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."

10 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Not solar? by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Not solar? by evilviper · · Score: 4, 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'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.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Not solar? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:Not solar? by Aglassis · · 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. 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.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    4. Re:Not solar? by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 4, 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.

  2. Re:Can't wait to see... by ivan256 · · 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.

  3. Re:Confused on Nuclear waste by evilviper · · 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.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  4. Re:Can't wait to see... by gentimjs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if it ever became a problem, just use a big slingshot (or whatever) to hurl it off in the general direction of the sun .. the only reason we dont do this with nuclear waste now is that the cost-to-orbit sucks, but for a reactor on the moon or already in space, most of the cost is absorbed already.

  5. Re:Goodbye Earth, Goodbye Moon by FooAtWFU · · 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.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  6. Re:Confused on Nuclear waste by Nadaka · · 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.