#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 ## |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Funny story about shuttle | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 20th 04 03:49 AM |
Funny story about seti | [email protected] | SETI | 4 | December 20th 04 03:46 AM |
Funny story about policy | [email protected] | Policy | 0 | December 20th 04 03:31 AM |
Orion SVP (CG5 etc) Power Question + Genereal Portable Power Questions | Craig Levine | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | January 2nd 04 12:16 AM |
How many SPSes for $ 87 billion ? | Charles F. Radley | Policy | 281 | December 17th 03 12:07 AM |