[HN Gopher] UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reac...
___________________________________________________________________
UK backs Rolls-Royce project to build a nuclear reactor on the moon
Author : geox
Score : 55 points
Date : 2023-03-19 00:02 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| fogforthought93 wrote:
| This reads like a madlib, it can't be serious. Who's embezzling
| money here?
| mkl95 wrote:
| > The new boost to Rolls-Royce's research pot follows a previous
| $303,495 (PS249,000) study funded by the U.K. Space Agency in
| 2022
|
| > helping to create jobs across our PS16 billion space tech
| sector
|
| If the space tech sector is PS16bn, why is it news that some
| corporation (PS13bn+ revenue) earned a 249k grant? It reads like
| a Monty Python script.
| dazc wrote:
| It's just a press release
| bmgxyz wrote:
| I think this means that a previous iteration of this effort had
| a value of PS249,000. The article is mainly about the current
| iteration, which has some other total value that is presumably
| larger. It isn't clear how much the current iteration is worth,
| at least from the article alone.
|
| In general I agree that this might not be significant, unless
| the total value of the current contract is large or there are
| notable research or engineering results.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Specifically, this new stage of the project has PS2.9 million
| of new funding, according to the linked press release. Still
| feels like pocket change, I wonder how much they can really
| do with that little
| buran77 wrote:
| > The new boost to Rolls-Royce's research pot follows a previous
| $303,495 (PS249,000) study funded by the U.K. Space Agency in
| 2022
|
| Wish them all the best, really. But I'm _really_ curious what the
| study actually provided /concluded in terms of the stated goal of
| using the money to research the development of such a reactor.
| Because unless the British are so much more efficient than the EU
| for example, this kind of money just bought a short conversation
| with McKinsey.
|
| P.S. I think it bought a press release [0].
|
| [0] https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-
| stories/discover/2023/...
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Probably nonsense. A press release to feed the Brexit part of
| our politics and population that we're still relevant in terms
| of global influence and technology.
| ocimbote wrote:
| A small conversation with McKinsey can go a long way in terms
| of influencing public policy.
| [deleted]
| mixdup wrote:
| We can't even reliably build them for anything approaching a sane
| cost on Earth. I hope they're going to build a bankruptcy court
| up there, too
| kube-system wrote:
| The cost on earth is mostly due to the regulatory environment.
| The moon doesn't yet have the same regulatory environment.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| The current nuclear station program in the UK seems to be
| struggling to keep up. I'm not sure how we will cope on the
| moon. Also, wasting money on a vanity project.
|
| As for extra terrestrial law, research online reveals there to
| be a highly developed and powerful judicial system throught the
| whole galaxy. i have no doubt it is can hear lunar bankruptcy
| cases too.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| It's probably off the back of this work.
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444
|
| I do think this is running before we can stand. We can't even
| launch our own rockets/space craft
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64218883
| throwayyy479087 wrote:
| Reactor going pop on the moon is a science experiment, not an
| biological tragedy.
|
| Big fan of this idea.
| jimbokun wrote:
| We can and we have, then we stopped.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The US army used a miniature nuclear reactor to power Camp
| Century in Greenland in the 60s [1]. Obviously that base had some
| important differences to a moon base (like being surrounded by
| water ice and atmosphere) and technology has advanced a bit since
| then, but I wonder how much you would have to change the design
| to make it a viable moon base.
|
| 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Century
| system16 wrote:
| McMurdo as well:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station#Nuclear_power_...
| Zigurd wrote:
| A VC I'm familiar with is in two modular fission reactor
| ventures. I was generally skeptical about a future for fission
| reactors, but it behooved me to learn. Among the things I
| learned is that there is a huge distance between making a small
| reactor and making a reactor of any size that can run
| unattended or with minimal supervision. Taking a reactor out of
| a nuclear powered submarine just gets you the small reactor
| bit. Much of what new gen fission projects do is to make
| reactors easy and safe to operate.
|
| Submarines are run by a crew of trained specialists at all
| kinds of high stakes systems, including the reactor.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Submarines also operate in the world's largest heatsink.
