Slashdot Mirror


NASA Developing Nuclear Reactor For Moon and Mars

Al writes "NASA recently finished testing a miniature nuclear reactor that would provide power for an astronaut base on the Moon or Mars. The reactor combines a small fission system with a Stirling engine to make a 'safe, reliable, and efficient' way to produce electricity. The system being tested at NASA's Glenn Research Center can produce 2.3 kilowatts and could be ready for launch by 2020, NASA officials say. The reactor ought to provide much more power than solar panels but could prove controversial with the public concerned about launching a nuclear power source and placing it on the Moon or another planet."

35 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. The public doesn't want it on the Moon huh? by Killer+Orca · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then they can give the reactor to me and I can finally send the power company a photocopy of my ass; I don't even have to worry about disposal! I hear there are plenty of countries like Iran and North Korea looking for nuclear refuse.

    1. Re:The public doesn't want it on the Moon huh? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then they can give the reactor to me and I can finally send the power company a photocopy of my ass

      What, your photocopier only works with on-site nuclear power?

    2. Re:The public doesn't want it on the Moon huh? by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What, your photocopier only works with on-site nuclear power?

      Must be a very large ass if he needs a nuclear powered photocopier.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  2. Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nuclear power is actually one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable forms of power ever invented. So long as no meteroites hit it, we should be fine. Huh. Wonder what caused all those craters on the moon.....

    1. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if a meteor *does* strike the reactor, we are going to contaminate the Moon with radioactivity? More than being exposed to an unshielded fusion reactor for 4.5 billion years?

              Brett

    2. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem would be what exactly?
      The impact to the wildlife on the moon?

    3. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a sizable meteor strikes your moon colony, you're going to be worried about the chance that it hits the reactor? Not the mess hall or the kindergarten? Any accident on the moon that gives people time to don space suits is a best-case accident. What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Never, ever, place you power source outside the buildings.

      The aliens will simply cut the line, leaving you only 120 minutes (less Coming Attraction Previews) to figure out what's going on and go fix it.

      Then, of course, the first few people you send after it will be killed and turned into alien zombies.

      Then, when you finally figure that out, you have to crawl through the air ducts to get to the reactor (even though the reactor is supposedly isolated from the buildings) to sneak into the Alien queen's chamber and burn her to a crisp with the flame thrower that is standard issue on a moon colony.

      Sheesh...don't you guys know anything?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by infinite9 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lol, sounds like another opportunity! Head out to the next anti-nuclear rally and get people to sign a petition to shut down this unshielded fusion reactor. It's exposing us to several types of radiation every day, even as we speak! It causes severe burns on many people every day! Many species won't come out of their burrows because of it! While you're at it, you can ask them about their opinion of dihydrogen-monoxide.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    6. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by SBrach · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, we all know Albert Einstein invented the atom. Just like Newton invented gravity.

    7. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by oneTheory · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?

      Hmm, that's a tough question, but I'm gonna go with the past 50 or so years of media hysterics.

    8. Re:Nuclear Power on the Moon FTW! by ve3oat · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is it about "nuclear" that makes people's brains turn off?

      The same mindset, I guess, that prompted the medical profession to quietly change the name of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Nobody wanted an NMRI but now people line up for an MRI, at least here in Canada.

  3. Shouldn't be that dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The uranium that goes into a reactor isn't all that radioactive - it's the spent fuel that comes out that's the problem. If a rocket carrying this thing explodes on take off it isn't going to be Chernobyl. In fact, it sounds a good deal safer than all those Pu-238 RTGs that have been sent up there.

  4. It shouldn't be any more controversial... by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It shouldn't be more controversial than the reactors that powered Voyager and other deep space probes. There have been protests over some of the more potentially dangerous reactors that might have caused contamination over a wide area if they blew up; but IIRC they launched anyway.

    A reactor that small shouldn't require a huge ammount of fissile material. I bet it could blow up in the atmosphere and produce less radiation than we get from a day of coal fired power in the Eastern US. Coal is full of trace radioactive elements, and it adds up when you burn as much as we do.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:It shouldn't be any more controversial... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kind of like how letting wood rot is not burning it.

    2. Re:It shouldn't be any more controversial... by lgw · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uranium is "huggably safe" before a reactor is actually turned on. With a half-life of a billion years it's more dangerous as a heavy metal than anything else.

      Plutonium is nasty if powdered or vaporized, but NASA designed a "safe" for the Cassini plutonium RTG that would survive being dropped at any point during the launch path.

      The hydrazine fuel used in the maneuvering thrusters in spacecraft and the Space Shuttle's APUs is amazingly toxic. In most scenarios a tank of hydrazine is more of a danger than a lump of plutonium. Off-Earth, a hydrazine APU is just exposing astronauts to unneeded danger to avoid "scary nuclear scary scary".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:It shouldn't be any more controversial... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hydrazine is not all that bad compared to the oxidizer used, nitrogen tetraoxide. People used to sniff for hydrazine leaks with their nose (smells like rotten fish) early in satellite development. Nitrogen tetraoxide smell like the inside of your nose being dissolved.

            But your general point is correct in that the chemical effects of most of these items are far more problematic than the radioactivity, and the chemical effects can be dealt with reasonable safety as has been proven for decades.

            Brett

  5. Engine by Manfred+Maccx · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a Stirling Engine....not Sterling.

  6. Sterling engine? by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 5, Informative

    An engine made out of silver? Or just a generally excellent one? Ah, a Stirling engine.

