• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Duffy to announce nuclear reactor on the moon

Airyaman

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
45,480
Reaction score
58,081
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure what the former MTV reality star thinks he'll be powering with this nuclear reactor, but it's obvious he's got his eye on what matters to the US voter.


Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week
to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox
News host as the interim NASA administrator.

NASA has discussed building a reactor on the lunar surface, but this would set a
more definitive timeline — according to documents obtained by POLITICO — and
come just as the agency faces a massive budget cut. The move also underscores
how Duffy, who faced pushback from lawmakers about handling two jobs, wants
to play a role in NASA policymaking.


“It is about winning the second space race,” said a NASA senior official, granted
anonymity to discuss the documents ahead of their wider release.
Click to expand...

Now all NASA has to do is, you know, actually get back to the moon.

Baby steps, Duffy, baby steps...
 
"Ambitious... but rubbish"
 
Yeah to power all the uh...stuff....we have..up there. Take that china!


Leave it to these asswipes to suggest huge investment in space racing and to pick the dumbest possible target
 
Airyaman said:
Not sure what the former MTV reality star thinks he'll be powering with this nuclear reactor, but it's obvious he's got his eye on what matters to the US voter.
Click to expand...
The Moon. No clouds. Sounds like a perfect place for solar power.

Right?
 
jpn said:
The Moon. No clouds. Sounds like a perfect place for solar power.

Right?
Click to expand...
It's a shame there is no wind on the moon, would love to see some windmills.

;)
 
Nuclear power in space is something we will have to develop eventually, because solar power stops being effective in deep space (say just slightly past the orbit of Mars or so), and nuclear engines on spacecraft are massively more efficient than chemical engines, but it’s wildly unnecessary for the Moon, unless we’re talking about powering a whole city.
 
Questerr said:
And there’s no atmosphere on the Moon, so solar power is even more efficient.
Click to expand...
But produce lower output, don't operate at night, and couldn't be placed where we really need the power. Nuclear is far more sensible.
 
Taylor said:
But produce lower output, don't operate at night, and couldn't be placed where we really need the power. Nuclear is far more sensible.
Click to expand...

Where can solar panels not be placed on the Moon?

They would have higher energy output than solar panels on Earth and as for night time, ever heard of batteries?
 
Airyaman said:
It's a shame there is no wind on the moon, would love to see some windmills.

;)
Click to expand...
Windmills on the moon would give the birds cancer.
 
Questerr said:
Where can solar panels not be placed on the Moon?
Click to expand...
You can place them anywhere, of course, but they won't generate power when it's dark. The power is needed at the South Pole which is an environment not best suited for solar.

Questerr said:
They would have higher energy output than solar panels on Earth and as for night time, ever heard of batteries?
Click to expand...
How many batteries are you going to need? Why not just use nuclear?
 
Questerr said:
We can’t even return astronauts to the moon yet. Any kind of base is decades away.
Click to expand...
We choose to go to the moon not because it's easy, but because it's hard.
 
Taylor said:
You can place them anywhere, of course, but they won't generate power when it's dark. The power is needed at the South Pole which is an environment not best suited for solar.


How many batteries are you going to need? Why not just use nuclear?
Click to expand...

Why would we put out first moon base at the South Pole of the Moon?

Batteries are scalable. You use as many as you need with some extra redundancy.

Nuclear reactors aren’t. It’s going to be many tons of steel regardless of the energy needs.

Unless we are putting a city on the Moon, and that isn’t happening before the century is over, we don’t need nuclear power.
 
Taylor said:
We choose to go to the moon not because it's easy, but because it's hard.
Click to expand...

You realize the gulf between putting two guys in a lander with internal space smaller than a Toyota Camry and putting a base large enough to require a nuclear reactor on the Moon is massive, yes?
 
Questerr said:
Why would we put out first moon base at the South Pole of the Moon?
Click to expand...
There's lots of water there, which is critical for survival, fuel production, and eventually industry. It also has spots that would be good for solar power, but that's less reliable and therefore a secondary aim.

Questerr said:
Batteries are scalable. You use as many as you need with some extra redundancy.
Click to expand...
They're also very heavy. How many would you need to replace the power availability and reliability of a nuclear reactor?

Questerr said:
Nuclear reactors aren’t. It’s going to be many tons of steel regardless of the energy needs.

Unless we are putting a city on the Moon, and that isn’t happening before the century is over, we don’t need nuclear power.
Click to expand...
It's going to be a very small reactor, 10kW. Probably half the payload size of a comparable solar/battery system. More reliable. Works all the time. No brainer.
 
Questerr said:
You realize the gulf between putting two guys in a lander with internal space smaller than a Toyota Camry and putting a base large enough to require a nuclear reactor on the Moon is massive, yes?
Click to expand...
Glad you weren't on the design team for our nuclear subs. 😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom