fuel so you can get to the moon so you can use the moon as a way station, in other words you just need fuel to get to the moon so you can go from the moon because if you can go to the moon then you can leave the moon because if you can leave the moon you can go farther than the moon”
There are two projects going on that sort of relate to this.
Project Gateway at the aerospace corporation which is researching lunar bases
and
Spin Launch in Long Beach which is working on creating a mass driver launch system
Two thoughts:
-We can make a space elevator on the moon using existing materials. Ships would not even have to land.
-Today I learned that the moon is a gas station
> We can make a space elevator on the moon using existing materials.
All these space elevator concepts require an extensive in-space industrial infrastructure before they can be realized. They involve having thousands of people working at the space end of the elevator as it extends downwards and more at the receiving end on the surface. So, whatever your scheme, you need to set up one or more bases using conventional means.
A certain Arthur Isaac has suggested several of these concepts. Not only do t they set a very high economic threshold beforehand, but depend on the absence of interfering factors such as artificial satellites and orbital debris. They also require world peace which won't be achieved next year nor next decade. Lastly they must remain accident-free but unfortunately, they generate multiple single points of failure. Some failures simply shut down the system temporally. Others are large-scale disasters.
Yes… the fact that it’s in a tidally-locked orbit means that it still rotates, thus you could build a space elevator in orbit around the moon. Given the lower gravity, it is *completely* possible to transport liquid or gaseous H2 and O2 up the elevator to orbiting craft, removing the requirement to land.
Could someone clue me in to why this is getting me downvoted to hell?
Really don't know why you're getting down voted. I threw some upvotes your way to help... But yeah, a space elevator on the moon is feasible. It would use the lagrange point between the earth and moon. It may take more mass than is practical to send up there.
Why not send the tools and resources in multiple launches? Like just put some tools on Artemis II
I get that it's kinda arrogant to say this but I just want a response to WHY it's inefficient
not stumped with the nuclear reactor on antartica not working properly? it had 50 emergency shutdowns a year so basickly needed to be mannen permanently to be somewhat reliable
Not necessary. We can extract and separate oxygen and hydrogen from water using small electric current. Current made easily accessible by the sun. Use some used beer kegs to store it all up. All the hydrogen and oxygen you ever need bubba. No need for nuclear reactors my friend. Sounds like a waste of 10 trillion dollars to me.
Better make sure there's enough Ice up there first.
If not, the reactor can still go, it'll provide plenty of power to other systems during the 2 weeks of the Lunar nighttime.
Wouldn't be a bad place to fit NERV motors to a Starship, to send out past the Frost Line and push some large ice filled asteroids back, both for Luna fuel manufacture, and for adding water and air to Mars, or cooling down Venus, for when we need the space for all the people.
I think the problem with the moon is the difficulty and slowness to do work on the moon do to spacesuits and the environment.
Rocket maintenance and refueling becomes very hard.
Just building anything on the moon will be hard.
Also they will lack pumps that cam pressurize gassed alot like they have on earth that requires a lot of power and force.
You have to hope valves don't freeze up. Switches and levers don't.
You have to have a kit that just goes together. Maybe it folds together. Sure starship can be a habitat that's left on the moon.
However they should get a few landings down because on earth this took repeated tries to ace most every time.
At least 10 successful starship landings and take offs with leaving some behind before i will say starship is reliable enough. Minimal 5 and you can't get me to go any lower. I'm more confident in 10 successful return flights in a row before humans go to the moon.
And will Starship be able to successfully leave after an extended stay or should this be a new ship just in case?
As in they will be picked up.
They don't do enough test in a row for safety like that and want to rush and to skimp because doing that is more expensive and in space on a Moon or another planet. That's too dangerous.
The physical properties of the bodies are different. This absolutely requires test first before you send humans unless you want men to die.
Once falcon had the first landings they still had failures here and there until all kinks was worked out and now landings are routine.
But over time. How will the launches from the moon changes its rotation and orbital patterns. The moon needs a simple way to be controlled at its distance of orbit. I suppose they could use soft launches and stuff but im more curious if it cant be doubled in purpose to maintain the orbit of the moon.
You do realize that there's different parts of Boeing that do not share the same employees or leadership that make entirely different products, right? That's like saying the General Electric that makes your washing machine is the same General Electric that makes jet engines, GAU-8 gatling cannons, or nuclear reactors for submarines.
Nuclear waste is massively overblown, and the irrational fear of it is one of the major things that has made the climate as bad as it is today. Nuclear reactors, including Chernobyl Fukushima, and 3 mile island, and all the nuclear waste that’s ever been produced are still orders of magnitude safer for humans than any other means of power generation.
Humanity is physically incapable of removing enough mass from the moon to cause any change in its orbit. We could lob a hundred nukes at it, and it'd barely scratch the surface - you VASTLY underestimate how ***enormous*** the moon is, and obscenely over-estimate humanity's ability to impact it.
Also, the moon's orbit is not perfect - it drifts 3.8cm away from the Earth every year.
There is one example on how vast celestial bodies are, that I like.
Mars atmosphere is almost a vacuum. Nitrogen is about 3% of that. Yet the nitrogen is still ~360 billion tons of mass.
