Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 06:54 PM Nov 2021

NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon

The reactor will help sustain future missions on the moon, Mars and beyond, according to NASA.

According to a statement from the Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on Nov. 19, the lab is teaming up with NASA to put a "durable, high-power, sun-independent" fission reactor onto the moon within the next 10 years. The two agencies are currently seeking proposals from outside partners to get this lofty project started, with a submission deadline of Feb. 19, 2022.

This hypothetical reactor would help turn the moon into an extraterrestrial base for human space exploration, including future manned missions to Mars, agency officials said.

"Plentiful energy will be key to future space exploration," said Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate in Washington, D.C., said in the statement. "I expect fission surface power systems to greatly benefit our plans for power architectures for the moon and Mars and even drive innovation for uses here on Earth."

https://www.livescience.com/nasa-moon-nuclear-fission-reactor

75 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NASA wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon (Original Post) left-of-center2012 Nov 2021 OP
I like ambitious plans. BlueTsunami2018 Nov 2021 #1
I watch videos sometimes of the decay and problems in the US. I often wonder why we don't RKP5637 Nov 2021 #2
If we waited till we fixed everything in the house we'd never go anywhere. rickyhall Nov 2021 #10
... A HERETIC I AM Nov 2021 #68
What could possibly go wrong? Watch the moon nuclear plant go Chernoble and have a melt down LaMouffette Nov 2021 #3
Space 1999. roamer65 Nov 2021 #4
My 1st thought too sdfernando Nov 2021 #24
+1000 roamer65 Nov 2021 #25
I had that lunch box baby! Dr. Strange Nov 2021 #53
We can do stupid on Earth. Why go to the Moon? Baitball Blogger Nov 2021 #6
An explosion that knocks it off its orbit? CrackityJones75 Nov 2021 #12
It melting down wouldn't hurt anything as the Moon is lifeless EX500rider Nov 2021 #13
The Fuel Can't Detonate Anyway ProfessorGAC Nov 2021 #18
I agree with that part of the physics quaker bill Nov 2021 #26
Sodium cooled? WarGamer Nov 2021 #27
Yep! ProfessorGAC Nov 2021 #28
Well, actually, no! Not totally hyperbolic. I thought it could happen. Just ignorance on my part! LaMouffette Nov 2021 #63
My Error ProfessorGAC Nov 2021 #64
I'm with you. There are too many unknowns. Too much potential for unforeseen consequences, LaMouffette Nov 2021 #67
A nuclear power plant can't damage the moon in any meaningful way. Dial H For Hero Nov 2021 #66
I can't tell if you're serious or joking about those concerns Silent3 Nov 2021 #19
:) Maybe that's in the future. Much better place to send radioactive waste Hortensis Nov 2021 #46
The big problems with dumping nuclear waste off-earth... Silent3 Nov 2021 #47
:) The weight did briefly cross my mind, but I'm lightheartedly Hortensis Nov 2021 #49
I was half-serious, half-joking! Glad to know it couldn't be knocked out of its orbit. LaMouffette Nov 2021 #65
You certainly know a lot about teh science. Act_of_Reparation Nov 2021 #30
Yes, plenty of things could go wrong... blugbox Nov 2021 #34
No worries! Everyone has been pretty kind in their responses, and I enjoy the interchange LaMouffette Nov 2021 #69
Some corrections - Oneironaut Nov 2021 #41
There was a nuke power plant VGNonly Nov 2021 #5
Yup. I was there in 1970 rickford66 Nov 2021 #9
Did you sail VGNonly Nov 2021 #20
No. Wintered over Oct 1969 - Oct 1970 rickford66 Nov 2021 #21
Raytheon? VGNonly Nov 2021 #22
Navy Seabees rickford66 Nov 2021 #23
Dovetails with the Bezos/Musk unstated ultimate goal of fleeing the earth permanently. PSPS Nov 2021 #7
Don't other nations have to agree to that? Bayard Nov 2021 #8
Why would we need permission exactly? EX500rider Nov 2021 #14
Why? left-of-center2012 Nov 2021 #17
There'd be no possibility of polluting rivers or the atmosphere DavidDvorkin Nov 2021 #11
they'll develop it here on Earth first bigtree Nov 2021 #48
Oh God, not this shit again... sir pball Nov 2021 #15
Which has nothing to do with a nuclear reactor left-of-center2012 Nov 2021 #16
We have folx here who are concerned sir pball Nov 2021 #29
OH NOES A NUCLEAR REACTOR IN SPACE??? WERE ALL DOOMED! Act_of_Reparation Nov 2021 #31
Why can we not thumbs up posts?? blugbox Nov 2021 #35
Ha ha, no shit, the sun reactor has been bombarding the moon for billions of years with radiation Shanti Shanti Shanti Nov 2021 #38
We haven't learned out to be responsible earthlings yet PatSeg Nov 2021 #32
No space missions until war, poverty, and disease no longer exist? Dial H For Hero Nov 2021 #37
Okay, it is true we cannot eliminate all the pain and suffering PatSeg Nov 2021 #55
Why aren't we "ready" for space exploration? Dial H For Hero Nov 2021 #57
See my comment below PatSeg Nov 2021 #70
We CAN do both. 👍 Besides serious innovation comes out of... electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #50
I've heard that rationalization before PatSeg Nov 2021 #58
I missed your... electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #60
Yes, sadly not all explorers can be trusted PatSeg Nov 2021 #71
That is a pontentialy excellent endeavor. ... electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #73
Oh yes, First Contact PatSeg Nov 2021 #74
NASA already put 5 nuclear power plants on the moon Saboburns Nov 2021 #33
Yes! Exactly what I was replying above. blugbox Nov 2021 #36
Do you have a link to that? left-of-center2012 Nov 2021 #40
Of course. Act_of_Reparation Nov 2021 #42
I thought Nuclear Power Plants required a significant body of water to maintain functionality msfiddlestix Nov 2021 #39
Let me google that for you Blue_Adept Nov 2021 #44
of course they do, nuclear space has been their goal for decades bigtree Nov 2021 #43
Post removed Post removed Nov 2021 #59
It will be great when the dark side of the moon is lit up like NYC. Renew Deal Nov 2021 #45
A gentle thought - maybe some of you being ... electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #51
Unclear what that has to do with the OP left-of-center2012 Nov 2021 #54
It's possible that I misread some of the replies... electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #56
What "questions" are you referring to? Act_of_Reparation Nov 2021 #61
I'll have to go over the thread again. I'll get back to you. 👍 electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #62
'Questions' might have been the wrong choice of words. electric_blue68 Nov 2021 #72
Sounds good in theory, but I'd bet the devil is in the details DFW Nov 2021 #52
It's not like the moon is otherwise hospitable to humans. hunter Nov 2021 #75