| wongarsu wrote:
| But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a
| "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in
| Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D costs, latency to the
| moon is small, and for any hands-on tasks you can presumably
| train the astronauts (or train a couple experts as astronauts
| if you want to vindicate the plot of Armageddon). After all,
| just like a submarine a moon base would be staffed by trained
| specialists.
| Zigurd wrote:
| That is a good question. Even on Earth, a large number of
| small reactors may not be better than a small number of
| large reactors. Pebble bed reactors might be inherently
| safer and easier to operate, but the German demo reactor
| got its pebbles jammed and they can't figure out what to do
| with it. Fast reactors can consume what is otherwise high
| level waste, but they also have risks.
|
| On top of all that, are fission reactors compatible with VC
| fund liquidity horizons? I think that may be part of why
| some startups are focusing on operating instrumentation and
| software. You can patent that and sell it as a product
| separate from the reactor. Or worst case backstop your
| investors from losing their whole investment.
| zopa wrote:
| Sure, but many fewer of them. There are over a hundred
| people on a submarine crew; it'll be a good while before a
| moon base gets anywhere near that big.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| The US Navy made a nuclear reactor to power an Antarctic base
| and it was so expensive and failure prone they went back to
| diesel.
|
| https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-...
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering
| they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and
| warships.
| GordonS wrote:
| The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that
| they can operate for a very long time without refueling -
| despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff
| the planners are willing to make.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I think the Navy has actually shown that nuclear for
| those ships is cost competitive. Refueling a large ship
| for decades is expensive.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Are you sure it wasn't a navy reactor? The VA says it was
| operated by the navy.
|
| It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule.
|
| https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources
| /...
|
| Edit: A history of the plant:
| http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/
|
| It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it
| a Navy reactor.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin
| of the Atomic Scientists saying
|
| "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in
| Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find
| some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10
| years of operating a small military power reactor in
| Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power
| particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil
| fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]",
| "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the
| Navy's McMurdo Sound".
|
| McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees".
|
| Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75
| MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo
| Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy."
|
| [1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3
| 2&ots=V...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station
|
| [3]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
| loeg wrote:
| (1961)
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| "The UKSA will now provide PS2.9 million (around $3.52 million)
| of funding for the project."
|
| A nuclear reactor on the moon?
|
| I don't get it.
|
| Meta spent north of $30 Billions to build a "metaverse" that I
| would not even consider to be alpha-level quality, and some
| people at Rolls-Royce think they can build a nuclear reactor for
| how much?
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Imagine if we put effort into humanities and science instead of
| trying to get people to buy stuff they don't need.
| ianai wrote:
| They're just adding money to the pot, from my read of it.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| FAANG spending isn't the norm, the total program cost of the
| Mars 2020 rover was $2.7 billion.
|
| Meta spent $30 billion on something that looks like SecondLife
| on the Wii...
|
| But also this ain't the total cost just how much money the UK
| government is funding the project for right now.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Did they seriously spend that much money on it??? How???
| dogma1138 wrote:
| I don't know if that's how much they spent on it or was
| that how much they "spent" on it.
|
| But the cumulative cost of Reality Labs was apparently
| indeed $36B over 3 years.
| fosk wrote:
| It's really mind boggling how much money Meta spent on this
| thing.
| [deleted]
| vkou wrote:
| 1. Meta had to have spent vastly less than $30 billion on their
| "metaverse". That's ~80,000 person-years of senior SWEs.
|
| 2. Literally half the companies who have video games as their
| core competency would have been able to build way more for way
| less.
| textninja wrote:
| ChatGPT had fun with this one. Pretty soon YouTube will be
| replaced with ITube and we'll have blockbusters on demand.
|
| > In the pulse-pounding sci-fi blockbuster, Lunar Armageddon, the
| British government enlists Rolls-Royce to construct a series of
| nuclear reactors on the moon as the last hope for saving Earth
| from an imminent energy crisis. When legendary pinstriping artist
| Mark "Marksman" Court is recruited for his unique skills, he
| joins forces with the fearless commander, Emily "Em" Walker, to
| assemble an elite team of astronauts and experts. As they race
| against time to complete the high-stakes mission, Court and Em
| must navigate political intrigue and life-threatening challenges
| on the treacherous lunar landscape.