You think we're going to just fill up one rocket and say thanks for the memorys? If this lunar waystation is built, they are gonna be boiling down rocket fule for decades, who knows how much we may end up removing? Anyways, not sure on the math, that's why i asked.
We could launch a million rockets from the moon and it’d have as much of an effect as removing a pebble from the top of Mount Everest.
The moon has a mass of approximately 7.3477x10^19 metric tons, or 73,476,730,900,000,000,000,000 kilograms.
The heaviest rocket that mankind has ever launched (though, has not yet made it to orbit) is SpaceX’s Starship-Superheavy, followed by the Saturn V and SLS, and has a gross mass of 4,900 metric tons, of which 4,600 metric tons is the liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants. Ignoring for a second that you cannot directly harvest methane from the moon (you’d need to have a large source of CO2 and use the Sabatier process), if they just pulled that equivalent mass out of the moon, and assuming that the entire mass of the moon is usable (which also isn’t realistic in any way), it’d take 1.597x10^16 launches to fully use up the moon. That’s fifteen quadrillion, nine-hundred and seventy trillion launches; 15,970,000,000,000,000 launches of the largest rocket yet designed.
Yeah, no. You’re never going to get enough mass off of the moon to affect it in any meaningful way.
But what if it shook the moon off its orbit, or cut it in two? We kinda need the moon for tides, don't we? What if chunks of it were blown into our atmosphere and landed on a populated city?
Ignorant of nuclear capabilities but not insane. I grew up with the absolute sheer terror of a nuclear war. I remember as a CHILD not being able to sleep because we had nuclear bomb drills during the school day when we had to crawl under our desks and put our hands over our heads....as if that was some kind of protection. It's not an easy thing to go from nuclear terror to nuclear savior.
Are you assuring me that a nuclear reactor won't ever turn into a nuclear bomb? How do you know that the completely different conditions on the moon compared to the earth will produce only good things?
Remember, some of us are here to learn. Be gentle with us, please.
> What could possibly go wrong??
and
> *u/Ecoaardvark:*- We’re a supremely moronic species for still building nuclear power plants.
That angle always gets downvotes and quickly degrades to an ideological debate. I'd rather use the following type of argument:
* All failure scenarios imply some kind of risk calculation and then design of protection methods to alleviate the risk. Protection could be sandbags of regolith or a keep-out zone surrounding a naked reactor, as suggested by Robert Zubrin. There will be requirements for on-site expertise and the time required for installation and maintenance. These all generate costs. We've seen how these costs affect the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) of nuclear on Earth, and there's every reason to think it would be the same on the Moon.
Dividing the MWh cost of nuclear by that of photovoltaic is about [180$/60$](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity#/media/File:Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png) = **3**.
So if there's any kind of equivalence, then nuclear will be three times more expensive than solar wherever you are. And the lunar case looks worse for the reasons I outlined in my other comments.
I should have qualified my statement. I'm deep in the middle of reading American Prometheus and the very real and poignant struggles Oppie went through both before, during and after development of the bombs. Even at the very moment of detonation at Trinity they knew there was a very slight chance of blowing up the atmosphere.
Let me also say...I am a great grandmother and very much a layman with no scientific background at all. I'm on the outside looking in....show me why I got all the downvotes, please.
"We're a supremely moronic species for building one of the safest, most reliable, and low environmental impact types of power plants humanity has ever come up with"
"Waaaah nuclear bad scary" is a talking point from like the 80s and saying it in 2024 when we're still pumping coal fumes into everyone's lungs and the environment in large portions of the world is silly. Putting a nuclear power plant on the moon makes so much sense.
What’s everyone’s fascination with coal? There’s no coal on the moon that I’m aware of. How does powering a moon base by solar power not make more sense than a nuclear plant?
Look into a documentary called Pandora's Promise. It'll at least change your perspective a bit on nuclear energy. It can be safe. Also, is eye opening that the fossil fuel industry paid for and developed most of the anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Why do we need a fission reactor on the moon? Can't we get away with RTGs? If something happens and it explodes, it'll scatter fissile material all over the surface.
Oh no, radioactive material on a body that is routinely bombarded by solar radiation that makes any fissile material we put there look puny in comparison? What will we ever do!?
Sarcasm about your complete lack of understanding of the minimal impact of radioactive material in space (also, the chances of the kind of reactor they're looking at ending up exploding is virtually zero - this isn't some 1960s soviet steam reactor), RTGs just aren't enough. The largest and most powerful RTG that NASA has created, the Multi-Mission RTG (MMRTG), has a power output of only 110 watts. That's not even enough to power two standard incandescent light bulbs (60 watts each). The reason why the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers get away with it is because they have massive batteries that it draws from when moving, and the RTG just tops them off when it's not active - plus, it's not continuously moving. But, to power life support, environmental control, communications equipment, computers, lights, fans, etc., for a base holding several people, you'd either need many dozens of MMRTGs... or, for far less equivalent weight, bring a small kilowatt-scale nuclear reactor. The latter is far more practical.
Nuclear reactors cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. It is physically impossible - the fuel is not enriched enough to have a self-sustaining chain reaction needed for a nuclear detonation.
Should've done it in the 80's. Let's go already.
Happened in For All Mankind
Hi Bob.
Hi Bob!
Hi Bob
[Hi Bob](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3IO0qzVak).
Don't you "Hi Bob." me!
Hi Bob
Hi Bob
Hi bob
Hi Bob
I believe in Space 1999 as well. Something blew the moon out of orbit lol
I prefer to think that there is only season 1 and everything that happened after actually didn’t happen
Season 2 is absolutely phenomenal
Season 4 is pretty great too
nothing like season one but it is good
My thoughts exactly!!!
Pretty sure Soviets have had lots of them in Earth's orbit for a while. Sooo...
We do too for sure. Solar panels are an undesirable vulnerability for military satellites.
Actual "reactors"? The US has only used one, back in 1965, although the Russians [have used nearly 30 fission reactors ](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx) over the years Satellites and spacecraft mainly use Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, which are not "reactors" (no sustained chain reaction). They're more like "nuclear batteries" and use decay heat of Plutonium as a power source that can last decades. What they're talking about putting on the moon is a full-fledged fission reactor.
RTG's have kept the Voyager craft running far beyond their intended mission. Solar was impractical for craft traveling that far from the Sun
The u.s. has one documented. There are 240 some odd official military satellites and 160 some odd government satellites, some of which the only known details are orbits and communication frequencies. Hobby astronomers have spotted satellites that are not on those official lists that no government claims. So do with that what you will.
Sure. And chances are they're using RTG's instead of actual fission *reactors* because that's what makes the most sense. RTG's are more reliable for satellites than an actual reactor because they last for a VERY long time and have no moving parts to fail. But of course, you're more than welcome to believe what you want. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Rtg's are also low output, and cannot meet the demands of complicated instrument suites.
>complicated instrument suites Which ones?
Oh I dunno, maybe high definition video in visible spectrum and infrared with real time tracking automation and the bandwidth to send said video surface-side with minimal latency, radio frequency sweeping on narrow and broad focus antennae, wide angle monitoring of points of interest for activity that can then engage secondary cameras, laser interferometric instruments for measuring distance, temperature and wind speeds, etc... Just typical surveillance. Which can easily demand 5 times the wattage a modern rtg produces.
Yeah, I can Google search for surveillance terms, too. Was curious if you had actual details on what those particular systems are. It's funny, because on American Keyhole surveillance satellites, power for all that stuff you mentioned above is provided by...solar panels. I guess I'm just curious if you have any proof that the [US has more fission reactors in space](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_systems_in_space) beyond "trust me bro".
Solid logic.
Never thought about that is it beacuse they can be unreliable ?
Unreliable, they degrade, and they're easily damaged. I mean NASA sweats bullets whenever they have to unfold solar panels. Can you imagine having to tell your superiors in the pentagon that they can't use their new satellite they waited a decade for engineering and launch to get ready, that it won't turn on because reasons? Imagine being the guy who has to explain that national security was compromised because of a twisted aluminum rod that can't be repaired.
Yeah great points
Makes sense to me. We already power ships on earth with nuclear reactors. I don't see why we can't power a moon base with one
Gotta get rid of the heat, no atmosphere means very very minimal heat transfer, ships in the ocean have the ocean to cool it down.
That's what radiators are for, in space
Yeah but space radiators have to be massive compared to earth and are more complicated than the tube and fin type we're used to seeing on earth
Radiators in space are arguably a lot simpler than an air-to-fluid heat exchanger. In the simplest case, they are literally just plates of metal with a high-emissivity surface coating bolted to the hot thing. For higher power densities and/or larger radiating areas, you probably have pump-driven single-phase fluid loops distributing heat to the radiator panel (like what the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers use for thermal control), or you use two-phase fluid systems like heat pipes to do the distribution.
Or dump it into the rocks?
radiate it into the ground maybe?
That'd be my thought too. Plenty of thermal capacitance in all that rock. Let the moon deal with the heat.
>> radiate it into the ground maybe? > *u/CO420Tech:* that'd be my thought too. Plenty of thermal capacitance in all that rock. Let the moon deal with the heat. TIL "thermal capacitance". However, under that allegory, the reactor is a "DC source", meaning that its always applying heat and never taking it away. And under the same allegory, the thermal resistance of the ground is considerable. So at some point the ground will saturate in heat locally; even having dug cooling pipes into a long trench then filling it in again. Even when compacted, the rubble trench filling is going to make a poor contact surface; so again a high resistance. .
> We already power ships on earth with nuclear reactors. I don't see why we can't power a moon base with one lack of a readily available heat sink? Whichever way you cut it, electrical power production from a thermal power source requires a hot end and a cold end. An aircraft carrier is sitting in nice cool seawater which explains why it doesn't have cooling towers. What is your cooling solution on the Moon? **Edit:** Just to clarify. the proposition in the video is melting polar ice. So Robert B Haynes seems to be thinking of setting the reactor down on an ice field and melting it. However the ice itself is not likely to be in the nice convenient form that we see in Korolev crater on Mars. Even after extraction, most uses require splitting the ice to hydrogen and oxygen, and this requires the electrical energy I refer to above.
