The first nuclear power plant for settlements on Moon, Mars
137 replies, posted
Fuck I'm late
[QUOTE=Mr.T;32004844]I should have given my nuclear reactor.[/QUOTE]
And your AI.
And your experimental Aircraft.
And your server farm?
I love it when something I formerly thought was completely impossible within my lifetime gets created. The applications for this are pretty much infinite.
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;32003366]Reactors take complete idiots to fuck up with people and it takes an obsolete, flawed design and an earthquake followed by a tsunami for nature to destroy it
Clearly we are awful at making nuclear power plants and should not place a reactor somewhere where the fallout will be of no harm[/QUOTE]
Earthquakes and tsunamis twice what the plant was built to withstand, at that.
After the moon base/staging area, I propose a colony ship with several of these reactors and plasma engines.
Then we leave Earth forever.
Lets just hope they don't clone some unlucky dude over and over and over again.
that's fucked up.
Fuck me.
This is a pretty good idea, since even if the thing starts belching fallout it going to do pretty much fuck all.
Holy fuck
how long till it gets invaded by the demons of hell?
[quote]"The biggest difference between solar and nuclear reactors is that nuclear reactors can produce power in any environment," Werner explained. "Fission power technology doesn't rely on sunlight, making it able to produce large, steady amounts of power at night or in harsh environments like those found on the Moon or Mars. A fission power system on the Moon could generate 40 kilowatts or more of electric power, approximately the same amount of energy needed to power eight houses on Earth." In addition, he said that a fission power system could operate in a variety of locations such as in craters, canyons or caves.[/quote]
This is exactly why development of small fission reactors is important. The Moon's day/night cycle is as long as it's orbital period, so any settlement would have to deal with long periods of complete darkness where solar panels are useless. Plus, it always pays to have a backup power source or two.
[QUOTE=Roof;32004392]why not build a nuclear power plant on a space shuttle?[/QUOTE]
Space shuttles internal systems are powered by hydrogen cells. (alkali type or PEM type) a nuclear reactor wouldnt be usefull due to the pressure group it needs to have (steam turbine).
also what would happen if the shuttle exploded in mid air.
Uh... they haven't built it yet. They haven't even [i]begun[/i] building it. They don't even have a technology demonstrator to show that it's even feasible, and won't for at least another year. Where's the excitement coming from? Projects like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Power_Generation]Hyperion[/url] have been working on portable nuclear generators for years.
Nuclear power is cool, and could be extremely useful, but let's not get overly worked up until they've actually done more than announce their plans.
[editline]29th August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=taipan;32007925]Space shuttles internal systems are powered by hydrogen cells. (alkali type or PEM type) a nuclear reactor wouldnt be usefull due to the pressure group it needs to have (steam turbine).[/QUOTE]
Obviously he doesn't mean taking an existing space shuttle and bolting a nuclear reactor to it, seeing as the space shuttle's being retired and all, but nuclear propulsion is an extremely promising technology for space travel. A few proposed systems include:
-[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket]Nuclear salt-water rocket[/url]
-[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29]Orion drive[/url]
-[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket]Nuclear thermal rocket[/url]
Some have even been built, such as the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA]NERVA[/url], which was deemed ready for a manned mission to Mars in even the early 1970s.
Basically, nuclear reactors give you lots of power and lots of heat, and require minimal fuel. This means that they're very efficient to operate, and can heat up reaction mass to very high temperatures, which directly affects how much thrust is provided when it's propelled out the back of the spacecraft. The only reason it hasn't been explored more is because nuclear proliferation makes governments nervous.
[QUOTE=Confuzzed Otto;32002534]Oh no, then there will come Greenpeace to the moon too![/QUOTE]
But there's nothing "green" on the Moon.
They'll have to change name to "Graypeace".
fuck yeah, I hope people don't bitch about how nuclear energy is 'dangerous and harmful'
FUCK YAR
But its obvious there is already a secret government-settlement on the dark side of the moon.
[QUOTE=Desolategrunt;32008052]fuck yeah, I hope people don't bitch about how nuclear energy is 'dangerous and harmful'[/QUOTE]
It can pose a threat to moon wildlife if it gets fucked up !!!
On a serious note, getting the fuel up there might be troublesome.
Fuck yeah, we're going to the moon
[QUOTE=ForestRaptor;32008289]On a serious note, getting the fuel up there might be troublesome.[/QUOTE]
You get a lot of bang for your buck when it comes to nuclear fuel, especially if you have facilities set up for reclaiming and recycling of fissile material. The cost to send up fuel rods would be negligible compared to the cost of replenishing food and water (even in a closed-cycle system).
So this means prolonged settlement and maybe colonization of the moon/mars, and nuclear powered rockets?
Pfft, the one on mars is just a cover for teleporation experiments
soon before we know it Deimos will be overrun with demons
So how do we transport the energy to Earth?
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;32009025]So how do we transport the energy to Earth?[/QUOTE]
We don't.
Awesome, getting closer and closer to getting on mars!
I'm going to mars o-o
Duck yeah
[QUOTE=OvB;32009127]We don't.[/QUOTE]
Then why waste money placing shit in space.
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;32009445]Then why waste money placing shit in space.[/QUOTE]
Space exploring?
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;32009445]Then why waste money placing shit in space.[/QUOTE]
To make colonies? Did you even read the thread title?
Why not thorium?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.