A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moonbase Power



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 21st 06, 08:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 ##
  #2  
Old March 21st 06, 07:25 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Brad Guth ) wrote:
: SEN,
: For such a thoughtful and meaningful topic, I see that these Usenet
: rusemasters don't give a hoot about your thoughts or much less about
: the truth.

: It's clear as another cold-war 'chapel bell' transponder that our moon
: and especially of LL-1 are actually taboo/nondisclosure topics that
: can't allow anything in that's capable of rocking their NASA/Apollo
: good ship LOLLIPOP.

Yeah, that's right, we want to give Guth enough nuclear power to save
mankind. How long would it take for him to sell it after he realizes he is
clueless on how to use it? And who would he sell it too?

: I see nothing the least bit wrong with going nuclear, other than having
: to deal with the primary plus secondary IR situation making the likes
: of daytime heat-exchanging somewhat iffy, unless you're established at
: either pole where you'll have a fully shaded zone to work within, or
: having access to a hollow rille that'll get the heat transfer into
: spec. Obviously lunar nighttime and/or via earthshine should be nearly
: ideal for such a nuclear power plant. However, getting such tonnage
: safely onto the deck is still being R&D and frequently revised via
: infomercial-science and a good deal of their conditional laws of
: physics so that it doesn't make their NASA/Apollo fiasco/ruse look any
: worse off than it already is.

We'll be lucky to get an RTG for use with the next "super" rover going to
Mars.

: Obviously smaller commercial nuclear power units, other than plutonium
: battery cells, are of what's becoming a reliable standard. All that we
: need now are those viable fly-by-rocket landers that can manage
: whatever a C-130 can, except for getting that tonnage safely on the
: moon with lots of spare rocket fuel just in case their unmanned (aka
: robotic) down-range isn't managed quite as well as planned. (it
: wouldn't be such a good thing if it sank out of sight or merely
: impacted like all of our previous efforts)

Didn't the leak part of the battery in Antarctica bother you a little?

Eric


: What's the proposed deployed mass (including landing platform and/or
: protective packaging extras) of that semi-portable 4S/10MW unit?

: What's the best mass ratio of such tonnage per nuclear MW?
: -
: Brad Guth

  #3  
Old March 21st 06, 08:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Eric Chomko; Yeah, that's right, we want to give Guth enough nuclear power
to save mankind. How long would it take for him to sell it after he realizes
he is clueless on how to use it? And who would he sell it too?

What's to know about? I'd thought energy-in = energy-out X Eff. As
far as I know, there's not a soul on the moon to sell anything to, so
whom exactly are you talking about or the least bit concerned that I
might actually sell energy to those Islamic types or rather to the
Chinese that'll soon be creating the one and only LSE-CM/ISS ????

We'll be lucky to get an RTG for use with the next "super" rover going to
Mars.

I totally agree, though rather as to what a pathetic waste of otherwise
perfectly good plutonium that we could put directly into our newest and
improved WMD, and of getting those items as LEO nukes in space so that
you and your LLPOF warlord friends can exterminate the remainders of
all those nasty Muslims in the near future, and/or for accommodating
your other hidden adgenda of taking over Canada seems a whole lot more
doable.

Didn't the leak part of the battery in Antarctica bother you a little?

Not really because, even them Russian reactors of being similar in
compactness are going to be better off than anything we've created.
And besides, it's already so damn reactive and otherwise nasty on the
moon that it a perfectly good place to use our resident warlord's "so
what's the difference" policy, and just go for it.

Perhaps a nuclear reactor that's all inclusive of being worth 10t/MW
seems worthy for the initial moon base of nighttime/earthshine
operations, as suggested by the following advancement in "Small Nuclear
Power Reactors" (especially of those units using He or just good old
Hydrogen as their thermal energy transfer):
http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
-
Brad Guth

  #4  
Old March 21st 06, 08:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Eric Chomko; Yeah, that's right, we want to give Guth enough nuclear power
to save mankind. How long would it take for him to sell it after he realizes
he is clueless on how to use it? And who would he sell it too?