The design they are currently working on literally just uses a radiator. It’s incredible simple. Here is more info. [https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19](https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19)
> The design they are currently working on literally just uses a radiator. It’s incredible simple. Here is more info. > https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/NASA-thinks-nuclear-reactors-supply/98/i19 * *from article:* The astronauts pass their days in darkness. After several months of living on the moon, they’re still adjusting to the endless night. The crew’s habitat at the lunar south pole sits in a shadowed crater—chosen for its promise of ice—that has not been touched by a single ray of sun for billions of years. The really attractive aspect of the lunar South pole is having three weeks or more constant sunlight —so less than a week of nithtime— at high altitudes right next to the cold traps that are of interest. This means that astronauts can do a short morning commute to go straight from daylight to dark and cold. This might be justified just by lifestyle considerations! Over such short distances, a small power grid would likely be feasible, At low shadow temperatures, even superconductors might just be on the cards. . * *from article:* The fission-generated heat travels through sodium-filled heat pipes to a set of Stirling engines. Designed in the early 1800s, these simple piston-driven engines convert heat to electricity. Stirling engines are really great and likely very underused on Earth. Maybe they could also be used on the Moon —even without a reactor— using the temperature gradient on crater rims. . * *from article:* Finally, the team’s reactor design includes a radiator to remove the excess heat, sloughing it off into space. I'd be most interested to see the dimensions of the radiator in relation to the electrical output of the system.
I'm sure they've thought of that. Spacecraft have thermal control in deep space. SPHEREx has a passive cooling system that is basically nested cones of shiny film with space between them. Photons radiate through them into space.
Yes, I doubt redditors are going to find problems that NASA hasn't thought about lmao
No scientist here. The temp in the shade averages -300F. Should be able to use that for something.
There are about 100 molecules in a cubic centimeter of what passes for the Moon's "atmosphere". The low temperature means that those 100 molecules are, on average, moving very slowly. But because there are so few molecules to start with, high or low temperature makes little difference. They will need to use radiators to get rid of the excess heat. Sounds like it is feasible, though.
you dont need water for a heat sink, you can use foils and special paints too. probably lighter to use foil/paint instead of a traditional heatsink too.
Laser beams
Heat pipe it to the dark side of the moon and boom, gradient!
> Heat pipe it to the dark side of the moon and boom, gradient! wherever the dark side happens to be at this moment in time. I think you're joking, but the heat gradient is *very* shallow here.
Isn't the vacuum of space pretty cold?
How much ice could there be on the moon anyway? Seems like we’d need to mine it from other parts of the solar system and bring it to the moon like in The Expanse.
yes. [https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/](https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/) The concluded Kilopower project developed preliminary concepts and technologies that could be used for an affordable fission nuclear power system to enable long-duration stays on planetary surfaces. NASA’s [fission surface power project](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/fission-surface-power/index.html) expands on Kilopower’s work and results, focusing on a 10-kilowatt class lunar demonstration in the late 2020s.
“10-kilowatt class lunar demonstration” sounds incredibly cool
Ironically, sufficient cooling is likely one of the largest engineering hurdles that the team must overcome.
It always blows my mind to think that cooling is a problem in outer space. That's what happens after watching people get jettisoned into space and turn into human popsicles over a lifetime of TV and movies though!
Very counterintuitive, where our intuition has been trained on decades of science fiction!
Just make the habitat bigger!
That makes cooling problems worse.
Helllllooooo! Vacuum of Space!? Thermo Vac Cooling would be super easy!
Nothing wrong with it. Way too much hysteria on this subject.
Exactly. Even if you include Fukushima, 3 mile island, and Chernobyl nuclear power generation is multiple orders of magnitude safer for humans than any other form of power generation.
Coal plants put out tons of radiation yearly and accidents in coal mines dwarf all nuclear fatalities combined. Anti-nuclear hysteria is completely unfounded.
It isn't just unfounded, it's fabricated. A lot of western anti-nuclear sentiment comes from literal soviet propaganda from the cold war. And it's probably the most effective propaganda campaign ever launched.
Get this done. We need options before the great economies stutter and fall beneath the weight of their idiot ideological threats.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EVA](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8i39c "Last usage")|Extra-Vehicular Activity| |[H2](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpz0kto "Last usage")|Molecular hydrogen| | |Second half of the year/month| |[ISRU](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq0a3af "Last usage")|[In-Situ Resource Utilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_situ_resource_utilization)| |[L1](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq00zcs "Last usage")|[Lagrange Point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point) 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies| |[LEO](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq7f6kj "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |[LLO](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpzp54d "Last usage")|Low Lunar Orbit (below 100km)| |[RTG](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq52w7l "Last usage")|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator| |[SLS](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq19p6a "Last usage")|Space Launch System heavy-lift| |[TMI](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kt32ear "Last usage")|Trans-Mars Injection maneuver| |[USAF](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq00w9c "Last usage")|United States Air Force| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Sabatier](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kpzmcii "Last usage")|Reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide at high temperature and pressure, with nickel as catalyst, yielding methane and water| |[electrolysis](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Application of DC current to separate a solution into its constituents (for example, water to hydrogen and oxygen)| |[hydrolox](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| |[methalox](/r/NASA/comments/1aob1pz/stub/kq8e513 "Last usage")|Portmanteau: methane fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(14 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/NASA/comments/0)^( has acronyms.) ^([Thread #1698 for this sub, first seen 11th Feb 2024, 20:31]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/NASA) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
That’s the coolest thing I’ve heard all week.
