Moonbase Power

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 ##

The United States had several nuclear generator and nuclear reactor and
nuclear rocket programs.

SNAP-2 has already provided power on the moon, and plainly these can be
ganged together to provide sufficient power for a moonbase.

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pubs/npspace.pdf#search='nuclear%20power%20moon%20.pdf'
http://nuclear.gov/space/space-desc.html

Rockets can be powered by nuclear sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3285

and these can be adapted to power generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator#Research

The F1 was used with a MHD generator setup - this is just a photo of
the F1 - a great engine! lol

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.go...S/f1engine.gif

And research continues

http://www.spaceagepub.com/pdfs/Powell_1.pdf#search='nuclear%20moon%20power'
http://www.utsi.edu/News/release12-0...enerators.html

Clearly a combined program of nuclear propulsion, nuclear electric
generation and nuclear electric propulsion would pay huge dividends in
the serious exploration of space. In a nuclear thermal rocket engine
the nuclear heat source heats a propellant that is expelled to produce
thrust. This medium could be recycled in a MHD generator through a
radiator. The nozzle of the rocket engine could be adapted to feed
into a turbine to generate power. A less conventional approach is to
use the medium directly in a MHD dynamo where it again is recycled
through a radiator. Light weight efficient nuclear power sources in
the megawatt range could make ion and other electric rocket
technologies practical - and provide significant capabilities going
forward.

The DOE has developed the NERVA engine and its smaller cousin the NEBA
engine. The first is a 75,000 lb thrust engine that achieves 850 sec
Isp using hydrogen as a propellant. The second is a 750 lb thrust
engine that achieve 850 sec Isp and simultaneously produces 10 kW of
electrical power- whether or not its thrusting.

The power in the jet is given by;

P = F * Isp * 4.91

Where P = power in watts
F = Force in Newtons
Isp=speific impulse in seconds

So, F(NERVA) = 75,000 lbs = 34,000 kg = 333.8 kN
Isp(NERVA) = 850 sec
P(NERVA) = 1.4 GW

This is the power of the jet, the efficiency of getting heat energy
into the jet and getting the jet moving is around 0.85 so divide by
this to obtain the total thermal power of the reactor at full thrust

1.4 GW / 0.85 = 1.64 GW

And converted to a nuclear power station this system would mass about
its weight - 60,000 lbs - but at 40% efficiency, it would generate over
half a GIgawatt of power - enough to power a small city - or a sizeable
ion engine! .

The NEBA reactor is about 1/100th the power rating of the larger
system. Equipped with a 10kW closed cycle generator which absorbs only
1% of its total thermal power. This system could easily be expanded to
the 1 MW range. Its wieght doesn't scale directly, but still, a system
massing 1,200 lbs and generating 10 MW is possible. Again, this could
power quite a sizeable ion engine for deep space exploration.

The NEBA is in quite advanced stages of production. They can be built
for around $85 million each. Unlike RTGs they can be launched
quiescent, and turned on once on orbit. They can be used as a reusable
kick stage to increase the high orbit lifting capacity of existing
launchers. So, instead of a conventional kick stage and satellite
combo, a launcher would put up a propellant tank and satellite combo.
The NEBA nuclear rocket would dock with this payload, boost it to the
final orbit, release it, and return to its parking orbit. In this way,
the size or number of satellites attaining high orbit could be more
than doubled. The NEBA based tug after hundreds of flights could be
retired by carrying out a deep space mission using its improved thrust
and nuclear power.

The NEBA based system could be adapted to power generation needs and
placed in GEO along with a deployable space frame structure.
Attachment points would permit docking of sub-satellites to the space
frame structure. This system would be placed on orbit and taken to GEO
by the NEBA based tug. It would then be powered up and capable of
supporting dozens to hundreds of subsatellites. The NEBA based tug
would then carry dozens to hundreds of satellites to the structure
where they would be installed. The sub satellites wouldn't need
guidance, attitude control, power systems, command and control systems,
and so forth. They would just have their sensing, high gain
communication, navsignal, whatever else the owner wanted to achieve
with the sub-sat. This reduces weight, and complexity and cost. The
owner pays a part of their revenue for the power, and other services on
oribt. In this way more satellites can provide more services with less
interference with one another than today.

The 10 MW space power system developed for this commercial application
- and placed in several GEO, MEO, and SSP orbits - to support an
expanded space services sector on Earth - could be used directly in a
lunar or mars base,or a large space station or space hotel and for
really capable nuclear electric tugs that dispatch really large
payloads around the solar system - while providing power for them.

$10 billion spent on this sort of program - of expanded robotic
exploration - including a robotic nuclear sub for explorations of the
oceans of the icy moons like Enceladus - would usher us into a new age
of planetary exploration, give us the fundamental capabilities we need
to support this cheaply, and do far more than $100 billion spent on
using LOX/LH rockets to carry out a mars expedition or a return to the
moon using Apollo era lifting capacity.


Yes, a Shuttle derived FULLY REUSABLE cargo craft using a ballistic
rather than a winged re-entry vehicle - no cross range - I envision a
VTOVL sort of vehicle. That uses a SSME or perhaps 2 in the first
stage and four RL10 engines in the upper stage - TSTO-RLV - with very
small braking rockets in each stage to bring it to a soft landing - and
then the parts are returned - this would support the expanded space
services sector described above and work well with the systems
previously described.

Hundreds of highly energetic robotic probes would be operating
simultaneously throughout the solar system. A wireless spacenetwork
would be accessible through the internet and folks could explore from
their homes or workplace, the planets of the solar system on a nearly
live basis. The 10 ton payload capacity of the TSTO-RLV described
above could be adapted to take a dozen passengers into LEO, and a
nuclear powered inflatable space station would be the first space hotel
- http://www.thespacereview.com/article/187/1

The $10 billion in startup money could be provided by the government
and the nuclear power industry, to promote a positive vision of nuclear
power.

Money earned from delivery of services to Earth from space, including
the next step in space tourism, would pay for these developments.

The $100 billion that NASA once said it would cost to return to the
moon, could be carried out in phases using a nuclear component,
building on this success of the five year program just described.
Another $20 billion spent over another five years would create a larger
shuttle derived vehicle and re-create the NERVA class systems with
modern materials and control technologies. The balance would be used
in subsequent years to dispatch payloads across the solar system, both
manned and unmanned to create permanent settlements on the Moon and
Mars, and outposts on the more interesting locales in the solar system,
and increase the number of highly energetic, and increasingly
sophisticated, robotic probes into the high hundreds to low thousands!
Expanding the size, sophistication, and novelty of the growing network
of interplanetary reports.

A LARGE Shuttle derives FULLY REUSABLE manned carft using as many as 7
ET ganged together propelled by 7 SSME each - 49 total - at launch,
with cross-feed arrangement - to operate as a three stage craft, 4 ET,
2 ET, 1 ET - to put 550 metric tons into orbit - with a Nuclear thermal
orbital stages propelled by 4 NERVA engines 300,000 lb thrust total -
at 850 sec Isp - carrying a 1,000,000 pound LUNAR SHUTTLE (think of the
spherical craft displayed in the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey).

Later a dual nuclear electric orbiting stage, putting out 1 GW of
electricity - and running a powerful 10,000 lb thrust ion engine at
5,000 sec Isp - for efficient deep space maneuvering - carrying 300
tons of useful payload to the moon or mars. A lunar based NERVA
engined craft would then be used to deorbit and orbit payloads arriving
my nuclear electric rocket from Earth - at each location.

Small outposts on Mars and the Moon would be powered by the 10 MW space
reactor, and the larger settlements would be powered by the 1,000 MW
space reactor.

Payloads themselves would operate as sheilding and with a 300 ton total
capacity - 60 tons of people and support gear would be carried with
each trip - and 240 tons of cargo- doubling as radiation sheilding -
would be placed around the piloted portions of the spacecraft. .

William Mook


wrote:
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 ##