What's to know about? I'd thought energy-in = energy-out X Eff. As
far as I know, there's not a soul on the moon to sell anything to, so
whom exactly are you talking about or the least bit concerned that I
might actually sell energy to those Islamic types or more than likely
to the Chinese that'll soon be creating the one and only LSE-CM/ISS
????

The lunar export product of Chinese extracted He3 as intended for
powering our fossil fuel deficient and otherwise badly polluted Earth,
that's global warming us to death, seems as though a rather harmless
and otherwise damn clean alternative.

We'll be lucky to get an RTG for use with the next "super" rover going to
Mars.

I totally agree, though rather as to what a pathetic waste of otherwise
perfectly good plutonium that we could put directly into our newest and
improved WMD, and of getting those items as LEO nukes in space so that
you and your LLPOF warlord friends can exterminate the remainders of
all those nasty Muslims in the near future, and/or on behalf of
accommodating your other hidden adgenda of taking over Canada seems a
whole lot more doable.

Didn't the leak part of the battery in Antarctica bother you a little?

Not really because, even them Russian reactors of being similar in
compactness are going to be better off than anything we've created.
The likes of Germany almost always accomplishes better R&D results that
you can take to your offshore bank. And besides, it's already so damn
reactive and otherwise nasty on the moon, so much so that if anything
it's representing a perfectly good place to use our resident warlord's
"so what's the difference" policy, and just go for it.

Perhaps a nuclear reactor that's all inclusive of being worth 10t/MW
seems entirely worthy for the initial moon base of nighttime/earthshine
operations, as suggested by the following advancements in "Small
Nuclear Power Reactors" (especially of those units using He or just
good old Hydrogen as their thermal energy transfer that'll exceed 50%
efficiency, or via salt as representing nearly 60%):
http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
-
Brad Guth

  #5  
Old March 23rd 06, 07:52 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

"Jump!" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 ##


I believe your own comments on the leak on Antartica is what people is
afraid of. If you are at the Moon, there is going to be very difficult
to fix any leaks, and the question is not if, but when... You dont want
to contaminate the area close to your base to levels where it is
dangerous ... Arguably that area around the moon base might be the most
expensive real estate of the close solar system...


Buildings will be expensive, but land will be cheap. Buildings will be
shielded from cosmic rays, so they might not be seriously affected by an
outside radiation leak.

On the other hand, solar energy is not only free,


Sunlight may be free, but solar panels cost money.

and light, but also
inherently failsafe. Adequate orientation of the panels will lead a
constant 1300W/sq mt, which for a low efficiency of 11% would yield 140
W/sq mt, not matter if you are in the pole or equator.

The main problem with the equator is energy storage... fuel cells seem
to be an adequae answer there... You see, liquefaction might be quite
easy, since some layers of MLI between any radiator and the sun will
shield you to very low temps.


One option is to do less at night. Humans need to keep going, but outdoor
machines don't. It is inefficient to only run them half the time, but
batteries cost money.


  #6  
Old March 23rd 06, 04:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Land might be cheap, but, from the numbers we were running, you might
not get closer to 4kms of an unshielded reactor; and this would be the
result of a leak, an unshielded source of radioactivity.

A leak, that is not serviceable, at a non-failsafe nuclear device, will
result on a meltdown a-la Chernobyl. You would render useless anything
4kms around your site. Using cables, and having the reactor far away is
another option, yet, cables are heavy...

Solar panels, on the other hand, could be really light... Right now,
they are commercially produced on film as thin as 150micron, and since
there is no wind, they can stand up easy.

I agree with you, night activities can be slowed down; besides, humans,
living underground will not need to use that much energy; regolith is
an amazing isolator.

J!

  #7  
Old March 23rd 06, 10:33 PM
cfrjlr cfrjlr is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, Washington, , USA
Posts: 13
Send a message via AIM to cfrjlr Send a message via MSN to cfrjlr Send a message via Yahoo to cfrjlr Send a message via Skype™ to cfrjlr
Default

I have a feeling the best power to weight source of night-time power for moonbases would be rectennas, with SPS at L-1 beaming down power. Rectennas are extremely lightweight, only wire mesh and schottky diodes. The cost of soft landing mass on to Luna is very high, so weight is at a premium.