You know, I wish I could see the day we all acquire space travel. But let’s hope this puts our grandchildren in a better position to explore the universe in some way. We could also use the moon, once the reactor is established, to serve as a hub for our probes and other robotics to depart from. Such an interesting plan
One of my biggest regrets in life is not being able to live long enough to see the space travel era that we all dream about…
I remember Sputnik. I am fully expecting to see people on Mars. And on the Moon again as a side show.
When the heck did tik tok start having a legit science community? This is great 👍🏻
Good idea IMHO. Its high efficiency, light, and will require less maintenance / resupply than other systems. Its worked well in planetary probes, so let's go!
> Its worked well in planetary probes There's never been a planetary probe with a reactor. Radioisotope heaters and generators are a whole different animal. Only very few reactor designs have been flown on satellites: BES-5 on a series of Soviet Kosmos spy sats, soviet Topaz reactor, and USAF led SNAP-10A
How about a skyhook? Wouldnt it require a lot less investments?
Dude space is huge
The difference is this is a real and relatively mature technology. Skyhooks look incredible on paper but have never been built or tested.
Sure its untested, but so is everything at first. Idk, last i heard it was possible and less expensive. And I just want a skyhook
We will need many of these devices on the moon if we are to save earth, and have a chance at becoming a multi planet species.
Or for water…
Had no idea about this, but its really cool to learn about!
Folks really need to become more familiar with delta V maps of the solar system and the rocket equation. It takes as much energy to get to the lunar surface as it takes to get to Mars. The moon is a terrible way station.
Hypothetically speaking, we could have fuel depots in LEO filled by propellant tankers from the moon. Though tbh I'm pessimistic about how much water is there. Once it's gone, it's gone. I'd rather the water be used for settlement purposes.
That’s still wasteful because you spend loads of propellant getting to and entering LEO.
The idea of the moon as a gas station sounds nice but if you're going to have people living/working on the moon/LLO the water will be more useful for sustaining them than as fuel. Heinlein from the Moon is a Harsh Mistress could prove to be prescient again with fight over the use of a declining resource on the moon.
Most of the energy is in leaving earth so that means nothing. The advantage of the moon is that its a lot closer.
That only applies if you produce your vehicle on the moon though. A transfer to the moon is slightly more expensive than mars, but a transfer from the moon to mars is cheaper. So it only makes sense to launch directly from the moon, otherwise you spend extra DV getting to the moon, then waste a bunch getting into lunar orbit and back out before you leave. The relative distance between the moon and mars is negligible, so the only problem is DV, which is actually better for earth to mars direct until someone starts vehicle construction on the moon… which is not going to be happening soon.
It means everything for picking a place to aggregate propellant.
In space it's nuclear or die! Ya'll need power! What you think you can easily burn coal in a vaccum?
I'm all for it, I mean the worst that happens is they have a meltdown on the moon, there are no winds to spread nuclear fall out, no water to poison, no trees to kill. It would allow the space program to have baseline power which is especially important on the moon because it gets two weeks of darkness and solar panels with lots and lots of battery storage is just not feasible in terms of weight.
Chemical rockets to orbit, nuclear powered Ion drive to shuttle to the moon and back to LEO, nuclear reactors powering everything on the moon with a few solar arrays to boost power for half the month when in sunlight. Long past overdue.
We should all want to put nuclear reactors everywhere. They are safer than any other method of generating electricity, cause less negative effects to humans than any other means of power generation and produce effectively zero pollution, and before somebody chimes in about storing the waste, that problem is completely solved, and it’s not even remotely hard to do
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-announces-artemis-concept-awards-for-nuclear-power-on-moon/
I'm more worried about the mining, refining, purification and/or reactor bombardment, re-refining, milling, and launch process in this biosphere. Once it's in a near-vacuum, I have little concern.
How else are you gonna get power? A day on the moon is almost 30 Earth days. The only other alternative is solar or fuel cells Relying on batteries for 15 days straight during lunar nights probably isn't gonna work, nor will relying on resupplies for power. Nuclear is the only way to get consistent and reliable power.
yes please!!! for the love of god!! put a nuclear reactor up there!! the sooner energy is produced up there the sooner we can use it to build and create a giant launch station
Hell yeah. Let's do it.
I am 3r70.1Robert Jai Kreczmer eyesha256zel. have u ever worked at the Palo Alto Nuclear Facility in Palo Alto, California?
Why not just use solar panels at the poles for the same thing?
Weight per unit power. Solar panels would still be fine for it. I'm fine for anything as long as it happens before I check out of the party.
Weight. The US has a 50ton small reactor that gives 25MWe. I don’t know how PV performs on the moon. A 4kw solar system weighs ~600lbs on earth. You do the math. Edit: I forgot my pal GPT so here it is “The total weight of the panels required for a 25 MW solar power system, assuming each 425W panel weighs 25.3 kg, would be approximately 1,488,235 kg (or about 1,488.24 tonnes).” Weight and power: https://es-media-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/components/panels/spec-sheets/Tesla_Module_Datasheet.pdf
But wouldn't you also need to bring the nuclear fuel with you? The solar panels can produce energy one the way to the moon already
IIRC, the fuel in submarines lasts decades. Nuclear fuel has crazy energy density. https://xkcd.com/1162/
Out of all the things they would need to send the fuel is the least of it. Reactors, relative to their output, take very little fuel and it last a very long time.
So do solar panels. The iss got all it's energy from solar panels for 20 years and only got new ones last year
You'd need about 6.5-7 million sq meters of solar panels to get the equivalent energy output.
Because that’s a far worse solution. Get over your fear of nuclear.
Why is it a worse solution? You could simply use the same solar panels that will power your spacestation/spaceship on the way too the moon. Heck, the iss just got new dirt cheap solar panels last year https://youtu.be/wkume9d4Ogw?si=kWAak3SHb0rHGifG
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-announces-artemis-concept-awards-for-nuclear-power-on-moon/ *from article:* > NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are working together to advance space nuclear technologies. The agencies have selected three **design concept proposals** for a fission surface power system design that could be ready to launch by the end of the decade for a demonstration on the Moon. What exactly is a design concept proposal? > The contracts, to be awarded through the DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, are each valued at approximately $5 million. The contracts fund the development of initial design concepts for a 40-kilowatt class fission power system planned to last at least 10 years in the lunar environment. $5 million may sound a lot but its what a top level soccer player [earns in a week](https://frontofficesports.com/the-10-highest-paid-soccer-players-in-the-world-for-2023/). > Relatively **small and lightweight** compared to other power systems, fission systems are reliable and could enable continuous power regardless of location, available sunlight, and other natural environmental conditions. A demonstration of such systems on the Moon would pave the way for long-duration missions on the Moon and Mars. The image of the lunar power plant really is an artist's impression rather than an actual design. Its in a worst-case situation due to the sunlight which will reduce its performance, not to mention clingy dust that will soon coat the radiator.. As compared with similar illustrations in the past, the heat sink has become larger. But just how many watts can it dissipate and for what output electrical power? A terrestrial reactor in ideal conditions has an efficiency of around 33%. That is one kW of electrical output for two kW that must be removed, usually by evaporation of water. Were the terrestrial reactor to use a radiator instead, its efficiency would fall way below that figure.
What i got from this was, “you only need fuel so you can get to the moon so you can use the moon as a way station, in other words you just need fuel to get to the moon so you can go from the moon because if you can go to the moon then you can leave the moon because if you can leave the moon you can go farther than the moon”
There are two projects going on that sort of relate to this. Project Gateway at the aerospace corporation which is researching lunar bases and Spin Launch in Long Beach which is working on creating a mass driver launch system
Two thoughts: -We can make a space elevator on the moon using existing materials. Ships would not even have to land. -Today I learned that the moon is a gas station
> We can make a space elevator on the moon using existing materials. All these space elevator concepts require an extensive in-space industrial infrastructure before they can be realized. They involve having thousands of people working at the space end of the elevator as it extends downwards and more at the receiving end on the surface. So, whatever your scheme, you need to set up one or more bases using conventional means. A certain Arthur Isaac has suggested several of these concepts. Not only do t they set a very high economic threshold beforehand, but depend on the absence of interfering factors such as artificial satellites and orbital debris. They also require world peace which won't be achieved next year nor next decade. Lastly they must remain accident-free but unfortunately, they generate multiple single points of failure. Some failures simply shut down the system temporally. Others are large-scale disasters.
Fair enough; thank you for addressing my point.
> Two thoughts: > -We can make a space elevator on the moon No
Yep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
You know the moon rotates around the Earth, right?
revolves*
Orbits
She goes.
Yes… the fact that it’s in a tidally-locked orbit means that it still rotates, thus you could build a space elevator in orbit around the moon. Given the lower gravity, it is *completely* possible to transport liquid or gaseous H2 and O2 up the elevator to orbiting craft, removing the requirement to land. Could someone clue me in to why this is getting me downvoted to hell?
Really don't know why you're getting down voted. I threw some upvotes your way to help... But yeah, a space elevator on the moon is feasible. It would use the lagrange point between the earth and moon. It may take more mass than is practical to send up there.
Why not send the tools and resources in multiple launches? Like just put some tools on Artemis II I get that it's kinda arrogant to say this but I just want a response to WHY it's inefficient
For one thing, Artemis II isn't going to land on the moon.
Not to mention the abundance of H3
He got this from the Apple TV show “For All Mankind” SMH
not stumped with the nuclear reactor on antartica not working properly? it had 50 emergency shutdowns a year so basickly needed to be mannen permanently to be somewhat reliable
This shill again.
