NASA looking to go nuclear on the moon

As we've seen, NASA has some pretty big plans for the moon (which may or may not come to fruition), and it's now finally offering up a solution for how it might keep everything powered. Turns out, it's looking at going nuclear -- with a fission surface power system, to be specific. That system, seen above in an artist's concept, would consist of nuclear reactor buried below the lunar surface (which provides some handy radiation shielding), with the engines that convert the heat energy into electricity placed in the tower above the reactor -- those long radiators would "radiate into space" any leftover heat energy that wasn't converted to electricity. All told, the system promises to generate a steady 40 kilowatts of electric power, or enough for about eight houses on Earth, but with NASA's various power-saving measures, they say that'd be more than enough to sustain a serious lunar outpost.

[▀█▀ █ ▀█▀ ▄█▀ @ Sep 11th 2008 4:13PM]

10 bucks environmentalists are going crazy about this

[(01) @ Sep 11th 2008 4:30PM]

I don't really care about the environmental implications on the mood, I'm just a bit worried about what's going to happen when the thing melts down and explodes...which is sure to be a lot of fun since it's buried underneath the surface.

[thefiendster @ Sep 11th 2008 4:30PM]

hello?

[Plothole @ Sep 11th 2008 4:31PM]

Considering that there already seem to be people up in arms about the whole notition of nuclear in space, you're probably right. It's rather silly though... space has more radiation than we humans could ever hope to create!

[1234321 @ Sep 11th 2008 4:33PM]

40kW powers 8 houses on Earth or specifically 8 houses in the United States?

[Aguiluz @ Sep 11th 2008 4:47PM]

@ 1234321

40 kW of STEADY nuclear electricity is definitely much better than solar panels, which are interrupted in darkness.

[Reader @ Sep 11th 2008 5:01PM]

"when the thing melts down and explodes"

Look up pebble bed reactors. Melt-downs are a thing of the past, and explosions impossible.

[Plothole @ Sep 11th 2008 5:12PM]

@(01)

Despite what movies may tell you, Nuclear reactors don't *explode*. Not only is it the wrong kind of Uranium, but there's also no way for it to become "supercritical". The biggest danger in a meltdown is for radoactive material to be released into the atmoshpere. However the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere (not one worth mentioning anyways), and its surface is constantly bombarded with radation anyways.

[z0phi3l @ Sep 11th 2008 5:19PM]

@ Reader


You'd be surprised how many idiots like the poster have no clue how Nuclear power is generated and can only think of Chernobyl and TMI every time the word nuclear is uttered

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 11th 2008 5:24PM]

It's not just certain parts of the environmental crowd, it's the masses of uninformed citizens. Your average Not-in-my-backyard American thinks of 3-mile island when you say the word "nuclear" (or "nuc-u-lar" in the backwoods south). They don't understand that there has been three decades of research and development and new reactors produce much less waste and are a million times safer. Nuclear energy on the moon could be great, and the excess heat could be used to warm the compound, right? Not to mention it could be re-used again to capture energy with thermocouples after the turbines...

On a related note, I've never understood why it appears so much waste heat is released into the atmosphere at energy plants. Shouldn't they be able to harness almost all of the heat produced? Why can't they just keep re-injecting the steam into the turbine until almost all of the energy is gone?

[a ham sandwich @ Sep 11th 2008 5:26PM]

@aguiluz

wait...solar panels don't work when it's dark?! crap! that sucks!

[1234321 @ Sep 11th 2008 5:28PM]

what on earth are you talking about Aguiluz, that's not what I asked

[daedric @ Sep 11th 2008 6:41PM]

loosely_coupled: do you actually think they are going to send water to the moon and use the nuclear reactor to heat up the water to turn the turbines? The reactor should be generating electricity using only thermocouples.

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 11th 2008 6:03PM]

@ Aquiluz

It doesn't matter that they don't work in the dark- only 1 side of the moon faces the Sun, and it faces the Sun 24/7/365- we have never seen the dark side of the moon (que Pink Floyd music). Just put the solar panels on the light side and there will be no problems.

[Decoy @ Sep 11th 2008 6:14PM]

@ Zeus

There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look alight, is the sun.

The same side of the moon is always facing the Earth, not the Sun. The dark side would be better called the far side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon

[Yem @ Sep 11th 2008 6:57PM]

@ Reader

Look up pebble bed reactors in zero gravity and atmosphere. Oh wait, it's never been done before.
Given recent off-world screwups (Columbia, Climate Orbiter, Beagle 2) the idea is deserving of some skepticism.

