Recently we had a short discussion about how to power the Moonbase. The
suggestions by NASA (solar-electric and LOX/LH2 nighttime storage) was
considered somewhat strange. Specialy a suitable liquifier seemed beyond
present technology. I wondered why NASA not suggested a more conservativ
approach on such a crucial element of a Moon Exploration plan. I
remmembered at least on nuclear reactor concept already in use 40 years
ago. I found something about it on the net:

The PM-3A was a small nuclear reactor that powered the United
States's research base at McMurdo sound in Antarctica. It operated
from 1962 till 1972, when a leak was found and the plant was
decommissioned.

It was the third in the line of portable, medium output reactors.
The plant had a net output of 1250 Kw and was designed to be to fit
in a C-130 (Hercules) aircraft, but was transported to McMurdo by
boat. On top of producing electricity, it also ran a water
distillation plant with otherwise wasted heat.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=1

What fits in a C-130 for Antarctica should fit in any "Apollo on steroids"
for moon launch too. Maybe the technology is from too long ago to get it
up again. But there are similar systems in development elesewhere now:

The Super-Safe, Small & Simple - 4S 'nuclear battery' system is being
developed by Toshiba and CRIEPI in Japan in collaboration with STAR
work in USA. It uses sodium as coolant (with electromagnetic pumps)
and has passive safety features, notably negative temperature and
void reactivity. The whole unit would be factory-built, transported
to site, installed below ground level, and would drive a steam cycle.
It is capable of three decades of continuous operation without
refuelling. Metallic fuel (169 pins 10 mm diameter) is uranium-zirconium
or U-Pu-Zr alloy enriched to less than 20%. Steady power output over
the core lifetime is achieved by progressively moving upwards an
annular reflector around the slender core (0.68m diameter, 2m high).

After 14 years a neutron absorber at the centre of the core is removed
and the reflector repeats its slow movement up the core for 16 more
years. In the event of power loss the reflector falls to the bottom
of the reactor vessel, slowing the reaction, and external air
circulation gives decay heat removal.

Both 10 MWe and 50 MWe versions of 4S are designed to automatically
maintain an outlet coolant temperature of 510?C - suitable for power
generation with high temperature electrolytic hydrogen production.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm


I always thought about the final letter of John Young as he left NASA.
He considered the availability of a few such reactors as maybe crucial
for the survival of mankind. From that perspective Congress could
request the development from another institution (DoD, AEC) and NASA
had only to use it. Otherwise, if NASA realy has to develop it, I
fear for the budget. We could loose some remaining real space
exploration projects (what are allways unmanned) too.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##