    More quality editing from Slashdot...

  7. Re:mmhmmm by swanzilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, until the fuel runs out. I'm pretty sure that with solar panels, the sun never runs out.

    I'm 100% sure you are wrong.

  8. If you're taking a reactor anyway... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not re-open research into nuclear thermal rockets? They were able to get them up to 40% efficiency back in 1972, I'm would hope we can do better than that now. Use the reactor to heat a propellant to get you to the moon, then use the reactor on the moon to power the base. If it's time to head home, you only need to ship a relatively stable propellant up, rather than actual rocket fuel.

  9. Re:mmhmmm by SBrach · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah we can't have dangerous, dangerous radiation in space. Think of the children.

  10. Electrical Power for VASIMR engines by mykepredko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I first saw this, I thought it was for powering VASIMR plasma engines.

    Recently, AW&ST had an article suggesting that transit times between Mars and Earth 30 days could be possible using a continuously running VASIMR engine (it has an insanely high specific impulse). BUT, it would require a nuclear power source because the amount of solar panels (especially outside of earth's orbit) woudl be impractical.

    myke

  11. You forget two key points. by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Ignorance.

    2. The Internet

    There is a whole lot of people who can now be offended at things they would never have heard of before or hand reason to be offended of. Never under estimate the ability of humans to make ignorance even more prevalent. What many thought would free us from ignorance only seemed to exaggerate it more.

    I guess there is another option, it never ceases to amaze me how many people can find offense in anything. I think they have a need to be noticed or to find a way to blame others for any condition they are in.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  12. Mod parent up please by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the most intelligent comment on this thread so far, why it is posted as AC I cannot imagine. It reminds me of a brilliant comment on the assembly of nuclear fuel rods: that they are so nonradioactive that they can be assembled by hand. The operators wear gloves, not to protect them from the fuel, but to protect the fuel from their fingers.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  13. Re:That's only 20 Amps at 115V by Graff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read the article. 2.3 kW is the test version, they want to scale it up to 40 kW for the base:

    The recent tests examined technologies that would see a nuclear reactor coupled with a Stirling engine capable of producing 40 kilowatts of energy--enough to power a future lunar or Mars outpost.

    40 kW is approximately 17 outlets that can handle 20 A at 115 V. Yeah, it's still not a ton but it's a start and you could potentially put up several of these reactors as you expand the facility. This would also add fault-tolerance to the entire system.

  14. Re:Why the west is doomed by Ant+P. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real danger to the west is the overwhelming number of complete fucking idiots it breeds that demand that all technological progress is halted "for teh children!1".

    They're a danger to the rest of the world too.

  15. Yawn. by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wake me when I can buy me a Ford Nucleon. 5000 miles on a single fueling. Take that, Tesla Motors!

  16. Re:Cheap? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When your talking about space, spending a fortune on exotic, super lightweight materials will save you many times more than that cost in launches. Weight is the main factor in the number of things that can go up in a rocket. I think I remember hearing someone mention in the ballpark of $25,000 per pound. So while you look at Cheap as the total cost, they look at it a bit differently.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  17. Re:mmhmmm by fracai · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...unless you're ok with only breathing during the day...

    I don't know about you, but I SLEEP during the night. Sheesh, this isn't rocket surgery.

    --
    -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  18. Re:mmhmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Moon dust is a bigger problem on the than Mars dust exactly because there is no weather. Weathering wears down the rough edges of dust particles. Without it, the dust retains jagged edges. It is extremely abrasive, sticks to everything, and is electrically charged. Once it sticks to something, it is extremely difficult to get off. On Mars, however, you can just wipe the dust away. It's weathered and smooth, like the dust we are all familiar with on Earth.

    http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2005/04/67110
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.htm
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090421-st-moon-dust-sunangle.html

  19. Re:mmhmmm by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Funny

    metric ass-load = about .85 of a fuck-ton.

  20. Re:For a start fine, but then - solar! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

    "which is ot that hard"

    Okay, how?

    Batteries are heavy and you have to lift them from Earth. Regolith has a pretty low specific heat capacity. Water works pretty well to store heat, or to make hydrogen, but on the moon you're probably not going to have much and you might want to drink it instead. You can compress gas to store energy, but where are you going to find that on the moon?

  21. ALL CAPS IS NEVER THE ANSWER! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Capital letters were an invention of Satan after he was thrown off the Anunaki space ship. He gave the first capital letter he invented, the letter L, to the Australian Aborigines who used it to hunt animals and wage war with each other. It is no coincidence that Viking battle axes are in the shape of the letter T and the Nazi Swastika uses 4 L's. I realized this while watching Sesame Street and having a nice glass of distilled water and pure grain alcohol. All those capital letters are shown by - wait for it - Monsters! It's all so very clear to me now! We must now take our capital letter to the moon so we can make an end of them and the moon-dwelling Nazis for all time!

  22. Re:mmhmmm by Quothz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since there is specifically zero atmosphere, the only dust you're going to get on the rover is something directly applying it via ballistic trajectory. That's pretty easy to prevent with simply placement slightly away from drive paths. A wind driven environment will *always* have more dust flying around than the moon. there isn't any atmosphere to push it so it just sits until something imparts energy to it.

    That's an impressive and very persuasive bit of reasoning with only the minor flaw that it's entirely wrong from beginning to end. The fact is lunar dust is very pervasive, fine, and troublesome. Here's an article about it.