[Poom @ Sep 11th 2008 7:04PM]

@loosely_coupled

Because we're still using heat engines.. It is impossible for a heat engine to be 100% and there will always be waste heat... I really think we should come up with something better than heat engine. Imagine how much energy we've wasted to heat up the world...

[Lars @ Sep 11th 2008 7:40PM]

....And 40 years later, the US finally catches up to Russia.

All you guys freaking out on the implications of putting nuclear reactors on the moon seem to have forgotten the fact that when we (the US) were putting on a publicity stunt by sending people to the moon to play golf, the Russians sent a nuclear-powered rover (actually much like the Mars rovers) which collected lots of very useful data. So these arguments are moot since there's been human-sent nuclear material sitting on the moon for quite some time.

[J-Rad @ Sep 11th 2008 7:57PM]

I like tits, and im not talking about your name ;]

[Lars @ Sep 11th 2008 8:02PM]

@Zeus.:God
That's the problem with getting your facts from stoner bands.

There's one side that always faces the EARTH... It does NOT always face the sun. The other side of the moon looks all dark, deformed, and marred by impacts because it's like earth's personal shield, always facing away from the earth and taking constant asteroid abuse. It does indeed cycle day and night on the moon.


Also, just for the record, nuclear power is quite safe. It's used all around the world (especially by the military). It has much less environmental impact than damming rivers or burning coal. And society, healthcare, science, and engineering would be so much farther advanced today if not for our anti-nuclear attitude. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar power too. But in my opinion, we should focus on dropping highly damaging coal burning plants and water turbines, and instead focus on improving solar but bridge the gap with nuclear.

I wish we would have developed nuclear further along. Imagine, instead of having all these mobile devices creating a constant stream of dead batteries into our landfills, we could have miniature, clean, safe nuclear power packs that last 50 years before depleting.

Nuclear is definitely a green energy, no matter who thinks otherwise.

[Maeztro @ Sep 11th 2008 8:54PM]

I'm not worried about it once it is on the moon, but what about if the rocket explodes on the way up...it does and has happened you know...

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 11th 2008 9:03PM]

I knew that... No, though, thanks for correcting me. That was a stupid mistake.

Also, Lars, Pink Floyd isn't really "stoner music", nor do I listen to them. I was just making the connection before someone else would.

[BirdofPrey @ Sep 11th 2008 9:53PM]

Of course they are freaking out.
The environmentalists went nuts when when NASA wanted to put a nuclear reactor on a space probe. They were complaining about the radiation it would put out regardless of the fact hat solar wind is more radioactive than what would leave the probe.

[Shane @ Sep 11th 2008 10:54PM]

Anyone who goes nuts over this is probably not considering the fact that nuclear power in space already exists...

[Reader @ Sep 11th 2008 10:55PM]

Yem, first of all, if memory serves me correctly, pebble bed reactors are in a closed chamber filled with a noble gas. The idea behind pebble bed reactors is still the same, gravity or not/less than earth. If it gets too hot, the beads push away until they are at a stable reaction. Zero G isn't even a problem since this is the moon, but even if it was I'm sure repositioning the pebbles after contraction wouldn't be an impossible problem to solve.

[ticking @ Sep 19th 2008 5:43AM]

@loosely_coupled

Because although you're obviously very well informed about how well our brilliant new reactors are.
You may have not recognized that the second law of thermodynamics says that it is impossible to convert heat completely into work and that the heat difference needed by those wonderfull reactors is about 100K°minimum to what we normaly have here.
Which let's me suppose that you are not that very well informed and I may not trust you when you say nuclear is save,
and we have nearly no 100.000.000 years radiating waste that will cost us billions on the long run.

Have a nice day.

[mickeyMoo @ Sep 11th 2008 4:14PM]

All together now in your best Barbara Bain monotone: "Oh John! MoonBase Alpha will be destroyed"

[Ben 10 @ Sep 11th 2008 4:15PM]

You can't be serious.
We are that power crazy?

[pagercam @ Sep 11th 2008 4:15PM]

I guess nobody at NASA watched the 1st episode of Space 1999 (in which the nuclear waste site blows up and rockets the moon out of earth orbit, and as a side effect heavily damaging the earth). maybe they should

[hemmy @ Sep 11th 2008 4:36PM]

Alert, alert! Old man posting, I repeat, an old man is posting on the blogs! :)

[Reader @ Sep 11th 2008 5:02PM]

As I mentioned above, wikipedia pebble bed reactor.

