#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 ## |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |