Rolls Royce nuclear reactor for the moon

[Simpo Two]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but it would be handy for power cuts...

https://www.space.com/moon-rolls-royce-nuclear-rea...

[chrisgtx]

Interesting, nuclear tech is what i’d love to see being developed in this country as a priority, sadly politics these days is all short-termism.

[Caddyshack]

Doesn’t seem anything wrong with solar if you have a decent battery? Charge for 2 weeks then use for 2 weeks.

But, it’s good to see this development.

If they could make a tiny one then we could run Lorrie’s on them.

[Simpo Two]

chrisgtx said:

Interesting, nuclear tech is what i’d love to see being developed in this country as a priority, sadly politics these days is all short-termism.

And the anti-nuclear lobby can grind projects into taking 3x as long and 10x the cost.

[hidetheelephants]

Caddyshack said:

Doesn’t seem anything wrong with solar if you have a decent battery? Charge for 2 weeks then use for 2 weeks.

But, it’s good to see this development.

If they could make a tiny one then we could run Lorrie’s on them.

That requires carrying a battery and solar panels to the moon; some nerds will have done sums and calculated that a fission reactor can provide the necessary power(and waste heat that may be of use also) for less weight. 14 days of darkness places a large burden on the battery storage and/or the loads that a moon base can place on it, a battery and panels large enough to sustain life support, science experiments and whatever other needs the base has is going weigh a lot.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 1st October 15:42

[Simpo Two]

hidetheelephants said:

That requires carrying a battery and solar panels to the moon

And deploying them somehow. I wonder how many acres would be needed for the same output?

[normalbloke]

Simpo Two said:

Not sure if this has been posted before, but it would be handy for power cuts...

https://www.space.com/moon-rolls-royce-nuclear-rea...

Reminds me of Jason, the nuclear reactor that was in Greenwich until 1999.

[Caddyshack]

Simpo Two said:

hidetheelephants said:

That requires carrying a battery and solar panels to the moon

And deploying them somehow. I wonder how many acres would be needed for the same output?

Most things that go to the moon are designed to be very low power consumption. I wonder why they need that much power or is it just for duration more than power draw?

[Simpo Two]

Caddyshack said:

Most things that go to the moon are designed to be very low power consumption. I wonder why they need that much power or is it just for duration more than power draw?

- designed that way because up until now power has been limited. But with this, the limitation has gone.

[bobthemonkey]

Simpo Two said:

- designed that way because up until now power has been limited. But with this, the limitation has gone.

Also, a lot of the more interesting proposed lunar activities are in more permanently shadowed areas, such as Shackleton crater, where surface water ice is more likely.

[Hill92]

Caddyshack said:

Simpo Two said:

hidetheelephants said:

That requires carrying a battery and solar panels to the moon

And deploying them somehow. I wonder how many acres would be needed for the same output?

Most things that go to the moon are designed to be very low power consumption. I wonder why they need that much power or is it just for duration more than power draw?

They're designed for very low power consumption with exotic lightweight materials due to payload mass constraints and prohibitive launch costs. But those design constraints change when you go from landing a couple of tonnes on the moon for $1million/kg to being able to land 100 tons for less than $100,000/kg.

[Evanivitch]

hidetheelephants said:

That requires carrying a battery and solar panels to the moon; some nerds will have done sums and calculated that a fission reactor can provide the necessary power(and waste heat that may be of use also) for less weight. 14 days of darkness places a large burden on the battery storage and/or the loads that a moon base can place on it, a battery and panels large enough to sustain life support, science experiments and whatever other needs the base has is going weigh a lot.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 1st October 15:42

We're already launching plenty of solar and batteries into LEO and Geo orbit...

[Simpo Two]

Hill92 said:

They're designed for very low power consumption with exotic lightweight materials due to payload mass constraints and prohibitive launch costs. But those design constraints change when you go from landing a couple of tonnes on the moon for $1million/kg to being able to land 100 tons for less than $100,000/kg.

Weight is a good point. Would a Saturn V have got it to the moon?

[hidetheelephants]

Caddyshack said:

Most things that go to the moon are designed to be very low power consumption. I wonder why they need that much power or is it just for duration more than power draw?

Most of the interesting things that people want to try on the moon will need lots of power, air processing, water recovery, rocket fuel manufacture, etc.

[bobthemonkey]

Simpo Two said:

Weight is a good point. Would a Saturn V have got it to the moon?

http://www.astronautix.com/a/apollolmtruck.html

A single Saturn V could have delivered 2x 5,000kg payload one way landers to the moon.

[hondajack85]

How do they land these heavy payloads on the moon?
They can barely manage the small unmanned probes today without damaging them.
Im pretty amazed they set that moon buggy down on the surface approx 50 years ago.
No space for some decent movie cameras though so all we have is all the old ste footage.

[Hill92]

hondajack85 said:

How do they land these heavy payloads on the moon?
They can barely manage the small unmanned probes today without damaging them.
Im pretty amazed they set that moon buggy down on the surface approx 50 years ago.
No space for some decent movie cameras though so all we have is all the old ste footage.

Starship HLS is planned to deliver a 100 tonne payload to the lunar surface.

[SpagBog]

Westinghouse is also developing a lunar nuclear reactor. As part of my rather fun job I get to go to conferences where all this is discussed. Lunar Surface Power is the backbone for lunar pioneering, with optimised networks including power beaming to recharge small rovers and plant over short distances.

If you want to stay up to date try this web site
https://lsic.jhuapl.edu/

Lockheed Martin is probably the leader on setting the vision for lunar pioneering. If you want to know more I suggest reading their novella

https://lockheedmartin.com/lunar-architecture-nove...

There’s a real drive in the US to get there first

Edited by SpagBog on Sunday 17th November 20:14

[DorsetSparky]

Caddyshack said:

If they could make a tiny one then we could run Lorrie’s on them.

Lorrie's what now?
Have you asked him?

[littlebasher]

Any ideas how you cool the reactor in a vacuum?