NASA Eyes Nuclear Reactor for Moon Base

[inanna]

Source: Discovery News

NASA is tip-toeing once again into what was once called the N-word -- nuclear -- with a technology development program aimed at powering its planned base on the moon.

The goal of the Fission Surface Power Project, which is based at NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, is to produce a non-nuclear prototype unit within five years.

<snip>

NASA envisions needing a system capable of providing about 40 kilowatts of electricity -- about what's used to power eight average homes in the United States.

It would be launched cold and without radioactive elements until operations were to begin on the lunar surface.


Read more: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/09/15/moon-fission-nuclear.html

[Taverner]

1. Even though I am mainly against Nuclear Power, sounds like a good idea

I mean, if there's a meltdown, they could just leave...

[leveymg]

2. Nuke the Moon. Brilliant idea. Brilliant.

[TomInTib]

12. This from the guys whose 30,000 people couldn't get the space station right

That's how many people have worked on the damned thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Also from the guys that put up the Voyager probes

which still work today. They run on radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Both should continue functioning till sometime between 2020 and 2025, and they were launched in the mid 70's.

As long as the appropriate precautions are taken during launch, I've got plenty of other things to worry about.

[sudopod]

24. The only things wrong with the space station

1) It's in a dumb location in a useless orbit, but it can be moved over long periods of time.

2) We have no way to get there.

Otherwise, it's an engineering marvel.

[Posteritatis]

34. How so on #1?

My knowledge-of-orbits-fu is pitifully weak beyond "ISS-esque low" and "geosynchronous."

[sudopod]

39. It's relatively low so the space shuttle and Soyuz can reach it.

About 350 km, and its orbital inclination is 51.6 degrees, which is convenient for Russian locations, but somewhat more expensive for US launch locations (fuel cost) as well as being inconvenient for use as a stepping stone to the Moon. :p

Otherwise, it is cool as hell. I'd go in a heartbeat!

[Codeine]

54. Mercury. Gemini. Apollo. Mars Rovers. Etc.

"Those people" have completed some of the most breathtaking scientific accomplishments in man's history. Much of the technology that we take for granted has it's roots, or was spurred along greatly, by the space program. Their few mistakes pale in significance and consequence when measured against their achievements.

[Newsjock]

3. They obviously were not fans of 'Space:1999'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_1999

In the series, nuclear waste from Earth is stored on the moon. The waste explodes in a catastrophic accident on September 13, 1999, which knocks the moon out of its orbit and sends it and the 311 inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha hurtling uncontrollably into outer space.

[awoke_in_2003]

7. I grew up watching that show

thought it (and UFO) were the greatest things ever. I watch it now and have to laugh at the special effects. I am so jaded :(

[conspirator]

57. The best sci-fi series ever. nt

[NV Whino]

4. I knew it!

Today the moon, tomorrow, Mars.

[Ryano42]

5. No Worries...No Money

Soon sadly we will be lucky to hitch a ride to the ISS. :(

[BearSquirrel2]

6. Oh, but what about the lunar solar base ...

Hey, all those Mooninites keep talking about a lunar solar base that would beam power back to the earth via microwaves.

Until someone figures a cheap way to get off the planet, human space-flite is a boondoggle. The space elevator concept is about the best I've seen.

Until then ... robots!!!

[quispquake]

8. America embarks on it's most daring & exciting prospect yet...

America will blow up the moon...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHpX5aa5Lz4

[ellie]

9. What about those

aliens mining the moon? Won't they be pissed?

[The Croquist]

61. Who cares?

We'll nuke 'em!

[Nambe]

10. 24 hour blazing Sun and that has to cause strong winds.

But we should spread some toxic nuclear waste around so my contributers can run the lunar environmental agency.

[kay1864]

18. You do realize there's no atmosphere on the moon, right?

So...strong winds? No.

[Regret My New Name]

48. solar winds.. :P

[comtec]

58. Solar winds don't exist around Earth

Because of the magnetic force field the earth creates, we are able to HAVE an atmosphere.
What we have discovered about mars is that somehow it's magnetic core is diminished (no longer rotating as much?) and that is why the atmosphere is partially gone.
The magnetic field a planet generates by it's rotation is what keeps solar winds from wrecking havock on a atmosphere / surface of a planet. The moon, being well inside out magnetic field has no solar winds to worry about. in fact if you wanted to use a "wind sail" in space you would first have to clear the magnetic field of the earth. Most likely this would be done by sling shotting around the earth gravitational pull. much like how we send our research satellites (Voyager anyone) into space.

so no, there are no winds of any kind on the moon... however we COULD build a MASSIVE solar field on the moon, and redirect THAT energy back at the earth maybe.... Besides any moon base would have to be built on the dark side of the moon. The constant unprotected bombardment from the sun would probably damage the building - remember the rotation of the moon causes it always to face the earth, IE, dark is nearly always dark, bright is nearly always bright.

[Posteritatis]

67. Solar wind is nothing like real wind

You can't just stick a windmill up on the moon and have it generate power. Well, you could, but you'd need windmills larger than terrestrial cities, and even that probably wouldn't do it.

[Regret My New Name]

70. I wasn't actually being serious... lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. It's actually about 14 (earth) days of sun, then 14 days of darkness

and the absence of wind has already been explained.

[defendandprotect]

11. THIS may be the final trick --

Why not extend our pollution and violent concepts into outer space?

Werner von Braun remembered . . .

PNAC . . .



JFK, btw, was against von Braun's plan to use nuclear fuel for

space flights ...

[liberal N proud]

13. They want to make sure the moon glows

That way there will always be a full moon.

:sarcasm: :rofl:

[Hugabear]

14. We have so many pressing issues here on Earth - why spend so much money for this?

Let private companies do that. But I really don't like the idea of pumping even more money into the space program when there are so many problems here on Earth.

[sudopod]

25. 15 billion dollars a year is peanuts.

That's a few weeks of Iraq war funding. We can afford this easily.

[Hugabear]

29. Sorry, 15 Billion per year is not peanuts

I agree that the Iraq war is a waste of $$$, as is the Afghanistan war.

However, 15 billion is still 15 billion.

Let's get single payer national health care first. Let's try to improve education a little bit. Let's bring some of these manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Then we can talk about spending billions of dollars to go to the moon or beyond.

[Posteritatis]

35. Zero-summers are funny (nt)

[Odin2005]

37. We can use money from the bloated defense budget for that, don't fuck with NASA.

IMO NASA's budged should be tripled.

[sudopod]

41. I agree with your views

and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. ^_^

[Odin2005]

49. I wish I had a newsletter!

:hi:

[Regret My New Name]

66. That sounds like one of those things that would get old after a couple months...

or weeks... Not yours, I mean having a newsletter.

[sudopod]

40. Killing the space program that President Kennedy built

would be penny wise and pound foolish. I think expanding our knowledge of the universe and securing our future among the stars is worth the fraction of 1% of the federal budget that we currently spend on it.

If we stopped the Iraq war, we could afford health care for everyone easily without taking punitive action against the sciences.

[Hugabear]

44. Who said anything about killing the space program?

You're introducing a straw man, I never said anything about that. But we do need to prioritize. I don't have a problem with our space program the way it is now - manned exercises in low orbit, and using probes and robots to explore the solar system. But sending humans back to the Moon, Mars, or beyond is going to be quite expensive, and there are things that we need here on Earth that are more important than that.

I'm not saying that we have to put off human exploration until all of society's woes are solved. But I don't think it's really too much to ask that we at least come up with an adequate universal health plan before we talk about sending humans back to the Moon.

[Codeine]

56. That's silly.

The moon project has no bearing on universal health care -- we could have that tomorrow if we wanted it badly enough, and at no more cost than we spend now. Funding or defunding NASA would have absolutely zero impact.

[sofa king]

81. For purposes of comparison....

NASA gets just about as much money as the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs combined. In other words, NASA costs as much as it does to incompetently supply health care and infrastructure for less than one percent of all Americans.

Oh, and by the way, while many American Indians still live in the cold on dirt roads without running water, they are told year after year that there's just not enough money in the budget to help them build schools. That will almost certainly continue after you get your single payer national health care... first.

I say that it's not a matter of if we can put a man on the moon, we can't do the other thing. It's because we put a man on the moon that we can do any of those other things.

[Odin2005]

36. Besides, NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket compared to our military spending.

NASA-bashing is short-sighted BS.

[MadHound]

38. Because our society reaps many benefits from the space program

Like that computer you're posting on? Probably wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient, or even exist, if it wasn't for the space program. Do you like nylon, mylar and a host of other fabrics? They got their start in the space program. These are only a few examples of what the space program has done for us.