BlueTsunami2018

(3,507 posts)
1. I like ambitious plans.
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 06:58 PM
Nov 2021

But I don’t see what the point of it would be at this time. We have so much to fix right here on Earth that it seems like an unnecessary extravagance. The costs would be astronomical for a thing that would almost never be used.

RKP5637

(67,112 posts)
2. I watch videos sometimes of the decay and problems in the US. I often wonder why we don't
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 07:04 PM
Nov 2021

try to fix things here ... but the money is often vacant. Just another of my WTF's each day.

LaMouffette

(2,042 posts)
3. What could possibly go wrong? Watch the moon nuclear plant go Chernoble and have a melt down
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 07:14 PM
Nov 2021

or explode, knocking the moon out of its orbit and sending it shooting off into space or colliding with Earth . . .

When will they ever learn that certain things are not to be effed with? That's my (pessimistic) viewpoint, and I normally am very fond of science, including space exploration.

sdfernando

(4,948 posts)
24. My 1st thought too
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 10:12 PM
Nov 2021

I liked that series and almost never missed an episode. Guess it really can happen but instead of 1999 it might be 2099.

Baitball Blogger

(46,776 posts)
6. We can do stupid on Earth. Why go to the Moon?
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 07:25 PM
Nov 2021

Why don't they build solar power plants on opposite sides of the moon.

EX500rider

(10,885 posts)
13. It melting down wouldn't hurt anything as the Moon is lifeless
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 08:01 PM
Nov 2021

And there's no way it could explode with enough force to move the moon anywhere

ProfessorGAC

(65,361 posts)
18. The Fuel Can't Detonate Anyway
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 08:42 PM
Nov 2021

It's not close to enriched enough, although they'd likely use much higher enrichment than what's used in nuke plants.
But, 80% would be fantastically efficient, and still not close to pure enough to go supercritical.
Chernobyl was a steam explosion caused by incompetent reaction to a stupidly designed experiment.
Like you said, even a nuke detonation wouldn't shift the orbit. The moon weighs around 162 trillion trillion pounds.
Now, add in that we're talking a steam explosion not a nuclear detonation.
I'm thinking the poster above was engaging in hyperbole, so I'm willing to give the "orbit shift" thing a pass.

quaker bill

(8,225 posts)
26. I agree with that part of the physics
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 10:47 PM
Nov 2021

the interesting bit to me is how they dissipate excess heat in the near vaccuum present on the moon. now, with thermoelectrics theu resolved the problem by setting the reaction rate up to generate just enough heat, but that does not produce massive power. The plans will be interesting.

ProfessorGAC

(65,361 posts)
28. Yep!
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 08:39 AM
Nov 2021

Conversion to radiant heat with nothing to insulate the release should work great.
Way back in the early 80s, we had a thermoelectric cold plate in my lab.
No freon or any other coolant. Yet, that thing got very cold, VERY FAST!
I'm sure the tech is way better now.

LaMouffette

(2,042 posts)
63. Well, actually, no! Not totally hyperbolic. I thought it could happen. Just ignorance on my part!
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 06:19 PM
Nov 2021

It's reassuring to know it could not be knocked out of its orbit. But still, our beautiful and only moon! I hate the idea of risking any sort of damage to it.

ProfessorGAC

(65,361 posts)
64. My Error
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 06:26 PM
Nov 2021

I honestly thought you were intentionally going overboard.
Either way, your concerns in that regard have been assuaged.
I too, have my reservations about this idea.
For one, even if fail safes work as designed, who has to go up there to fix it.
How do you get the enriched U-235 up there safely? (We've all seen the Challenger incident). How do they refuel it after x years?
What's it cost, and how soon would we follow up and use it?
There are others, but that's enough for now.

LaMouffette

(2,042 posts)
67. I'm with you. There are too many unknowns. Too much potential for unforeseen consequences,
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 06:40 PM
Nov 2021

even if knocking the moon out of its orbit isn't one of them!

Silent3

(15,425 posts)
19. I can't tell if you're serious or joking about those concerns
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 08:55 PM
Nov 2021

We could take every nuke on the planet, send them all to the moon, blow them up all at once, and only the most sensitive of instrumentation would pick up any change in the moon's orbit.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
46. :) Maybe that's in the future. Much better place to send radioactive waste
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:48 PM
Nov 2021

to degrade, also, than dumping it outside low-income towns in the kind of states that'll go along with that. Including the Antarctic waste from "Nukey Poo" mentioned farther down.

Seriously, this thread did turn out to be worthwhile for the sensible information posted to it.

Silent3

(15,425 posts)
47. The big problems with dumping nuclear waste off-earth...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 01:02 PM
Nov 2021

...are that (1) it's very expensive, about $1000/lb, just to lift something into orbit, and more expensive to reach escape velocity, and (2) if something goes wrong during launch, the nuclear waste ends up either in our atmosphere, or falling uncontrolled into water or land.

