VisceraCleaner

U.S. Eyes Building Nuclear Power Plants on the Moon, Mars

Recommended Posts

There's so much money being passed around with little oversight in the "You're fired" administration, that there's all kinds of shysters pitching all kinds of stuff to get some of that money.  Kinda like how Sexual Harassment shot up after Chief "justice" Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh got confirmed.

There's a fusion reactor, right there.  It's over half the mass of the Solar System, and the rest literally revolves around it.  So, rather than take advantage of literally half a month of uninterrupted sunlight, I know, let's ship ultra-heavy fissiles to the moon, and set up reactors there to transport electricity back here (Somehow) instead of using Solar Energy.  What could possibly go wrong?

challenger-explosion.jpg

I'm sure nothing like that will ever happen again, with a nuclear reactor on board, right guys?

This is what happens when a career real estate embezzler gets nuclear launch codes, and the keys to Fort Knox, then appoints all his Henchmen to run the country.

They can get away with anything.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politics of Government funding aside.  Look at those reactors.  You see the alluminum cooling vanes they have set up to dissipate heat, and also shade the reactor from the light that makes the surface a balmy 260 degrees (127 Centigrade) for the fortnight long day?

Yeah, they could just set up solar arrays, leave the reactors at home, and then figure out how they're going to get the energy back to Earth.  Also, I'd like to see some proposal for that, before I vote for such a pie in the sky.  They could set up 3 solar farms, and at least 1 of them would be producing full time unless there's a brief Lunar Eclipse.  

Edited by psiberzerker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar panels?! Pffhahaha go away hippies: Imagine the ammounts of electricity needed for mining/ processing all that aluminium.... Go figure why ameriScum can't even spell aluminium :lol:  
#nuketheshizouttamars 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mad_Lancer said:

Go figure why ameriScum can't even spell aluminium.

Huh.  Too bad we're the only ones that have actually walked on the moon.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one don't believe half the xxxx explanations for why energy isn't free, or why certain technologies aren't possible or feasible. Some russian dude on youtube, Alexei Chekurkov, built a flying saucer that doesn't hover through manipulating air by control surfaces and hot gas. Nuclear power plants on the moon and on mars sounds like a sham worthy of sacking the idiot that came up with such an idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AFluffyBadger said:

I for one don't believe half the xxxx explanations for why energy isn't free.

It's long.  History, economics, and thermodynamics.  The short answer is that people don't understand what Energy means.  You mean Electricity?  Okay, I ran a micro-hydro turbine off the Water Main, and powered a trailer off the city (Of Bell Meade) pumps/water tower, until they found out.

Yeah, you're not supposed to do that.  We're surrounded by energy, but it's not "Free" in that sense.  You have to know how to turn it into Electricity.  The long answer is how, and how long (Since we switched from Whale Oil) the Power Companies have been selling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain it to you guys; Life support and vehicles draws a lot of power even with new advanced cell technology ... Then there is the problem of sun: Day-night circle and the angle of the light  causing solar panels to be insufficient and batteries weights a lot for what amount of power they are storing... Dust storms etc(which damages and covers solar panels)... So they need a power source that is as light as it can be mean while having a high and stable output .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, berkayxj8 said:

 Life support and vehicles draws a lot of power even with new advanced cell technology

True, the Life Support Systems are also a significant Mass Fraction, because you basically have to build a house on top of a Rocket.

Quote

Then there is the problem of sun: Day-night circle and the angle of the light

Not really as much of a problem on the moon, where the "Day/Night cycle" is a month.  So, for example, on Earth, a Solar Array has to turn 180° in 12 hours.  On the moon, a solar array has to turn 180° in 2 weeks.

Quote

batteries weights a lot for what amount of power they are storing.

Compared to Life Support Systems?  Keep in mind that the same craft that you said would require a lot of power would be using Batteries to store the energy.  So would every craft in space.  So, that's a problem for the engineers, but putting Reactors on the surface of the moon is not going to solve that problem.  More efficient energy storage would.

17 minutes ago, berkayxj8 said:

Dust storms etc(which damages and covers solar panels)...

Don't happen on the moon, because there's no atmosphere, and therefore, no weather as we think of it.  Solar Storms are a problem, though.

Quote

So they need a power source that is as light as it can be mean while having a high and stable output.

You just described Photovoltaics.  Just the isotopes for a fission reactor are heavier than lead.  As a matter of fact, you can describe reactor grade isotopes by how much denser than lead they are, because as they radiate, they decay.  To lead.  

Edited by psiberzerker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, psiberzerker said:

You just described Photovoltaics.  Just the isotopes for a fission reactor are heavier than lead.  As a matter of fact, you can describe reactor grade isotopes by how much denser than lead they are, because as they radiate, they decay.  To lead.  

Energy density and  life expectancy is longer ... And i am not talking about only for moon  we need to think of logistics and go for a general solution... Nuclear systems can generate both electricity and the heat needed for... We have used them in satellites , moon landing , scout vehicles and they have proven to be way to go... The real threat is you need a suitable environment to use fission reactors ; using it in space np , using it on the moon np , but if the temperature is reaching hundreds in that planet  fission reactors are a timed bomb and  atomic batteries are too heavy and low output sources as you say...BTW Most RTGs use 238Pu, which decays with a half-life of 87.7 years. RTGs using this material will therefore diminish in power output by a factor of 1–0.51/87.74, or 0.787%, per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, berkayxj8 said:

I am not talking about only for moon  we need to think of logistics and go for a general solution...

I was talking about the Moon.  There is no "General solution" for anything that requires energy, because things move.  The Earth moves, as you pointed out when you said that Photovoltaics wouldn't work, because the angle of the sun changes.  The moon moves, but at 1:30th (Roughly) the rate of the surface of the Earth, relative to the Sun.  Space-ships have to move mass, and the more something weighs, the more something Costs to go to the Moon.  

Quote

Nuclear systems can generate both electricity and the heat needed for...

We don't have to generate Heat in space.  For one thing, there's the Sun, which does a pretty good job for that, but also, we generate heat, air circulations systems, wiring, and pretty much every device on the ship generates heat.  In fact, we had to install radiators into the cargo bay doors of the STS to dissipate the waste heat into space, so that everything on the Shuttle, including the crew didn't overheat.

Quote

We have used them in satellites , moon landing , scout vehicles and they have proven to be way to go...

Photovoltaics, or Batteries?  Because they didn;t have nuclear reactors anywhere on the Apollo missions.  Any of the Apollo missions.  They had phtovoltaics, and batteries.

Quote

The real threat is you need a suitable environment to use fission reactors.

The real threat is that fission reactors are radioactive, and if you don't manage the heat, they tend to explode.  As far as the weight is concerned, the shielding to keep it from frying instruments, blinding sensors, and making the crew sick is heavier than the reactor itself.  

Also, radiation is free, in space.  There's no Van Allen Belts, so everything also has to be shielded against the background radiation of the universe, and the sun.  

Edited by psiberzerker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.