[Hugabear]

43. Then you must really love war

How much more technological advances have come from the military and warfare? For instance, where do you think GPS came from? And that's just one primary example.

I'm not against science or going into space. But I think we should have our priorities in order. Let's come up with feasible health care that covers 100% of Americans, let's at least do that for starters before we start shooting for the Moon or Mars.

[MadHound]

46. Gee, that's a quite a bit of faulty logic there

From my expressing my support for the space program to you somehow coming up with the notion that I love war. Really makes me wonder if an intelligent conversation can really be held with you.

You really don't get it do you? You don't understand the role that scientific research and discovery plays in our society. You are one of those short sighted people who only looks at the immediate cost/benefit equation, and doesn't factor in the long term benefits at all. Hmm, I suppose that you'd be complaining about the expense of sending Columbus across the ocean if you were around in the late fifteenth century.

Besides, this isn't an either/or proposition. We can do space exploration and take care of our citizens also. This isn't about money, it is about political priorities. But instead you choose to focus on the money instead. How very short sighted of you. But hey, feel free to rebut me on that fine, fancy computer you have, you know, the one that the space program brought about:eyes:

[Nevernose]

79. I really think that's small minded

Not that you're small minded, but the idea that we can't go back to the moon AND have universal health care? Small minded. There's no reason we can't do both. There's plenty of money in this country to go around; we just haven't been investing wisely lately.

The following is a list of medical advancements from hitting "I Feel Lucky" (it's also not the best site to look for NASA spinoffs, but still pretty thorough). This isn't just NASCAR engines and Astroturf we're talking about...it's about changing and even saving lives. How many tens of thousands would have died just last week if it weren't for the satellites used to track and predict Hurricane Ike?

DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.

LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty.

ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases.

HUMAN TISSUE STIMULATOR - Employing NASA satellite technology, the device is implanted in the body to help patient control chronic pain and involuntary motion disorders through electrical stimulation of targeted nerve centers or particular areas of the brain.

COOL SUIT - Custom-made suit derived from space suits circulates coolant through tubes to lower patient's body/ temperature, producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other conditions.

PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.

OCULAR SCREENING - NASA image processing techniques are used to detect eye problems in very young children. An electronic flash from a 35-millimeter camera sends light into the child's eyes, and a photorefractor analyzes the retinal reflexes, producing an image of each eye.

AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method.

MEDICAL GAS ANALYZER - Astronaut-monitoring technology used to develop system to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients.

VOICE-CONTROLLED WHEELCHAIR - NASA teleoperator and robot technology used to develop chair and manipulator that respond to 35 one-word voice commands utilizing a minicomputer to help patient perform daily tasks, like picking up packages, opening doors, and turning on appliances.

Other spinoffs in this area include: Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools.

[Duer 157099]

15. Yeah, because the moon is not really that important

NOT!!

I bet most people really don't realize how important the moon actually is to life on earth.

It's too "science-y"

[Posteritatis]

21. And how, exactly, is the moon threatened by this? (nt)

[Javaman]

16. Well of course, because if they used solar, it would only get sun half the time..

:eyes:

[XemaSab]

52. Actually...

If we put it on the right half, it would get sun NONE of the time. :P

[The Croquist]

62. The term "dark side of the moon" is a misnomer

The moon rotates at the same rate as it revolves around the earth so that one day (and night) on the moon is equivalent to 14 days on the earth. From the earth we only see one side of the moon but if you were watching from the surface of the sun you would eventually see all of it (except for the whole burning up thing). Bad ethnic (modified) joke to follow:

NASA, The Russian's, and a fundamentalist are all bragging about their space programs.
NASA says "We were the first on the moon!
The Russian's reply "We will be the first on mars!"
The Fundamentalist announces "We will be the first on the sun!"
The other two protest saying that they will burn up but the Fundamentalist replies
"We're going to go at night".

[davepc]

17. on display in this thread, the glorious legacy of the anti-nuke movement

which equals the safe clean generation of electricity with bombs and armageddon.

It's a wonder France isn't a barren wasteland, with its 60 odd nuclear power plants. Cause its not a matter of if they'll explode, but when.

[Posteritatis]

20. Don't forget the whining about polluting the pristine environment of space with lethal radiation nt

[sudopod]

26. As someone who studies space radiation for a living

I lol'd heartily. ^_^

[Posteritatis]

32. I kid you not I heard that *exact* phrase at my univ twice. :( (nt)

[sudopod]

42. This W-style fear of the unknown mixed

with a disinterest in learning the truth is something that really breaks my heart. ;_;

I'm sorry you've had to deal with it. I know I tend to flip out when I encounter those attitudes, especially when they are used to back up looniness like denying we landed on the moon and so forth.

[Regret My New Name]

50. lol...

[Zhade]

71. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl... reeeeeeeeeeeeal safe.

Yeah. "Safe".

[Nihil]

72. Glad you started your list of two with the one that didn't kill anybody :-)

More people died at Chappaquiddick than at Three Mile Island.
Do you drive a car (sober or otherwise)?
Yeah. "Safe".

[Posteritatis]

73. Chernobyl killed the hell out of quite a few people

There's depressingly few of the rescue workers and firefighters involved with that thing still around today compared to the number there should be. If people are talking nuclear disasters that deserves to be on the list.

Three Mile Island, not so much, considering the fact that that didn't even injure anyone and largely showed what happened when something bad happens at a reactor with, y'know, competent safety systems in place. As opposed to Chernobyl, which might as well have been deliberately designed and operated in a way that encouraged a disaster.

[Nihil]

74. I didn't deny that for a moment ...

... just found it amusing that
a) The person could only muster a list of two "nuclear disasters".
&
b) The person started this list with the "disaster" with zero casualties.

Rather than getting irritated about the ignorance and panic-mongering that
was being displayed, I simply gave it the flippancy it deserved.

I agree that Chernobyl was practically a *planned* disaster.
It should not only be on the list but should be the list as it killed
more people in that one event than every other civilian nuclear incident
(before or since) added together.

Whilst Three Mile Island just served as fuel for the "sky is falling"
crowd, Chernobyl proved that you can't treat nuclear materials with
contempt or laziness and hope to get away with it.
:hi:

[Posteritatis]

75. D'oh, I misparsed

I somehow read that as your implying they *both* had zero casualties. That'll teach me to respond to a post right after waking up.

My bad!

[Zhade]

76. Be as flippant as you like, but Chernobyl is the exception that proves nuclear power ISN'T safe.

NT!

[Nihil]

83. That is exactly as relevent as using Banqiao to prove that dams aren't safe ...

... so make sure we don't build any more and quickly decommission
all of the existing ones to ensure that there are no other such
"exceptions" to cause disaster.

Like I said, ignorant panic-mongerers ... :eyes:

[Solon]

22. Solar power isn't really feasible on the Moon...

It has a 4 week long "day" with 2 weeks, approximately, of daylight, and 2 weeks of night. So nuclear power would be the alternative to make things practical, more mass efficient than carrying batteries or fuel cells(with the water needed, don't forget).

[Posteritatis]

23. I forget; does the moon have any peaks of eternal light?

Those would be viable locations. Of course I have no idea whether the area around them is interesting/useful enough to stick something there. (And I admit, considering the rarity of places like that I'd rather they be undeveloped even if we do go up there.)

[ThoughtCriminal]

28. Might be near the poles - nt

[dysfunctional press]

78. wouldn't water be needed for a nuclear system as well?

aren't the nuclear systems in the navy mostly a way to make steam to run turbines to produce electricity?

or has that changed, or have i got it wrong completely? :shrug:

[Dr. Jonas Venture]

27. It's a reasonable idea

Solar would work, as well, but would be much more expensive. The main issue is the cost of hucking things to the moon. It costs about an objects weight in gold to do that, so you need to carefully consider the mass of an object. For this reason, solar panels used on satellites, the ISS, space probes, and whatnot, are typically triple junction GaAs based cells, which cost about ten times as much as regular silicon ones, but which produce more power per unit mass. Nuclear achieves an even higher amount of energy per unit mass of the installation, but is not used for things in orbit due to the risk of eventual de-orbiting and crashing on Earth.

As far as why we should spend money on this sort of thing... A permanent base on the moon is an excellent place from which to start mining the moon for helium-3. This isotope of helium is very rare on the Earth, but abundant on the moon, and is the highest yield and safest nuclear fusion fuel source. The Chinese are planning mining operations to start in the mid-2020s, and are already developing H-3 fusion reactor designs. The ITER project in Cadarache, France, could be modified to run helium-3, although the first fuel is expected to be a deuterium-tritium blend.

So, is it worth it to mine helium-3 from the moon? You bet it is. The entire electricity needs of the US could be met for a year by around 20 tons of helium-3 run through fusion reactors, and, using expected population growth rates and resource consumption rates in which the world caps out at ten billion people with an energy consumption per person level about like current European consumption, the moon contains enough helium-3 to support a civilization like that for about thirty thousand years.

Fusion nuclear plants produce no long lived nuclear waste, cannot go into a runaway "meltdown" state of operation, no matter what, and, on a per energy unit produced basis, would cover less acreage per megawatt-hour than solar or wind farm installations. Plus, they're not a nuclear weapons proliferation risk.

I'm not dissing solar or wind, mind you. After all, I'm in the solar industry. They have great advantages such as scalability, if you're talking photovoltaic, and ability to produce power for as long as Earth remains inhabitable, but the main problem for them is the low density issue. One, to minimize environmental impact, we need to change our sprawl intensive urban structure of low-rise individual houses and build up. There's far too much land that could either be valuable agricultural land, or even more valuable unmolested wilderness, already under the footprint of human activities. So, solar rooftop installations are of limited use since we need to work towards more human activity, and thus higher densities of power usage, under the same total acreage of rooftop, and so this means dedicated solar plants (probably solar thermal Rankine cycle, in either trough farm or power tower configurations, with thermal mass storage for dispatchability) built separate from human settlement, and the result is an unwanted level of environmental impact, most of which would land on fragile and limited desert environments. It's a fair trade-off, though, for sustainability and elimination of carbon emissions, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.

So, nuclear fusion plants are in the final stages of development to commercialization, and we can expect them to be part of the grid by no later than 2025, and they offer the best results in terms of footprint, hence environmental impact, and elimination of carbon emissions. And, the best source for the best fuel is the moon. We need to go there for permanent operations and mining of helium-3, plus the industrialization of the moon will lead to greatly reduced launch costs for further interplanetary operations, such as manned missions to Mars with the eventual goal of colonization.

I see the energy future of humankind being a backbone of nuclear fusion, consisting of about 65-70% of our total needs, with the balance filled in with widely distributed solar and wind, and a modest role for biofuels, mostly reserved for jet transportation and long-haul shipping, since electric vehicles that are capable of that sort of energy density and duty cycle are not a likely prospect. If we do that, and we have industrialization of the moon, we have a sustainable energy future for all humans on Earth for at least the next few tens of thousands of years. This gives us the time to move even further along towards a universally prosperous and sustainable human presence in the solar system.

Going to the moon is not just an exercise in grandiose engineering and "blue-sky" research with no clear potential applications. It's a credible and necessary investment in the sustainable future for all humankind.

[Regret My New Name]

51. Wow, I wish I had the attention span to read that...

I bet there's an awesome recipe for caek in there.

[XemaSab]

53. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[San_Antonio_Guy]

60. A very good costly energy solution

If there is no other good option,well I guess this is a relatively good source of energy. Though it would cost a lot of world's fortune to benefit humankind. Its worth a try.

[Dr. Jonas Venture]

64. It's really not that expensive

If you put it in perspective. The ITER project is running about $7B in costs, and the models show that once standardized designs are adopted, construction of future fusion reactors will come in initially at around $2K per kilowatt output, with that cost declining to around $800 per kilowatt as techniques improve. This is on par with a natural gas or coal power plant, and much cheaper than solar or wind. These reactors can run immediately on a blend of deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen, which can be efficiently harvested from seawater, and lithium, a relatively common light alkali metal. The lithium is used to "breed" tritium within the reactor itself, and the tritium is used in combination with the deuterium as fuel. Straight deuterium can be used as well, but it's less efficient. If you consider the deuterium content of seawater, which is about 1 part in 6500 of the hydrogen content of the water, the amount of energy it would yield in a fusion reactor is equivalent to 300 times the total volume of water worth of gasoline. So, you process water, remove one part in 6500, return the rest, or, since you've already desalinated it in the processing, use some of that for drinking or agricultural water, and return the balance to the ocean, and you've got an excellent fuel source. You can meet two human needs at once, and the high cost of desalination can be offset by the high dollar value of the deuterium, making desalination a reasonable option for coastal communities if deuterium processing is added to the desalination plant.

Shifting to helium-3 is a longer term option, but with a few hundred billion in investment it could be efficiently harvested on the moon to fuel the next generation of fusion power starting around 2030 to 2040.

All considered, it's a lot cheaper than the current Iraq conflict in terms of total investment, and much of that investment will be carried by private corporations. We do need government support to build up the initial infrastructure, but to me that's a sensible use of tax dollars, unlike continued warfare or creation of bigger and better weapons systems.

[Nevernose]

80. As an added bonus you could desalinate the seawater for free

As an added bonus you could desalinate the seawater while filtering out the deuterium. Assuming that the power plant using the deuterium was near or even part of the same complex (desalinization/extraction/power), the very energy intensive process of desalinization could be accomplished in effect for free by bleeding power from the plant.

Being able to sell water and power from the same source would also have the effect of making both cheaper.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Fusion plants part of the grid no later than 2025?

That sounds hugely over-optimistic to me. Since ITER reckons 'first plasma' in 2018, and that's just an experiment; and a lead time of about 10 years is reckoned for a fission plant of established design, then it just won't happen by 2025. 2035 would be optimistic. Here's the head of the American ITER project office, back in 2005:

ROBERT GOLDSTON: Well, let's be specific, so let's say 2015 ITER comes on line, 2035 or so a demonstration power plant, those will still be government funded because you will not have enough confidence for investors to put their money down for it.

So there'll be a set of demos around the world perhaps in 2035, and then one imagines that one could get to commercial power plants in 2050. Because you now would have gotten your demos running, shown you could put electricity on the grid, shown you can do it with high confidence, safely and cost effectively, and then people start investing, starting mid-century.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1402868.htm

[Ian David]

30. Oh, no...

[and-justice-for-all]

31. I have no problem with this...

Nuclear power will be needed to further our exploration of Space, until newer technologies are available and that can replace it while still providing the needed energy. I think future space vehicles will be nuclear powered, much like Nuclear subs are now.

[LeftHander]

33. They Dubbed it "Moon Base Alpha"....nt

hehehe

[steely]

45. Google 'Apollo' and 'SNAP-27'

early ones simply converted heat to power and were relatively small.
primary risk is during launch.

[BreweryYardRat]

47. Yeah -- is there anywhere deserted + secure to launch it from?

That's the only problem with spacecraft handling nuclear power/wastes. You've got to not only find a deserted area, and quintuple-check that everything's working right, you've got keep the launch vehicle under tight security to prevent sabotage by one or more of the following: rival governments, factions within our own government, terrorists.

[Dr. Jonas Venture]

65. That is a risk, but...

You can also alloy or encapsulate the fuel so that it won't be atomized if there is a launch failure. This was the approach taken with the RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) used on a number of deep space probes. These things could literally be dropped from orbit and not disperse their fuel. With a nuclear reactor, it's even safer, since the fuel source could be far less radioactive encapsulated LEU. LEU isn't dangerous until it's been run in a reactor, which generates more active transuranics and also creates energized forms of isotopes which are capable of gamma emission. LEU by itself is a weak alpha emitter, with a small amount of neutron emission. The neutron emissions are low enough to be not terribly hazardous, and the alpha emission can be blocked by virtually anything. Alpha rays only go about 5 cm though air, and are blocked by the first layer of dead cells on your skin, so alpha emitters aren't too dangerous. I've handled plenty of them, including LEU, with no precautions beyond wearing a pair of latex gloves. However, they are very hazardous if turned into an aerosol form and inhaled or ingested. Proper alloying of the fuel units can result in fuel alloys that will resist particulation even in something as violent as the Challenger explosion. So, if something goes wrong iduring launch, you're still left with a scattering of intact fuel pellets, which is a modest risk, but at least you don't have aerosolized radioactive debris scattered over a wide area.

[IndianaGreen]

55. IN the old scifi series Space 1999, the Moon was used as a nuclear repository

The nuclear waste reached critical mass, exploded, and spun the Moon out of Earth orbit.

[Joe Bacon]

63. Sounds like a plan

GO ahead and build Moonbase Alpha and send all the Neocons there and let it rip :evilgrin:

[Posteritatis]

68. And if bad science fiction was indicative of reality, that might mean something (nt)

[Codeine]

77. And in Star Wars the Death Star destroyed Tatooine.

About as applicable, yeah? :eyes:

[Posteritatis]

82. Hey, that firmly convinced me of the need for careful regulation of Death Stars (nt)

[truthisfreedom]

59. Dark side of the moon.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-wright16-2008sep16,0,7349427.story

[Redstone]

69. That's hardly news; we've sent MANY nuclear-powered satellites / probes out before.

Redstone