The distance from L-1 to Luna is ~50,000km, slightly greater than the ~45,000km from GEO to Terra, so should be doable.

Launching an SPS to L-1 from Terra is a lot cheaper than putting one in GEO. Also would be an excellent demo for terrestrial usage.
  #8  
Old March 23rd 06, 11:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Jump!,
If situated on the moon, your ass is grass unless you're speaking of
earthshine, and even then it's already more than a little damn testy if
not lethal. So what's your point?

Besides, if you still can't manage to get yourself and such technology
via fly-by-rocket safely onto that dark and nasty terrain in the first
place, along with everything it's going to take for surviving plus
eventually returning home, then what's the point of your even
suggesting of accomplishing much of anything that's related to robotics
or humans upon the lunar deck?

Nuclear energy upon the moon is by far the most reliable and by far the
safest alternative we've got, especially once taking everything into
account. I'm not suggesting the same nuclear alternative for Earth
because, that's just downright pathetic and otherwise stupid for more
good reasons than you'd care to hear about, although it's not nearly as
dumb and dumber than obtaining and burning off coal the way we do.

Fuel cells of h2o2/aluminum are certainly a good energy packing
alternative, although obviously the h2o2 portion needs to be imported
at creating an overall deployed fuel-cell cost of perhaps a million
dollars/kg, therefore a tonne worth of each operational fuel-cell is
only going to cost a mere billion, and you'll need several such units
unless your moon base of operations is primarily robotic.

H2O2/aluminum as a fuel cell is good for better than a kwh/kg, with I
believe a theoretical maximum capability of delivering 3.47 kwh/kg
(12.5 mj/kg). Therefore, we might expect to see 2 kw/kg as being the
most likely fuel cell accomplishment, that is unless your conditional
laws of physics get involved again.
-
Brad Guth

  #9  
Old March 24th 06, 02:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

cfrjlr wrote:

Launching an SPS to L-1 from Terra is a lot cheaper than putting one in
GEO. Also would be an excellent demo for terrestrial usage.


But it will be way more economical having it beam down power to
Earth not Moon. As in, people would actually pay for that ;-) If
you an launch such SPS-s economicly from Earth, the need for
a Moon base is way less. In fact, if you can economly launch
SPS-s from Earth you can just ship a lot of hydrocarbons to Moon.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
  #10  
Old March 24th 06, 03:46 AM posted to sci.space.policy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moonbase Power

Jump!; The problem is not getting there with the reactor.
Lets assume that is doable.

That's an extremely big assumption as based entirely upon loads of
infomercial-science and those conditional laws of physics, but OK.

The problem is that a reactor will fail, at some point; that is a fact,
2 years, or 15, but it will fail; then you have the contamination, and
not any mean to solve a chernobyl-like problem.

All forms of artificially produced energy fail at some point. Just
getting the reactor, fuel cells, PV panels, solar-stirling generator,
flywheels or whatever else safely onto that dark, extremely dusty and
terribly reactive lunar deck in the first place is a little worse off
than a crapshoot of happenstances, that which for any number of valid
reasons could terminate somewhat unfavorably.

Then, what do you do? move the whole base? all the effort of sending
and producing stuff in that location is wasted!

Don't be going naysay postal just yet. Just get rid of the damaged
component or toss the whole damn thing. You do realize how efficient
it is for getting tonnage that's of merely 1/6th G and of needing only
2.4 km/s on behalf of exporting most anything away from the moon?
Otherwise keeping yourself upwind or rather at least off to either side
of the solar wind should be more than sufficient. Besides, why would
that reactor even need to be within a several km? In other words, it
could be either sequestered deep within the nextdoor crater or just
situated over the next hill, thereby out of sight and for the most part
out of mind as far as most pasive radiation factors, that is unless
you're talking about a thermal nuclear explosion (aka dirty bomb) which
I don't believe is even remotely possible.

