Nuclear reactor for Moon base?

It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of salt:
http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of salt:
http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

Try a salt block.

Nuclear power could make a comeback in space, but the funds are definitely
lacking. I'd guess small terrestrial nuclear reactors may become more
common before they're sent to the moon.

Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.

On Nov 26, 5:23 am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message

dakotatelephone...

It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of salt:
http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

Try a salt block.

Nuclear power could make a comeback in space, but the funds are definitely
lacking. I'd guess small terrestrial nuclear reactors may become more
common before they're sent to the moon.

Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.

This topic is a bogus joke, just like Pat Flannery is a joke. Get it?

~ BG

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of
salt: http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

Try a salt block.

Nuclear power could make a comeback in space, but the funds are
definitely lacking. I'd guess small terrestrial nuclear reactors may
become more common before they're sent to the moon.

Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.

I look for small nuclear power plants to come into
development because you can't live off-Terra without
power to run your life-support and industrial bases,
and your lifespace. Over the long run, I can see
solar or geothermal power as resources, but the
starting-settlement case is special and especially
difficult. The need is reality-based engineering,
not any form of green or idealism: thus the planning
vector points overwhelmingly to little nukes. If
none of those then no settlements, an intolerable risk
over the long run for our children and our future.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Nov 26]

On Nov 26, 9:27 am, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...
It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of
salt:http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

Try a salt block.

Nuclear power could make a comeback in space, but the funds are
definitely lacking. I'd guess small terrestrial nuclear reactors may
become more common before they're sent to the moon.

Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.

I look for small nuclear power plants to come into
development because you can't live off-Terra without
power to run your life-support and industrial bases,
and your lifespace. Over the long run, I can see
solar or geothermal power as resources, but the
starting-settlement case is special and especially
difficult. The need is reality-based engineering,
not any form of green or idealism: thus the planning
vector points overwhelmingly to little nukes. If
none of those then no settlements, an intolerable risk
over the long run for our children and our future.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Nov 26]

Nothing wrong with terrestrial thorium reactors, and off-world most
anything goes.

Too bad we're not smart enough to figure out He3/fusion.

How many tonnes of terrestrial He3 have been wasted (tossed out the
window, so to speak) so far?

~ BG

On 26 Nov, 17:27, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...
It's from Popular Science, so take what they say with a grain of
salt:http://www.popsci.com/node/29544

Try a salt block.

Nuclear power could make a comeback in space, but the funds are
definitely lacking. *I'd guess small terrestrial nuclear reactors may
become more common before they're sent to the moon.

Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.

I look for small nuclear power plants to come into
development because you can't live off-Terra without
power to run your life-support and industrial bases,
and your lifespace. *Over the long run, I can see
solar or geothermal power as resources, but the
starting-settlement case is special and especially
difficult. *The need is reality-based engineering,
not any form of green or idealism: thus the planning
vector points overwhelmingly to little nukes. *If
none of those then no settlements, an intolerable risk
over the long run for our children and our future.

Titeotwawki -- mha *[sci.space.policy 2008 Nov 26]

The normal rubric for space probes, and this is based on sheer
economics, not greenery, is that solar power should be used up to the
orbit of Mars but that nuclear/isotope generator systems should be
used for the outer planets. This is not really set to change. A
nuclear reactor will work 24/7 wheras solar power has to be stored.

Photovoltic panels are undergoing a revolution in terms of both cost
and weight/Kg. If you do decide to go the the N Pole of the Moon you
will get 24/7 sunlight with no need for either nuclear power or
storage.

There is one point where, if you like, greeness does come into it, and
that is SSP. If you are going to use your Moon base/installation or
whatever you call it as a technology developer, you want to have
things there that are relevant to SSP.

One question that tends not to get raised. We have discussed low cost
to LEO and how to power your base. Nobody has discussed LEO - GEO, the
Moon etc. This is what the Nerva rocket was designed to do.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:There is one point where, if you like, greeness does come into it, and
:that is SSP. If you are going to use your Moon base/installation or
:whatever you call it as a technology developer, you want to have
:things there that are relevant to SSP.
:

Why? All that work can be done right here on Earth.

Where coming off the Moon comes in is in the fabrication of components
for the thing, because it's cheaper to get stuff off the Moon than it
is to get it off the Earth.

Resource development for use in space is what needs to be going on.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:07:25 -0800 (PST), Ian Parker
wrote:

The normal rubric for space probes, and this is based on sheer
economics, not greenery, is that solar power should be used up to the
orbit of Mars but that nuclear/isotope generator systems should be
used for the outer planets.

...And yet we have Juno launching in 2011 that will have massive solar
panels and do tight orbits around Jupiter.

OM


--

]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Juno will indeed go to Jupiter with solar power. but not in a "tight" orbit.
According to http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimed...cfm?IM_ID=6923
the Juno spacecraft uses three, ~2 m x 9 m solar panels that will remain in
sunlight continuously from launch through end of mission, except for a
10-minute period during the earth flyby. And according to
http://www.speedylook.com/Juno_(space_probe).html the Juno probes primary
mission will end in 2017 after 32 11-day orbits.

John

John M. Darnielle wrote:

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:07:25 -0800 (PST), Ian Parker
wrote:

The normal rubric for space probes, and this is based on sheer
economics, not greenery, is that solar power should be used up to the
orbit of Mars but that nuclear/isotope generator systems should be
used for the outer planets.

...And yet we have Juno launching in 2011 that will have massive solar
panels and do tight orbits around Jupiter.

Juno will indeed go to Jupiter with solar power. but not in a "tight"
orbit. According to
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimed...cfm?IM_ID=6923 the Juno
spacecraft uses three, ~2 m x 9 m solar panels that will remain in
sunlight continuously from launch through end of mission, except for a
10-minute period during the earth flyby. And according to
http://www.speedylook.com/Juno_(space_probe).html the Juno probes
primary mission will end in 2017 after 32 11-day orbits.

I think the general idea with Juno is to demonstrate by example, that a
solar powered full fledged mission to the Jupiter system is possible
with solar power alone (not sure about static heaters on it, though),
thus saving a ton of bucks and obviating a whole slew of political and
environmental objections, thus making routine missions to Jupiter and
its moons financially acceptable. We really got screwed with Galileo,
and Cassini-Huygens has been a great success, with several fundamental
discoveries, so routine periodic flights can really work for us here.

If we can do the vetting at Jupiter, that opens up the asteroid belt,
and paves the way for nuclear powered orbiters to Uranus and Neptune.

As I recall they did a whole lot of studying before settling on Juno.

That's what you all want, right? Planets and stuff?

These missions make it on the imagery alone.

2015 is gonna be great in that respect.

John

On 27 Nov, 15:52, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:
:There is one point where, if you like, greeness does come into it, and
:that is SSP. If you are going to use your Moon base/installation or
:whatever you call it as a technology developer, you want to have
:things there that are relevant to SSP.
:

Why? All that work can be done right here on Earth.

What are you arguing for? Are you arguing for terrestrial solar power,
or for SSP in orbit roung Earth without any prior testing? I tend in
fact to feel that terrestrial SP is the answer but also that we should
keep our minds open. SSP will depend on phased arrays. If you MUST
have a base on the Moon, the safety and effectiveness of phased arrays
could be tested out on the Moon.

On earth there is also geothermal. Yellowstone could supply all the
power in its area and also have a bit left over for hydrogen
production.

The Moon and Mars are dead geologically so there is little prospect of
power from that source.

Where coming off the Moon comes in is in the fabrication of components
for the thing, because it's cheaper to get stuff off the Moon than it
is to get it off the Earth.

Resource development for use in space is what needs to be going on.


Indeed yes, asteroids though rather than the Moon.
--


- Ian Parker