- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
That sounds really hard to pronounce. Do you think he is up to it?
Would be so easy with solar panels.
100kW ≈ 400m² panels for less than $100k. No clouds, no atmosphere.
No exploding uranium rockets.
This might have something to do with it:
The first country to have a reactor could “declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States,” the directive states, a sign of the agency’s concern about a joint project China and Russia have launched.
Unexpectedly, it doesn’t seem like this is a primarily technical decision.
The previous 40kW proposal linked in the article mentions it would allow operation where solar panels aren’t feasible, like permanently shadowed areas where water might be. There’s also the dust problem to solve with solar panels, although this would also be a problem for nuclear reactors since their radiators could become less efficient from dust buildup.
There’s a lot of extra costs associated with making solar panels space worthy. No atmosphere also means no radiation shielding and no cooling. I actually managed to find satellite solar panels for sale: https://www.cubesatshop.com/product/solar-panels/. They have front and back panels but if we assume they didn’t have a back and all panels faced towards the sun it would be ~120W. That gives us $133/W, which means 100kW would be $13.3 million. Unfortunately the mass isn’t listed, so we can’t estimate the launch costs. I don’t have a way to estimate the cost of a fission nuclear reactor on the moon since we don’t know how it would work yet, so this calculation is mostly for fun. That math would change significantly if we are able to manufacture solar cells from lunar regolith.
In nuclear’s defense, we’ve been sending plutonium-238 into space since 1961. There’s been a few accidents, but the fuel casing has been improved so that the later accidents resulted in no leakage. That was in the early days, so we know a lot more about safety now. Do you think the risks are too high for any nuclear fuels in space, or does uranium pose unique risks?
No sunlight for 10 days at a time.
The lunar poles have spots that are always sunny. These spots are called “peaks of eternal light” but the light is not eternal and the name is quite misleading. The areas are only lit for about 90 percent of the Moon’s 18.6-year nutation cycle. Of the top 20 sites on the Moon that are illuminated by the sun, seven of them are located near the North Pole. This is because the North Pole has a longer period of sunlight than the South Pole.
Interesting. They only works in a few cases, but It’s good to have the options.
Do you want Space 1999? Because this is how you get Space 1999.