| fnord77 wrote:
| dumb question maybe, but with out an atmosphere, isn't there
| virtually unlimited solar potential on the moon? why is a nuclear
| reactor needed?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Because you have a cycle of ~14 days of darkness and light on
| the moon so solar will need a backup.
|
| Batteries are an option but 14 days worth of storage for a
| lunar base is probably asking a bit too much.
|
| Also nuclear provides another benefit on the moon - heat which
| you'll definitely need during those 14 days of darkness.
| textninja wrote:
| Another benefit might be protection from asteroids and
| meteorites if built underground.
| panick21_ wrote:
| In addition to what others have said, in the places where the
| water is and the energy is needed, there is no sun. So you need
| to first go to a place where there is sun, then beam energy
| into a crator.
| [deleted]
| pffft8888 wrote:
| Reminds me of the first episode of Space 1999 where nuclear
| explosions on the moon push it out of orbit (not implying there
| will be explosions, just a nostaligic memory brought up by this
| news)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BXaGEuqxo&t=2314s
| ClapperHeid wrote:
| Now there was a series which really required "willing
| suspension of disbelief" of even a child's scientific
| understanding!
| ianai wrote:
| Is there somewhere someone's done the numbers on bootstrapping
| industry off world? Like what would make most sense very first,
| etc. It strikes me that at some point it makes a lot more sense
| to build the stuff to build more stuff out there.
| mLuby wrote:
| NASA did a study in the 1980's. For something more recent, I
| suggest checking out Dr. Casey Handmer.
|
| https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19830007081/downloads/19...
| ianai wrote:
| Wow awesome thank you!
| mLuby wrote:
| It's a super-specific niche that I'm very interested in but
| sadly has very little activity, so I'm happy to spread the
| word. ISRU "in-situ resource utilization" gets a bit more
| press more and then.
|
| Isaac Arthur also has some good episodes (video/podcasts)
| on the subject of bootstrapping off-Earth industries like
| on the Moon or asteroids or Mars.
| credit_guy wrote:
| There's a problem with nuclear power on the Moon. How do you get
| rid of the heat? Here on Earth, we just use water, of which we
| have plenty. But on Moon water is extremely scarce. It would make
| the sci-fi novel Dune look like an oasis. When we'll have some
| type of an economy on the Moon, it's very likely that water will
| be more expensive than gold. One thing is absolutely certain: we
| will not be able to afford to vaporize water and let the steam
| vent. So, any nuclear reactor on the Moon will need to have some
| complex array of pipes where steam is circulated through some
| radiators, then condensed and recirculated. Or, who knows, maybe
| we'll do this cooling with liquid metals. Among the more abundant
| metals on the Moon, tin could be a good candidate; there was an
| experimental reactor at the Oak Ridge National Lab in the 60's
| that used liquid tin as a coolant.
| djmips wrote:
| Other liquid coolants could be used and recirculated.
| retrac wrote:
| A hot object will radiate heat as infrared. The hotter it is,
| the more heat it will radiate. So, a sufficiently large
| heatsink designed to exploit that, can cool even in a vacuum.
| (Theoretically, this could even be used for reactionless
| propulsion.)
|
| In the 70s and 80s, the USSR launched a whole series of radar
| satellites that were powered by several generations of nuclear
| reactors: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT
|
| Liquid metal coolant, as you suggested. Also, direct thermionic
| conversion to electricity -- no heat engine cycle. No control
| rods either -- control reflectors outside the core. Very
| different kind of nuclear engineering than is needed down here
| on Earth. No shielding!
| jliptzin wrote:
| I feel like it would be easier to build underwater cities via a
| network of watertight buildings than colonize the moon. At
| least with underwater cities we can essentially have flying
| cars (personal submarines), no adverse weather, plus cool
| creatures to watch swimming around outside your window.
| pomian wrote:
| A fun fiction novel by John Sanford, Saturn Run, presents a
| neat solution for the problem of heat dissipation, in space.
| Fun read.
| double2helix wrote:
| Yea I loved that book, and not even a huge fan of sci-fi.
| psychphysic wrote:
| My mind was blown when I first heard that heat dissipation
| would likely be the key shaping factor in space battles.
|
| I think this was the video https://youtu.be/9Xs3mGhQGxM
| krasin wrote:
| Heat will be an asset, not a problem: the Moon sub-surface
| temperature is around -20C ([1]), which means there's an easy
| way to dissipate power. And if we have any humans living on the
| moon, that heat will very much be appreciated around all
| livable areas.
|
| https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/19906/constant-lun...
| m4rtink wrote:
| Interesting!l, havent ever thought about that!
|
| What is the heat conductivity though ? If it is low, you
| might have to sink too many heat transfer channels, not to
| mention with possibly ending up with a hot "bubble" that
| would no longer provide a temperature gradient.
| krasin wrote:
| Under the layer of regolith, Moon crust is mostly basalt
| ([1]), which has about 1.6 W/mK thermal conductivity ([2]).
| Not great, not terrible.
|
| We all know how cold it is to stand on a stone floor -
| unlike wood or plastics, it keeps sucking that heat off.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_
| Moon
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivi
| ties
| sanp wrote:
| Nice Chernobyl reference!
| krasin wrote:
| ?
| mongol wrote:
| https://youtu.be/ocBVLMHK6c8
| krasin wrote:
| Thanks! I now get the reference, although it was
| completely accidental. I should watch the movie, I guess.
| sph wrote:
| It is a miniseries and it is excellent and gripping from
| start to end.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Your forgetting about radiation. You don't need to conduct
| it all away, there are 3 modes of heat transfer,
| conduction, convection and radiation. In this case it's the
| radiation they'd rely on.
| deepsun wrote:
| Sunlit surface of the Moon can reach 127 C. Don't know
| what type of reactor they choose, but it obviously won't
| work for boiling type of reactors.
|
| UPDATE: I forgot about not-water coolants. Molten salt or
| liquid metal reactors can work at 500 C, so would radiate
| anyway, right.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Radiation doesn't need a temperature gradient anyway
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I don't know if that will cool the reactor enough to prevent
| a meltdown.
| krasin wrote:
| Cooling a gigawatt-class reactor like that? - not a chance
|
| A 10kW reactor - easily; a very limited amount of
| engineering to design a heat distribution system will be
| required, but 10kW is also not enough for anything useful.
|
| I suppose the future of Moon energy will be in megawatt-
| class reactors, which are still possible to cool like that,
| but provide enough heat+energy to be useful for colonies.
| FredPret wrote:
| First my pocket computer hugely outperforms my 90's desktop,
| space rockets get privatized and much cheaper, there's probably
| an actual AI online, and now we're putting a nuclear reactor on
| the moon. Awesome! (I hope)
| specialist wrote:
| Will this future moonbase be before or after the UK rejoins the
| EU?
| convolvatron wrote:
| are there any fissionable materials that can be refined on the
| moon?
| jandrese wrote:
| The weight of the fuel is the least of the concerns with this
| scheme.
| convolvatron wrote:
| but getting into an accident and spraying it all over during
| liftoff is something of a concern
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'd still like to know how they plan for a potential explosion of
| the space craft carrying the fuel inside the atmosphere. They
| better have a good story on that.
|
| Even if the rocket breaks up and the fuel reaches ground in
| perfectly sealed containers, that still doesn't mean the danger
| is over.
| philipkglass wrote:
| The fuel doesn't become dangerously radioactive until after the
| reactor powers up for the first time. The uranium fuel is only
| about as toxic as something like barium or lead until the chain
| reaction starts generating fission products.
|
| This is in fact safer to launch than past space missions such
| as Pioneer, Voyager, and Cassini. Those used radiothermal
| generators that were far more radioactive and hazardous than a
| fresh reactor core.
| credit_guy wrote:
| The same plan as for all the countless cases when they sent
| radioisotopes in space. Perseverance and Curiosity each have
| 4.5 kg of Plutonium-238 on board. Did that worry you?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Yes. And the lunar reactor will require more power and thus
| more fuel.
