Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenjgarner | Hacker News Reader

Amongst other things, it would provide for powering installations on the dark side of the moon where there is no solar power.

View on HN

The "Dark side of moon" gets sunlight. That's just what we call it because it never faces us.

You're right of course. Bad choice of words. I was meaning the the moon's "Permanently Shadowed Regions" [1]

[1] https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/97/the-moons-permanently-sha...

While solar obviously would not work there, is there any compelling reason to need nuclear power in those permadark locations?

It's not that reactors are needed in the permadark regions, it's just they they tend to be very cold and it should be easier to dissipate heat from the reactor.

I thought that it's hard to radiate-away heat in vacuum?

Dump the heat into the ground.

I think there is reason on mars - there is a fairly significant source of water there (ice). I guess this wouldn’t explain the moon though.

The darker locations are co-located with the largest water ice deposits which are exciting for the possibility of a human presence.

And both sides have 14 day long days, and 14 day long nights. Only at the poles is there access to solar power all cycle long. Hence, reactors.

…or build at the poles and have the solar arrays set up on a system that lets them pivot?

Yes, I specifically mentioned the poles.

It's likely we'll want to go other places eventually, though, and then you're back to reactors, or carting around enough batteries to last you two weeks.

"There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark. The only thing that makes it look light is the sun."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com