For now the best things to do with nuclear waste are to use breeder reactors to get the most energy value out of the waste, which also helps degrade the waste into less dangerous isotopes, and then proper containment and burial of what's left in long-stable geological formations.

We're definitely going to need more nuclear power as one component, along with renewables, in our mix of energy sources if we're to break free of our dependence on fossil fuels.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
49. :) The weight did briefly cross my mind, but I'm lightheartedly
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 03:10 PM
Nov 2021

conditioned to the possibility of technology someday making the undoable doable.

Again, though, yet more good information elicited by ignorant chat. Thanks.

All things weighed, I'm extremely grateful that nuclear power to transition from fossil fuels is possible when we need it so desperately. We've dealt ourselves a bunch of bad cards but also dealt ourselves some breaks and are busy working on more.

blugbox

(951 posts)
34. Yes, plenty of things could go wrong...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 11:57 AM
Nov 2021

I would just like to inject some reality into your pessimistic viewpoint, because I love science and space exploration!

If the plant were to melt down Chernobyl style, the loss of life (if the station were to be manned) would be tragic. However, there is no atmosphere or ecosystem to disrupt, and the raw radiation from the sun bombarding the moon daily probably wouldn't blink at the small spike.

Worst case scenario... the thing explodes with the force of a nuclear bomb. It would make a crater... probably much much smaller than the millions of other craters littering the surface. Many of those are from impacts with the force of thousands of nuclear bombs. Do you know the monumental forces it would take to actually alter the moon's orbit?

I am by no means trying to put you down. It may all end up being a waste of money, and it will certainly be filled with difficulty, but I don't quite see how this fits into the "Things that are not to be fucked with" category. We have nuclear reactors all over the place in space, powering our probes and satellites and drones... why would a power station be any different?

EDIT to say I apologize for piling on. I didn't read the many responses before I made my own reply.

LaMouffette

(2,042 posts)
69. No worries! Everyone has been pretty kind in their responses, and I enjoy the interchange
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 06:52 PM
Nov 2021

of ideas.

I just keep thinking of Chernobyl and the tsunami that destroyed the nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011. Do we really want to put a nuclear plant on the moon and risk possible unforeseeable accidents and consequences?



Oneironaut

(5,539 posts)
41. Some corrections -
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:30 PM
Nov 2021

The moon absolutely cannot be knocked out of orbit minus some enormous object hitting it, like another planet. In that case, earth probably wouldn't fare too well either. You would need an object about the size of a dwarf planet or planet.

Nuclear reactors don't explode like a nuclear bomb when they melt down. Typical "explosions" like Chernobyl are from another source, like hydrogen. Instead, nuclear rods begin to "melt down" because they get too hot, meaning that radioactive material can be vaporized into the air or leak into the environment.

Nuclear rods are immersed in water. Nuclear rods are extremely hot, which causes the water they're immersed in to boil. Steam is released, which spins turbines, which creates electricity.

Even if every country suddenly fired their entire nuclear arsenal at the moon all at once (assuming every warhead would hit and detonate), nothing would really happen (minus large blasts on the moon). To blow the moon up, you would need to drill into it (like in the movie Armageddon), and plant billions of nuclear warheads inside of it.

Let's say you were able to break the moon apart. Gravity would just take most of the particles and reform them into a sphere almost immediately.

Basically, tldr: The moon can't be destroyed by humans.

VGNonly

(7,521 posts)
5. There was a nuke power plant
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 07:23 PM
Nov 2021

in Antarctica. It was a mess from day one, eventually dismantled. Thousands of of yards of contaminated rock had to be removed. It was dubbed "nukey poo".

VGNonly

(7,521 posts)
20. Did you sail
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 09:19 PM
Nov 2021

on the RV Hero? I had a friend of a friend, a geologist, that voyaged there in the early 80's.

rickford66

(5,531 posts)
21. No. Wintered over Oct 1969 - Oct 1970
Mon Nov 29, 2021, 09:25 PM
Nov 2021

Nukie Pu was up and down numerous times. I worked out of the power house and our diesels were the backup.

bigtree

(86,015 posts)
48. they'll develop it here on Earth first
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 01:22 PM
Nov 2021

..and introduce a new generation of nuclear production, which will include their perennial push for 'usable nukes,' building plutonium pits under the guise of producing fuel for their new reactor in plants which would accomodate both.

US continues push to restart plutonium pit production
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20210305a/full/

sir pball

(4,766 posts)
29. We have folx here who are concerned
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 10:54 AM
Nov 2021

About the Moon being blasted out of orbit. That absolutely meets my definition of a clown show.

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
32. We haven't learned out to be responsible earthlings yet
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 11:15 AM
Nov 2021

and we are planning future missions to the moon, Mars, and beyond? A nuclear power plant on the moon? Maybe stay grounded and find ways to eliminate poverty, end warfare, and eradicate disease would be a better use of science and technology.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
37. No space missions until war, poverty, and disease no longer exist?
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:10 PM
Nov 2021

Given that these things will exist as long as humanity does, you may as well acknowledge that you’re calling for an end to any and all space exploration.

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
55. Okay, it is true we cannot eliminate all the pain and suffering
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:27 PM
Nov 2021

on earth, but we clearly have not shown that we are evolved or principled enough to take our hubris off world. Right now space exploration should be a very low priority, being we are destroying the planet we already inhabit.

Hey, I am a super science fiction geek and I love the idea of space exploration, but I don't think as a species, we are ready yet.

 

Dial H For Hero

(2,971 posts)
57. Why aren't we "ready" for space exploration?
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:36 PM
Nov 2021

What possible harm can exploring space cause to happen?

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
70. See my comment below
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 07:30 PM
Nov 2021

About Russia's anti-satellite missile that left behind dangerous space debris that will be there for a very long time. While we are making our planet uninhabitable, we could also be making space unexplorable.

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
50. We CAN do both. 👍 Besides serious innovation comes out of...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 03:24 PM
Nov 2021

Space R&D, probes,satellites, peopled missions etc

I'll bet medical research, and invention has been improved
by space research, and exploration.

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
58. I've heard that rationalization before
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:38 PM
Nov 2021

but the amount of money spent on space exploration could be used to advance education, science, and innovation here. As I said above, as a science fiction geek, I love the idea of space exploration, but I don't believe our species is evolved enough yet.

We saw just earlier this month that Russia was testing an anti-satellite missile and in the process created significant, long-lasting and potentially dangerous space debris. That debris will be a significant threat to activities in space for years to come. Many may be capable of the technology required for space exploration and activities, but not all can be trusted to be responsible and safe.

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
60. I missed your...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:57 PM
Nov 2021

SF fan status. 👍 Reading it since I was about 10.

Still think we should continue. Space presents unique challenges that might yield something thing(s) wonderful, useful for us down here.

And ugh now we have to be so much more careful after that screw up by the Russians!

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
71. Yes, sadly not all explorers can be trusted
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 07:44 PM
Nov 2021

With the Russians and the Chinese, plus eccentric billionaires taking to space, it is getting pretty scary. It is hardly like the Federation in Star Trek where the countries of earth worked together abiding by common laws and principles.

Of course, on a more positive note, there is the development of a rocket that could change an asteroid's direction to avoid potential collisions with earth in the future. I really can't argue with that as a very constructive use of technology.

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
73. That is a pontentialy excellent endeavor. ...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 07:52 PM
Nov 2021

Looks like it's going to be a while longer before Federationy type stuff happens.

And hopefully without WW III first !!!



(Love the movie First Contact)

PatSeg

(47,731 posts)
74. Oh yes, First Contact
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 08:05 PM
Nov 2021

was one of the best Star Trek movies (possibly THE best) and Captain Picard was my all time favorite Star Trek Captain. I think Anson Mount as Christopher Pike might end up being my second favorite.

I agree. Hopefully, we won't have to experience World War III before we can evolve.