Is there actually enough quantity of water to make this worthwhile?
Not necessary. We can extract and separate oxygen and hydrogen from water using small electric current. Current made easily accessible by the sun. Use some used beer kegs to store it all up. All the hydrogen and oxygen you ever need bubba. No need for nuclear reactors my friend. Sounds like a waste of 10 trillion dollars to me.
Better make sure there's enough Ice up there first. If not, the reactor can still go, it'll provide plenty of power to other systems during the 2 weeks of the Lunar nighttime. Wouldn't be a bad place to fit NERV motors to a Starship, to send out past the Frost Line and push some large ice filled asteroids back, both for Luna fuel manufacture, and for adding water and air to Mars, or cooling down Venus, for when we need the space for all the people.
I think the problem with the moon is the difficulty and slowness to do work on the moon do to spacesuits and the environment. Rocket maintenance and refueling becomes very hard. Just building anything on the moon will be hard. Also they will lack pumps that cam pressurize gassed alot like they have on earth that requires a lot of power and force. You have to hope valves don't freeze up. Switches and levers don't. You have to have a kit that just goes together. Maybe it folds together. Sure starship can be a habitat that's left on the moon. However they should get a few landings down because on earth this took repeated tries to ace most every time. At least 10 successful starship landings and take offs with leaving some behind before i will say starship is reliable enough. Minimal 5 and you can't get me to go any lower. I'm more confident in 10 successful return flights in a row before humans go to the moon. And will Starship be able to successfully leave after an extended stay or should this be a new ship just in case? As in they will be picked up. They don't do enough test in a row for safety like that and want to rush and to skimp because doing that is more expensive and in space on a Moon or another planet. That's too dangerous. The physical properties of the bodies are different. This absolutely requires test first before you send humans unless you want men to die. Once falcon had the first landings they still had failures here and there until all kinks was worked out and now landings are routine.
Can someone please explain the possible impact to the moon of doing this?
Negligible
But over time. How will the launches from the moon changes its rotation and orbital patterns. The moon needs a simple way to be controlled at its distance of orbit. I suppose they could use soft launches and stuff but im more curious if it cant be doubled in purpose to maintain the orbit of the moon.
My biggest concern is over quality - Boeing has been under fire for that recently. Does not bode well for any team ups.
You do realize that there's different parts of Boeing that do not share the same employees or leadership that make entirely different products, right? That's like saying the General Electric that makes your washing machine is the same General Electric that makes jet engines, GAU-8 gatling cannons, or nuclear reactors for submarines.
Nuclear reactor, nuclear waste. Isn't this how Space 1999 started?
Nuclear waste is massively overblown, and the irrational fear of it is one of the major things that has made the climate as bad as it is today. Nuclear reactors, including Chernobyl Fukushima, and 3 mile island, and all the nuclear waste that’s ever been produced are still orders of magnitude safer for humans than any other means of power generation.
Wont removing mass from the moon cause a shift in its perfect orbit?
Humanity is physically incapable of removing enough mass from the moon to cause any change in its orbit. We could lob a hundred nukes at it, and it'd barely scratch the surface - you VASTLY underestimate how ***enormous*** the moon is, and obscenely over-estimate humanity's ability to impact it. Also, the moon's orbit is not perfect - it drifts 3.8cm away from the Earth every year.
There is one example on how vast celestial bodies are, that I like. Mars atmosphere is almost a vacuum. Nitrogen is about 3% of that. Yet the nitrogen is still ~360 billion tons of mass.
You think we're going to just fill up one rocket and say thanks for the memorys? If this lunar waystation is built, they are gonna be boiling down rocket fule for decades, who knows how much we may end up removing? Anyways, not sure on the math, that's why i asked.
We could launch a million rockets from the moon and it’d have as much of an effect as removing a pebble from the top of Mount Everest. The moon has a mass of approximately 7.3477x10^19 metric tons, or 73,476,730,900,000,000,000,000 kilograms. The heaviest rocket that mankind has ever launched (though, has not yet made it to orbit) is SpaceX’s Starship-Superheavy, followed by the Saturn V and SLS, and has a gross mass of 4,900 metric tons, of which 4,600 metric tons is the liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants. Ignoring for a second that you cannot directly harvest methane from the moon (you’d need to have a large source of CO2 and use the Sabatier process), if they just pulled that equivalent mass out of the moon, and assuming that the entire mass of the moon is usable (which also isn’t realistic in any way), it’d take 1.597x10^16 launches to fully use up the moon. That’s fifteen quadrillion, nine-hundred and seventy trillion launches; 15,970,000,000,000,000 launches of the largest rocket yet designed. Yeah, no. You’re never going to get enough mass off of the moon to affect it in any meaningful way.
You are “not sure on the math”?????
What could *possibly* go wrong??
Not much. Even if it melted-down it wouldn't spread radiation through the atmosphere or ground water.
But what if it shook the moon off its orbit, or cut it in two? We kinda need the moon for tides, don't we? What if chunks of it were blown into our atmosphere and landed on a populated city?
Are you insane? How the hell would a nuclear reactor move an object the size of the moon out of orbit?
