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."

34 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Can't wait to see... by Schnoogs · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...GreenPeace launch their intergalactic spaceship to intercept NASA in orbit and all of the zero-g protesters.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Can't wait to see... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · 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.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:Can't wait to see... by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      One big problem with putting a slingshot on the moon capable of achieving escape velocity. I read an analysis 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.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Can't wait to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Paper beats rock, and we have plenty of trees here on Earth. We can't lose!

    6. Re:Can't wait to see... by SecondHand · · Score: 4, Funny

      just use a big slingshot (or whatever) to hurl it off in the general direction of the sun

      if only the sun would stop moving...

    7. Re:Can't wait to see... by gnick · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Can't wait to see... by philspear · · Score: 4, 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!

    11. Re:Can't wait to see... by mpeskett · · Score: 5, Funny

      Until they build a giant pair of scissors out of moon-metal...

    12. Re:Can't wait to see... by spazdor · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if only it were massive enough to materially affect the trajectories of the planetary bodies near it!

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  2. Dupe! by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Funny

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999

    Asking for trouble... 'cos this didn't work out too well for Moonbase Alpha.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Dupe! by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

      True, but when NASA returns to the moon they're gonna party like it's Space 1999.

  3. Yes! This can be a source of power! by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now to implement The Alan Parsons Project!

    --
    Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  4. Send Homer. by Verdatum · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nuclear technician, spaceflight experience. Not as proficient as the inanimate carbon rod, but who is?

  5. 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 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!
    3. 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?
    4. 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.
    5. Re:Not solar? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why you supplement the solar power with wind power. Haven't you watched any of those greenie off-the-grid shows?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  6. 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

  7. Re:Umm, water? by explosivejared · · Score: 4, Funny

    A little known fact, there is no China on the moon. Therefore, you do not have to worry about the China Syndrome. You can run a nuclear reactor any way you want.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. Doesn't work by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    just use a big slingshot

    In the thin/nonexistent atmosphere of the moon, the rubber bands dry out and crumble quickly.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.