[Hellaphunt @ Sep 11th 2008 4:18PM]

I think it's a good idea (maybe not the nuclear tech). I doubt we can survive very much longer on Earth at the rate we're handling her. Colonizing off-site/planet is great, no matter what the obstacles are. Mars is next.

[WhoMe @ Sep 11th 2008 4:28PM]

People keep going on about Mars and colonization and such, but afaik it hasn't even got a magnetic field to shield inhabitants from solar radiation and stuff.

But then, I'm sure NASA has people working for it that are a lot smarter than me.

[Hellaphunt @ Sep 11th 2008 4:39PM]

It's well beyond me as well. I'm sure extra-terrestrial living would consist of NASA MagLife™ Magnetic Resilience certified Biodomes - unless Google beats them to it.

[Alex @ Sep 11th 2008 5:22PM]

I doubt you Momma'll last much longer the way I'M handling her...

I disgust myself sometimes...

[Hellaphunt @ Sep 11th 2008 5:38PM]

Those who can't ignore the truth smother it...

[raerae @ Sep 11th 2008 4:21PM]

this is hilarious...and people get paid to come up with these ideas. They don't have a trip for an unmanned ship planned till 2020 and since the president himself can't seem to get a nuclear plant built in the US, you think the next best thing is the moon? by when 2100 to get all the shit up there they need to build it.

[Flashpoint @ Sep 11th 2008 4:23PM]

THE ONE BENEFIT of using Fission as a moon power source is that you can DUMP thee radioactive waste ANYWHERE and you never have to worry about "moon terrorists" getting to it to use as a dirty bomb on earth. That is...as long as Iran never develops a nuclear program that can launch an Iranian to the moon to retrieve it and make it back in one piece.

My question is, considering the huge, wide open spaces of the moon, would it not be more convienient to just place solar cells there and bury the cable? There are parts of the moon constantly exposed to sunlight. With no atmosphere, the light is almost never blocked by Earthlike weather systems. As there is NO WIND, you could put up flimsy cells and not have to worry since there is no wind to knock them over.

Humanity's future lies in inventing the technology neccessary to create FUSION power. The radioactive half-lives of waste material is significantly shorter than that of Fission...the reactor is far less prone to catastrophic disaster as a fission reactor and is considerably safer and the other benefit is that a fusion reactor cannot easily be tooled to build weapons grade nuclear material.

Don't say it can't be done. It can be done. But if your sucking down billions of gallons of oil a year so some Prince Amir can ride around in a Hummer or a Veyron... and his American counterparts are busy driving around in their $100,000 S-classes and going on vacations in the SWISS ALPS... IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

[Joseph @ Sep 11th 2008 4:33PM]

The Moon rotates on its axis at the same rate at which it revolves around the Earth. This is another way of saying that the same side of the Moon is always facing the Earth. There are not, however, parts of the moon constantly exposed to the Sun.

Cue Pink Floyd...

[josh @ Sep 11th 2008 4:34PM]

What about those little specs of what-have-you constantly hitting the moon at 10,000-odd MPH?

[sinjinn @ Sep 11th 2008 4:35PM]

we dont need more energy , we need less people.

[Hellaphunt @ Sep 11th 2008 4:35PM]

Haha, "moon terrorists." Don't be so sure there aren't any!
http://socialhoneycomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/mooninites_explosion.png

[Zeus.:God @ Sep 11th 2008 9:24PM]

Damn Joseph, stealin' all mah references.

[Benson @ Sep 13th 2008 4:50AM]

Totally, sinjin, we need less people on the moon.

It'll be better when we have, like, -7 people there instead of 0.

[Flashpoint @ Sep 11th 2008 4:24PM]

All your base, are belong to US.A

[Darth Lord @ Sep 11th 2008 4:34PM]

lol, you have to love japanese game makers..few people on this board totally understand your comment..clearly you and I have too much time on our hands

[Hellaphunt @ Sep 11th 2008 4:48PM]

GOHN - It's not that much of a mystery anymore. It's a phrase that has been so beaten up that nobody draws much on it's nostalgia anymore. The club has disbanded...

[sphetr2 @ Sep 11th 2008 4:54PM]

yep, no one else gets this 10 year old meme.

[Darth Lord @ Sep 11th 2008 4:58PM]

The next thing that you will tell me is that I should put on clothes and leave my parents basement. I think not..so it will be the year 2000 and my friend, alot of computer code cannot account for the Y2K bug. Proctect yourself, the world is about to end

[wildstar @ Sep 11th 2008 6:18PM]

@darth lord
Internet much?