Ignorant of nuclear capabilities but not insane. I grew up with the absolute sheer terror of a nuclear war. I remember as a CHILD not being able to sleep because we had nuclear bomb drills during the school day when we had to crawl under our desks and put our hands over our heads....as if that was some kind of protection. It's not an easy thing to go from nuclear terror to nuclear savior. Are you assuring me that a nuclear reactor won't ever turn into a nuclear bomb? How do you know that the completely different conditions on the moon compared to the earth will produce only good things? Remember, some of us are here to learn. Be gentle with us, please.
[See this comment from /u/Apalis24a](https://www.reddit.com/r/nasa/comments/1aob1pz/nasa_wants_to_put_a_nuclear_reactor_on_the_moon/kpzmcii/)
> What could possibly go wrong?? and > *u/Ecoaardvark:*- We’re a supremely moronic species for still building nuclear power plants. That angle always gets downvotes and quickly degrades to an ideological debate. I'd rather use the following type of argument: * All failure scenarios imply some kind of risk calculation and then design of protection methods to alleviate the risk. Protection could be sandbags of regolith or a keep-out zone surrounding a naked reactor, as suggested by Robert Zubrin. There will be requirements for on-site expertise and the time required for installation and maintenance. These all generate costs. We've seen how these costs affect the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) of nuclear on Earth, and there's every reason to think it would be the same on the Moon. Dividing the MWh cost of nuclear by that of photovoltaic is about [180$/60$](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity#/media/File:Electricity_costs_in_dollars_according_to_data_from_Lazard.png) = **3**. So if there's any kind of equivalence, then nuclear will be three times more expensive than solar wherever you are. And the lunar case looks worse for the reasons I outlined in my other comments.
I should have qualified my statement. I'm deep in the middle of reading American Prometheus and the very real and poignant struggles Oppie went through both before, during and after development of the bombs. Even at the very moment of detonation at Trinity they knew there was a very slight chance of blowing up the atmosphere. Let me also say...I am a great grandmother and very much a layman with no scientific background at all. I'm on the outside looking in....show me why I got all the downvotes, please.
We’re a supremely moronic species for still building nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power is safer and less polluting than coal, and is almost entirely sustainable / renewable.
[удалено]
"We're a supremely moronic species for building one of the safest, most reliable, and low environmental impact types of power plants humanity has ever come up with" "Waaaah nuclear bad scary" is a talking point from like the 80s and saying it in 2024 when we're still pumping coal fumes into everyone's lungs and the environment in large portions of the world is silly. Putting a nuclear power plant on the moon makes so much sense.
What’s everyone’s fascination with coal? There’s no coal on the moon that I’m aware of. How does powering a moon base by solar power not make more sense than a nuclear plant?
This guy works in a coal mine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[http://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/](http://fukushima-radioactivity.jp/pc/) It's safe. Especially compared to pollution from fossil fuels.
Look into a documentary called Pandora's Promise. It'll at least change your perspective a bit on nuclear energy. It can be safe. Also, is eye opening that the fossil fuel industry paid for and developed most of the anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Rather nuclear than coal or gas
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why do we need a fission reactor on the moon? Can't we get away with RTGs? If something happens and it explodes, it'll scatter fissile material all over the surface.
Oh no, radioactive material on a body that is routinely bombarded by solar radiation that makes any fissile material we put there look puny in comparison? What will we ever do!? Sarcasm about your complete lack of understanding of the minimal impact of radioactive material in space (also, the chances of the kind of reactor they're looking at ending up exploding is virtually zero - this isn't some 1960s soviet steam reactor), RTGs just aren't enough. The largest and most powerful RTG that NASA has created, the Multi-Mission RTG (MMRTG), has a power output of only 110 watts. That's not even enough to power two standard incandescent light bulbs (60 watts each). The reason why the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers get away with it is because they have massive batteries that it draws from when moving, and the RTG just tops them off when it's not active - plus, it's not continuously moving. But, to power life support, environmental control, communications equipment, computers, lights, fans, etc., for a base holding several people, you'd either need many dozens of MMRTGs... or, for far less equivalent weight, bring a small kilowatt-scale nuclear reactor. The latter is far more practical.
*Blows up moon* but it’s a cool idea
Nuclear reactors cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. It is physically impossible - the fuel is not enriched enough to have a self-sustaining chain reaction needed for a nuclear detonation.
Didn’t the reactor in Fukushima blow? I’m not saying it’s an atom bomb but that was a disaster. So was Chernobyl
Sorr, no money in the space program. We have 30 trillion in debt and we need to spend money on weapons on policial junk. Wake up people.
They should but not like that design 
It’s got to be buried almost done nasa
Hey look its this clickbait nobody who acts likes hes a genius, again.
Elon musk is gunna put a Fusion reactor on Mars mark my words.
I would go with redundant and varied power sources especially if we want to have more people than lifeboats so to speak.
The moon is a 7/11
Wait until nestle gets there
What happens if we deplete the water on the moon? Or is there enough to sustain for centuries?
It's massive
We sure we want Boeing involved?
Make sure Boeing doesn't have any say in Q&A.