| philipkglass wrote:
| The plutonium 238 fuel in RTGs has a half life of 87.7
| years:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238
|
| Uranium 235, the fuel used in reactors, has a half life of
| 703.8 million years:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235
|
| This means that plutonium 238 is roughly 8 million times as
| radiotoxic as uranium 235, gram for gram. If this mini-
| reactor carries 4.5 tonnes of fuel it will be 0.012% as
| dangerous at launch as the power source for the Curiosity
| rover.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| I imagine step one is to launch from the coast heading out over
| the ocean. If Starship is fully operational by then it would be
| the obvious choice and depending on the reactor design there
| might be enough weight capacity to build in some extra
| shielding. I also wonder if the fuel can be shipped separate
| from the reactor.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| It will be interesting to see a modern design, rather that the
| something based on 1930s physics, 1940s construction methods,
| built in the 1950s and put into use in the 1960s like some of
| these military reactors they used for remote bases.
| wongarsu wrote:
| "Rolls-Royce plan to have a reactor ready to send to the Moon
| by 2029". With that deadline I would expect something closer to
| a proven submarine reactor adapted for an environment without
| abundant water and fewer convenient ways to get rid of heat.
| simonh wrote:
| Since RR make submarine nuclear reactors for the UK's fleet
| already, yes.
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'd think a similar design, or at least at a similar scale,
| would get ruled out by the necessary shielding. That would be
| quite a lot of mass to land on the moon.
|
| Some innovation is in order. Mass reduction and radiation
| safety are among the highest design priorities I'd say.
| imglorp wrote:
| In flight, it can be shielded with water and polyethylene,
| which would be needed anyway by colonists. On the surface,
| as someone else noted, you want good ground contact for
| heat dissipation so you might as well throw it into a hole
| and bury it, dirt being plentiful.
| huijzer wrote:
| NuScale also still plans on a first reactor by 2027 even
| though are ahead in the small nuclear reactor space
| akvadrako wrote:
| Small nuclear reactors are not proven though and are quite
| a risky idea since nuclear benefits significantly from
| scale.
|
| If your goal is to produce something that's useful in a
| short time span, it's better to use proven tech.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| At incredibly high cost.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/the-dream-of-mini-nuclear-
| plants...
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Once you're on the surface you can sink a fair bit of heat
| into the ground. The issue in space is that you can't do
| convection, and there's nothing to conduct to, so you're
| really just left with giant, inefficient radiators.
| ambicapter wrote:
| Nitpick: Are radiators very inefficient? I assume they're
| 100% efficient, just not very effective due to the limits
| of physics.
| brokencode wrote:
| Depends on what you mean by efficient. I assume the
| previous commenter meant it isn't efficient in terms of
| cost and space to build large radiators that aren't very
| effective.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Yes, efficiency here is in the sense of the mass and
| volume of device required to dissipate X amount of heat
| energy, particularly in an environment where getting a
| lot of mass and volume up there is fabulously expensive.
| [deleted]
| go_elmo wrote:
| Not a physicist, but I'd say it depends on what you
| define as parameter optimized against. For space, Id be
| interested in heat energy dissipated per unit time per
| kimogram per cargospace for exanple, where radiators suck
| compared to convection coolers
| aynyc wrote:
| No matter the design, it'll be built by lowest bidders around
| the world. /s
| simonh wrote:
| Clearly you have never heard of cost plus contracts.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| Any evidence that high bidders do a better job?
| Reptur wrote:
| Can we build them for earth too? We need to quit oil yesterday.
| philipkglass wrote:
| The largest terrestrial consumer of oil is road transport (cars
| and trucks).
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming...
|
| You can't put a nuclear reactor in a car. You _can_ charge an
| electric car 's battery using nuclear electricity, of course.
| But if you're just charging a terrestrial battery then nuclear
| power's attractive attributes for the Moon (like continuing to
| produce during a 14 day period of darkness) are less salient.
| Electricity sources like wind and solar power are likely to
| charge up the car's battery at lower cost.
| Reptur wrote:
| You can't put a nuclear reactor in a car. You can charge an
| electric car's battery using nuclear electricity, of course.
| But if you're just charging a terrestrial battery then
| nuclear power's attractive attributes for the Moon (like
| continuing to produce during a 14 day period of darkness) are
| less salient. Electricity sources like wind and solar power
| are likely to charge up the car's battery at lower cost.
|
| You don't need batteries if the energy is readily available
| throughout the route.
|
| Examples:
|
| 1. Buses that use capacitors
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_electric_vehicle
|
| 2. Trains / Bullet Trains / Trolleys that could have that
| energy along their line.
|
| Car dependency could be rapidly reduced if we truly wanted.
| simonh wrote:
| They already do:
|
| https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
| Reptur wrote:
| nice! now we just need people convinced they are safe and
| them deployed. it is odd the site doesn't mention safety
| concerns at all.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| Amongst other things, it would provide for powering installations
| on the dark side of the moon where there is no solar power.
| coding123 wrote:
| The "Dark side of moon" gets sunlight. That's just what we call
| it because it never faces us.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| You're right of course. Bad choice of words. I was meaning
| the the moon's "Permanently Shadowed Regions" [1]
|
| [1] https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/97/the-moons-permanently-
| sha...
| Maursault wrote:
| While solar obviously would not work there, is there any
| compelling reason to need nuclear power in those permadark
| locations?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I think there is reason on mars - there is a fairly
| significant source of water there (ice). I guess this
| wouldn't explain the moon though.
| m348e912 wrote:
| It's not that reactors are needed in the permadark
| regions, it's just they they tend to be very cold and it
| should be easier to dissipate heat from the reactor.
| slobotron wrote:
| I thought that it's hard to radiate-away heat in vacuum?
| generalizations wrote:
| Dump the heat into the ground.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The darker locations are co-located with the largest
| water ice deposits which are exciting for the possibility
| of a human presence.
| maratc wrote:
| "There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact,
| it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the
| sun."
| ceejayoz wrote:
| And both sides have 14 day long days, and 14 day long nights.
| Only at the poles is there access to solar power all cycle
| long. Hence, reactors.
| jandrese wrote:
| ...or build at the poles and have the solar arrays set up
| on a system that lets them pivot?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, I specifically mentioned the poles.
|
| It's likely we'll want to go other places eventually,
| though, and then you're back to reactors, or carting
| around enough batteries to last you two weeks.
| [deleted]
| zabzonk wrote:
| This article does not cover what I consider to be two key issues:
|
| - how to boost the mass of something like a shielded nuclear
| reactor to the moon?
|
| - how to extract the heat energy from the reactor? turbines (more
| mass)?
| kurthr wrote:
| When all you have is a hammer, nothing looks like low cost
| continuous solar power with direct conversion to electricity at
| the poles.
| Reason077 wrote:
| I guess they aren't planning to build the moon-base at the
| poles, which could provide access to continuous solar power
| nearby. The rest of the moon has long (+/- 14 day) lunar
| nights, and getting enough batteries or whatever to the moon
| to last that long is likely to be impractical/expensive.
| kurthr wrote:
| Because it's too cold there? Probably too much water ice on
| the poles to be interesting.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/26/science/moon-ice-
| water.ht...
|
| oops
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20201101003308/https://www.nyti
| m...
| thinkingemote wrote:
| also wondering the same. Most nuclear reactors including those
| in submarines (which rolls royce make) are basically steam
| engines.
| jandrese wrote:
| Maybe reduce the shielding requirement by burying it in
| regolith with only the heat exchangers exposed?
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| If we had those answers already, there wouldn't be a project to
| fund to find out those answers.
| double2helix wrote:
| $3.5 million sounds like a drop in a bucket for a nuclear
| reactor.
| deepsun wrote:
| Only if you care about nuclear contamination of the surrounding
| environment.
| textninja wrote:
| I wonder which endgame is more probable: satellite, or space
| ship? We have people perfectly willing to shroud earth in sulphur
| to "protect" us from the sun, so who's to say those same types
| won't repurpose the moon into a luxury spacecraft and take it on
| a joyride to distant stars?
| kjellsbells wrote:
| Is it me, or is the UK government launching an unusually large
| number of boondoggles lately? Nuclear reactors on the moon.
| Attempts to become a major player in battery technology. It feels
| to my jaundiced eye like the UK is trying just a little too hard
| to remind the world that they still matter.
|
| Some Brexit insecurity might explain this, perhaps, but that was
| over five years ago.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Their economy is in decline, they need to do something to
| change the trajectory.
| Prbeek wrote:
| They tried launching satellites two months ago in their first
| ever rocket mission and it failed.
|
| Something pretty routine for Russia, US and China and even
| heavily sanctioned Iran.
| panick21_ wrote:
| No they didn't. It simply a US company that flew a plane
| out of the US.
|
| The failure had nothing to do with the UK.
| kaanski wrote:
| As we all know doing something new requires immediate
| success or it isn't worth pursuing.
| whatshisface wrote:
| "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it
| must be done." - _Yes, Minister._
| deepsun wrote:
| USSR economy was in decline. So they built Buran (copycat of
| Space Shuttle), and Tu-144 (copycat of Concorde). Both are
| extremely costly, and that helped USSR to fall sooner.
| switch007 wrote:
| Local elections in May and general election (likely) next year.
| And we've just had the Budget
|
| I think there's plenty of Brexit insecurity still lol
|
| The Tory party has a trashed reputation currently so they're
| trying to reclaim some ground
| rozal wrote:
| USA has secretly gotten ahead of the quantum race.
|
| Part of their disclosure plan is it work with allies on
| multiple needs.
|
| With fusion on the horizon, we will need batteries.
|
| With electromagnetic craft, moon trips will be easy.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Secretly? QC companies have been shouting every tiny bit of
| progress from the rooftops, usually before it gets made.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Fusion isn't on the horizon. And batteries are needed for EVs
| and Solar/Wind.
|
| And electromagnetic craft are a terrible way to get to the
| moon.
| nickpeterson wrote:
| They've gone full wallstreetbets. They're going to the moon boys.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Flylady, Fly!
| nonethewiser wrote:
| ... but why Rolls Royce?
|
| Also interesting that they didn't pick a US nuclear company. This
| is obviously a boon to the contract winner. These decisions
| always have a political aspect to it. What does this signal?
|
| Edit: wow, massive oversight. I thought this was NASA. Nevermind!
| Still, the Rolls Royce choice isn't obvious to me.
| rch wrote:
| This could be politically relevant:
|
| https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/2023/13-03-...
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| RR the aerospace company and RR the car company were split
| apart in the 1960s. The have had nothing but the name in common
| for many decades.
| cdot2 wrote:
| Along with making fancy cars, Rolls Royce is a significant
| aerospace engineering company well known for their jet engines.
| https://www.rolls-royce.com/
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| Car brand is owned by BMV. RR now is primarily known as a
| defence contractor and jet engine manufacturer (and other
| powerplants).
|
| To answer your original question, Rolls Royce is a major job
| provider in the UK. This is probably an attempt to revive it
| in addition to building it. A lot of these are job programs
| first.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Motor_Cars
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Still, I would be surprised if the US government commissioned
| a reactor from Pratt and Whitney.
| u320 wrote:
| But Rolls Royce is a nuclear company, Pratt and Whitney is
| not.
| tadfisher wrote:
| But not General Electric, right?
| guiriduro wrote:
| More relevant for this case is that they are also involved in
| Submarine propulsion, which usually means nuclear. So I would
| guess that they have significant experience.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Yes. Rolls-Royce reactors have powered the UK's nuclear
| submarine fleet since 1966:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" the Rolls Royce choice isn't obvious to me."_
|
| Well, this is being funded by the UK Space Agency, and Rolls-
| Royce is the only UK company that manufactures small nuclear
| reactors that could be adapted for the lunar environment. Seems
| pretty obvious to me!
| simonh wrote:
| Rolls Royce already makes the nuclear reactors for the UK's
| current fleet of nuclear submarine, and is developing the
| reactor for the new SSN-AUKUS subs that are currently in the
| design phase. They also market a modular reactor for civilian
| applications. Presumably these are all based on a common core
| design and the research grant is to adapt it for space
| applications.
|
| https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Ever flown in an Airbus or newer Boeing? You're flying Rolls
| Royce.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-19 23:02 UTC)