- Joined
- Aug 22, 2018
- Messages
- 22,344
- Reaction score
- 19,541
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Like the cybor truck?
Like the cybor truck?Would probably go more smoothly, true.
Of course, it's not just NASA. Apparently, the whole world has failed to heed your advice. Imagine that.Not the MAGA variant of NASA. I'm a PhD physicist, MAGA NASA is Fox News BS headline NASA. They're not interested in science.
You got to get to lunar settlements first.Well, shoot. Italy didn't listen to @Ikari, either. He knows better!
Italy launches moon nuclear reactor project - Nuclear Engineering International
Italy’s national space agency (ASI Agenzia Spaziale Italiana) has initiated its Selene project, which aims to develop small nuclear fission…www.neimagazine.com Italy Begins Development of Nuclear Reactor for Lunar Settlements - European Spaceflight
Italy has kicked off its Selene initiative which aims to create small nuclear reactors for use on the surface of the Moon.europeanspaceflight.com
I disagree.You got to get to lunar settlements first.
Nuclear reactors COULD power bases on the moon and eventually might even be preferred to solar depending on the complexity and magnitude of what you have built. They UK, which you cited, isn't talking about building a nuclear reactor on the moon NOW (might help to read your sources). They're talking about developing small reactors on earth that could be used on the moon in the future. The timeline is a bit unrealistic, there's a lot that would need to be done first before nuclear power is necessary on the moon. Italy's effort is also to create possible alternatives to solar and other infrastructure possibilities which could be employed on the moon. They aren't talking about near future efforts.
And yes, if anyone is serious about building things on the moon, then energy production and infrastructure needs to be in that mix. But that's not a "now" problem. 15-20 years....maybe, depends on what advancements can be made and what we find on the moon and logistics of launches for materials and such.
But first step is reliable manned missions, with appropriate craft and proving out that technology. Then there would need to be surveys of the moon, fielding some longer missions, to scope out and see if we're going to start putting structures up, where to start the planning for that and developing what we'd need for initial growth. There's other things like assaying lunar resources, as the more that can be found on the moon the less we need to blast up from the well. It's possible there's frozen water on the moon, there are indications that there are. We'd need to determine if there are, how much there is, etc.
Then you'd have first stage growth, which would likely use solar and less permanent facilities to start building up what you'd need in order to start making habitats on the moon and working areas, etc. By the time you're looking at small nuclear reactors to power things, you're at minimum in second stage, likely later. So terrestrially we can look at developing smaller, reliable reactors that might be able to supply constant power on the moon. But you'd need a more permanent workforce on the moon and other developed resources and facilities before it becomes important.
RTGs would probably also be part of early development/buildup. But solar/batteries would be part of energy production early on.I disagree.
The first step is a stable source of power. It doesn't have to be a lot of power - tens of kilowatts I imagine - but it needs to be stable and immune to lunar night cycles. Solar won't cut it, the lunar night will kill the panels and electronics. A RTG solves both the stability and thermal problems which is why it's been our go-to power source for endurance space missions since the 1970s. Our access to RTGs is in fact why it's been NASA and only NASA exploring the outer planets. And, better yet, they last seemingly forever. The Voyager units are still going, half a century later!
So, it's actually a fairly reasonable step to first drop a RTG on the lunar surface. Then, you can begin building around it. THEN you can drop solar and battery for more power knowing that the RTG will keep them from dying when the sun goes down.
Again, disagree.RTGs would probably also be part of early development/buildup. But solar/batteries would be part of energy production early on.
But this whole idea that Trump is trying to throw up that we need to "hurry up and build a nuclear reactor on the moon" is BS. Other countries are already doing this research, first off, so we're not likely to catch up to that. They're looking at ways to make smaller reactors that can then be transported up to the moon and set up there. But I would imagine that you need to have a more permanent establishment for that, as I don't know if it's a good idea to just leave a nuclear reactor unattended. But then it would depend on design.
We're not going to "hurry up and build a nuclear reactor on the moon", that's not how science and engineering works. And Trump is gutting NASA's budget, to do this you need to fund science and engineering. Other countries are already doing this, have been doing this and been investing in it.
This headline is just a sensationalized headline grabber because the Epstein thing is still blowing up in Trump's face.
At least it's not climate boondoggleNASA's budget has been cut. We won't feed hungry kids anymore. And tons of Americans insurance has been cut.
But suddenly we have the money to build Gold Ballrooms and a nuclear plant on the moon faster.
Explain that shit.
We were leaders, but we're cutting all the things we would need to build any of this up. We should be driving this, yes, but MAGA has a vendetta against science and engineering.Again, disagree.
RTGs would be central to early development and build-up because without them, all those solar panels and batteries don't survive even the first lunar night cycle. We begin with RTGs. And research? By other countries? We are the leaders in this technology. We are the only ones who have space-proven RTGs. And we've had them for half a century. We should be the ones driving this. The worst thing that can happen is for China to be the first to have a stable kilowatt-class baseload on the lunar service, because then all investment and opportunity will target it.
I won't dismiss that this might be Trump looking for Epstein cover. That may well be the case. However that doesn't mean this is the wrong thing to invest in. I think it's the right thing to do, and we should have been doing it long ago.
Our grandkids and great grandkids will find out if it was a boondoggle or not.At least it's not climate boondoggle
It would power the Trump resort and casino.WTF would we do with a nuclear reactor on the moon?
Blow it up to make awesome explosions?WTF would we do with a nuclear reactor on the moon?
Power Trump's next pedophile laden vacation spot?WTF would we do with a nuclear reactor on the moon?
There’s a reason why NASa is failing. Idiots like these Fox News hosts have zero clue what they are doing.
The actual scientists hate themselves right now.
[Duffy] graduated from Saint Mary's University of Minnesota with a degree in marketing and worked for Scheer's Lumberjack Shows in the summers. By June 1997, The New York Times Magazine considered Duffy one of the top American lumberjacks at that time. He later graduated from the William Mitchell College of Law. Duffy's nephew is Erik Johnson, a defenseman for the Colorado Avalanche and the first overall pick in the 2006 NHL entry draft.
This guy is running NASA and the Dept. of Transportation. I've lived too long.
Would probably go more smoothly, true.
We would continue what we do here in the U.S. with nukes:WTF would we do with a nuclear reactor on the moon?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?