Hacker News Reader

Comment by panick21_ | Hacker News Reader

I think this technology is really cool. I really like the idea of making resources on the moon, it has a lot of cool application.

But practically speaking for power generation, I don't see much use for this. Like, with one Starship we could launch a nuclear reactor to the moon with enough fuel inside to have a huge moon station powered at all times, including during dark.

In the past we thought we always had to do everything on the moon because getting anything to the moon was so expensive. Starship changes the calculation on that. We can produce 100t of cells on the earth and land them on the moon for a cost of pessimistically a few 100M, optimistically far less.

The overwhelming need to live on the moon is bulk materials, not advanced materials.

View on HN

You're underestimating the political complication of sending nuclear power to the moon.

Solar panel manufacturing faces no objections.

You are overestimating the political aspects.

If NASA decides to do it, not much can stop them. We use nuclear generators all the time on things like Curiosity. And lets be real the public doesn't know the difference between a tiny nuclear reactor and that.

Unless people physically show up and try to jump in front of the rocket, they can't do much.

Also, NASA and DoD are planing to test nuclear thermal rockets, and those are way scarier then small nuclear reactors.

NASA just has to move forward with a good plan with confidence and it will work just fine.

I think you underestimate how much a reactor and associated radiators turbines and heat exchangers will weigh

Sub reactors weigh around 100 tons. Not sure how relevant that is, but certainly liftable.

EDIT: Meant to add - much less than the ISS, and I presume multiple launches would be needed.

Possible, yes; but practical? not sure.

Sub reactors can dump excess heat into the water. Radiating heat off in space is presumably much more difficult and inefficient . Also not clear if the working fluid is included in that 100t number. It has to be fully closed system in space.

Solar has additional advantages in cost, redundancy and simplicity of maintenance. That should but be discounted either

NASA already has the Kilopower reactor. Starting with that and then building larger version of it is probably what you want to do. They already have a team that is working on that stuff, all they need is more funding and an actual mission.

I think you might be overestimating how much they'd weigh. It isn't like they need a MW or even GW scale reactor up there right away, and kW reactors like NASA's Kilopower are expected to be ~1.5t, easily allowing several dozen (so, ~600kW worth) to be carried on one Starship.

That said, while nuclear power would be pretty useful in permanently shadowed craters and during lunar nights, Kilopower is probably still not mature enough and the public too scared of the nuclear boogeyman for them to power a moon base this decade.

A larger version of Kilopower is probably what you want. And that probably enough for now.

But I also think a machine that mass produces enough solar panels and batteries on the moon wouldn't be that light.

Kilopower is pretty mature, all it needs it to be actually tested in space.

> public too scared of the nuclear boogeyman

We can not be hostage to a uninformed public opinion. NASA can go ahead with these things just fine. The public doesn't know the difference between a nuclear battery that are often used and a small reactor. The public doesn't start a revolution everytime nuclear is mentioned.

NASA and DoD are literally going to test a nuclear thermal rocket, if they can do that, a tiny nuclear reactor shouldn't be an issue.

I agree that we should not be held hostage to uninformed public opinion, but I feel that we effectively are being held hostage by it.

As you mention, the public can't even tell the difference between an RTG and a reactor and while that doesn't stop flagship missions like Perseverance, it does limit how innovative NASA can be with the use of nuclear technology in space.

NASA and the DoD do have the plan to test a nuclear thermal rocket, but it's in such an early stage that much of the public isn't even aware of it. I'm certain there will be much more backlash from the uninformed masses as the program approaches the point of testing in space, and I'm not at all confident that it won't be cancelled as a result. Hell, with how low the standards are with Congresspeople, I wouldn't be surprised if the program is shut down by them for similar reasons, without much public involvement.

Flying a reactor to the moon has the same problem as launching toxic waste into the sun. What happens if that flight explodes in the atmosphere? The risk is intolerable.

It isn't actually.

First of all flying things into the sun is incredibly power intensive and expensive. You are comparing truck loads of 'toxic waste' to a tiny amount of nuclear fuel.

What if the flight explodes in the atmosphere, basically nothing. The reactor is enclosed in steel and will fall into the ocean. At that point in time the reactor is not active.

The reactor is basically just a few pallets of U-235 and U-238, those falling into the ocean isn't a big deal.

Echoing your sentiments, it's worth noting that we've already launched nuclear power generators on a number of NASA missions. Not the usual type of fission reactor, but radioactive material nonetheless. So the risk certainly hasn't been considered intolerable so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com