There's no such thing as contaminating our moon. For goodness sakes,
the solar winds that can reach 2400 km/s is going to fry and clean your
sorry clock every so often. The moon itself is thought to being at
least twice as radioactive as Earth to start with, and it terribly
naked and thus absolutely chuck full of sharing secondary/recoil dosage
of TBI forms of hard-X-rays by day, and otherwise you're still getting
rather nicely nailed by cosmic rays by night, plus receiving whatever
gauntlet of a solar wind contributed blanket of somewhat nasty flak
that wraps itself around that salty orb. Even an outer portion of our
Van Allen expanse of death reaches that far each and every month
(within +/- a few days at a time).

I'll agree that a robust solar-stirling unit that's capable of being
nearly 50% efficient plus PV derived energy that could become as great
as 25% efficient are viable solutions for the daytime, and possibly by
way of extremely large capacity flywheels (counter-rotating if need be)
are certainly worth considering for the surplus of energy storage since
most of the required mass and of the composite materials for creating
such flywheels is already there to begin with.

I believe your costs are little on the high side on fuel-cells.

I simply don't use your Arthur Andersen accounting. I use the real
world of birth to grave which obviously has to include the task of
first creating and then getting such custom (aka one of a kind) units
deployed, established into usage and serviced for the life of each fuel
cell. BTW; fuel cells are not exactly without faults.

I remember something like 0.6 kwh/kg as state of the art
for fuel cells.

Think h2o2/aluminum and you'll soon realize what's doable as of today,
as well as to appreciating what's reasonable to expect of this
potential source of energy storage. H2O2 is actually a very nifty
product that can be utilized as is for all sorts of things, and with
solar energy in surplus it can be remade (somewhat like getting
recharged), if need be all the way from scratch as an especially pure
and reasonably safe product within such a near vacuum as our moon
supposedly represents (terraforming could easily change that
situation).

Shielding was additional 2MT per each 40 degrees (you would use 3
cover 120 degrees, and place the reactor on a corner of your base)

Whatever shielding is a lunar freebie. At 3.1+t/m3, how many
megatonnes or even gigatonnes between yourself and the reactor would
you like?

A solar alternative is inherently safe, if you get problems with a
section, you go there, and fix it. If it is not fixable, you bypass
that cell, and use the remaining thousands.

You have to get all of those solar PVs and even the better alternative
of the more robust solar-stirling alternatives there and established
(not exactly a simple task, especially since those sorts of
fly-by-rocket landers have yet to be invented and much less proven).
Since each of these methods are based upon absorbed and/or reflected
solar energy that's concentrated upon given surfaces, the physical
influx of sand and larger than sand debris that's arriving from nearly
all directions, that's clocking in or passing through at 30+km/s is at
times going to get somewhat testy, if not downright terminal unless
your PVs and/or stirling components are extremely robust. BTW: solar,
cosmic and of the unavoidably secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays and
of a few other radiation spectrums (not to mention the combined IR
treatments and/or being seriously subfrozen) are going to be taking a
toll upon your PVs by as great as 25%/year. In fact, one terribly
nasty solar flare sequence that's offering winds anywhere above 1200
km/s is going to terminate all but the most robust(rad-hard) worth of
robotics, of whatever's DNA simply isn't going to stand a chance, and
of whatever's of 2400 km/s is merly 4 times worse off.

Thus PVs are going to be doable but, they'd best be extremely robust
(meaning covered by an extremely extra-thick layer of pyrex or pure
silica with a band-pass layer that'll minimize the aging process) and
for certain to include an automated form of duck and cover, as well as
a robotic form of a dust removal, with some of their energy applied for
a anti-static charge that'll help to keep the bulk of the less than mm,
micron and submicron bits of iron, titanium and various carbon/soot
coated salts from clinging to most all surfaces. At least technically
that's all doable, though I'd rather have the highly reliable 24/7/365
benefits of a buried reactor nearby.

Small Nuclear Power Reactors: http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
-
Brad Guth

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Funny story about shuttle [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 December 20th 04 04:49 AM
Funny story about seti [email protected] SETI 4 December 20th 04 04:46 AM
Funny story about policy [email protected] Policy 0 December 20th 04 04:31 AM
Orion SVP (CG5 etc) Power Question + Genereal Portable Power Questions Craig Levine Amateur Astronomy 3 January 2nd 04 01:16 AM
How many SPSes for $ 87 billion ? Charles F. Radley Policy 281 December 17th 03 01:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.