Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Developing Small Nuclear Reactor For the Moon

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the because-they're-nasa dept.

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."

13 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Umm, water? by e2d2 · · Score: 4, 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

  2. Re:Confused on Nuclear waste by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. Volume by tpjunkie · · Score: 4, 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.

  4. Re:Not solar? by actionbastard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except for the fact that it would be dark at your moonbase for nearly two straight weeks at a time, solar power would be great.

    --
    Sig this!
  5. Re:Not solar? by delt0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Night time on the moon is kinda long (weeks). What do you do then? Batteries that can store weeks worth and PV arrays that run at over 2x capacity are not really going to work all that well. Well not as well as a 24/7 nuke plant.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  6. Re:Umm, water? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  7. It's not really waste by Neil+Watson · · 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.

    --
    UNIX/Linux Consulting
  8. Re:At least getting rid of the waste won't be hard by gnick · · Score: 3, 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. 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).

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  9. Re:A note of reality injected here by carambola5 · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about some perspective on that reality?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

    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."

    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
  10. Re:Not solar? by Vexar · · Score: 3, Informative
    Astronauts wear bulky, air-tight radiation/heating suits. I'm sure they won't engage the control rods until they are on "Luna Firma." Besides, it isn't like they are going to be sitting in that launch tower for weeks on end. If they use sodium, lead, or tungsten in its construction, it should be fairly shielded given the small amount of material involved. If it is lead-cooled, you are in great shape, because the coolant mass is also going to shield that gamma radiation pretty well with lead. My guess is that the new space suits will use Demron (invented by a freakin' Dentist, of all people).

    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.

  11. Re:Can't wait to see... by HungryHobo · · 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.

  12. Re:Can't wait to see... by datadood · · 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.

  13. Oooh nuclear... scary... by mzs · · Score: 3, 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