Saboburns

(2,807 posts)
33. NASA already put 5 nuclear power plants on the moon
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 11:41 AM
Nov 2021

They were put there by Apollo astronauts on 5 different Apollo missions, Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

They've been providing safe and reliable power for more than 50 years by now.

Also NASA landed 2 nuclear power plants on Mars back in the early 1970's with the 2 Viking landers.

blugbox

(951 posts)
36. Yes! Exactly what I was replying above.
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:07 PM
Nov 2021

This is not new at all. I'm not sure why it is shocking people.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
42. Of course.
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:35 PM
Nov 2021
Here

NASA has used radioisotope thermoelectricity in orbiters and probes for decades now. Nuclear power in space is nothing new.

msfiddlestix

(7,288 posts)
39. I thought Nuclear Power Plants required a significant body of water to maintain functionality
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:15 PM
Nov 2021

Just from general observation over the past five decades, Nuclear Power plants seem to be located in relation to available bodies of water.

Are they going to ship millions of gallons of water to the moon? Or have they developed nuclear power no longer requiring cooling sources? or does dry ice work? Curious.

bigtree

(86,015 posts)
43. of course they do, nuclear space has been their goal for decades
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 12:40 PM
Nov 2021

Last edited Tue Nov 30, 2021, 06:55 PM - Edit history (2)

...it's a stalking horse for nuclear weapons in space, space based lasers.

It just is. Has been so since Reagan.

More than that, it's an excuse to develop plutonium pit plants, here on Earth, which would then be used to develop their mini-nukes.

It's going to be near impossible to connect the dots enough at this point to make this clear to most Americans who can't see beyond the cool tech and NASA's promises to the obvious military implications.

NASA's nuclear space 'Prometheus Project' is based on an archaic notion that began in the '50's with a space project named Orion. Project Orion was a propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the space vehicle. Orion was developed at the old General Dynamics Corporation, under the guidance of several former Manhattan Project scientists.

In the late 1950's, Freeman Dyson, physicist, educator, and author, joined the Orion Project research team. The project's participants proposed exploding atomic bombs at regular intervals at very short distances behind a specially designed space ship in order to propel it to the Moon and other planets in the Solar System far more quickly and cheaply than with chemical-fuel rockets.

The motto for Orion was, 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'; hauntingly reminiscent of NASA's schtick about Project Prometheus exploring Mars and Europa's moons. Orion ran out of money and needed the government's help. The military agreed to take up the project, but only on the condition that it adapt itself to a military purpose. The project was later abandoned because of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of nuclear energy, and the high cost of the speculative program. Also, because the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 outlawed it. (will the new nuclear technology need new testing agreements between nations?)

"Technology must be guided and driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich," Dyson, 76, said, as he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion 2000. Dyson once commented that, "Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else."

The Prometheus project was a cynical attempt to commit the nation to Rumsfeld's Star War's nonsense. Bush and Europa's moons; right. The Bush White House wanted you to know that their nuclear space project to Mars would prove new technologies for future NASA missions. Like space-based weaponry.

Despite that administration's and NASA's talk of Europa's moons, the Prometheus Project was intended to pave the way for the original Pentagon plan to mount nuclear reactors on space-based platforms to power their nuclear lasers. And of course, as the Space Command also asserts, ". . . the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms, for military purposes."

Don't expect it to be easy to unravel whatever they're scheming now, since govt. propaganda is so readily and easily absorbed through myriad media outlets. But it's a sure bet that this is more than exploration, or some energy scheme to provide nuclear fission energy. We still haven't figured out how to dispose of the waste from the last generation of nuclear meddling, but full steam ahead.

Ask where the nuclear fuel will come from, and it won't come from mining the moon. It'll come from new uranium production, instead of the spent nuclear weapons they use today, something oh so coincidental to the military's ambition for mini nukes.

Unravel that Gordian knot and I'll be all like live long and prosper.

Response to bigtree (Reply #43)

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
51. A gentle thought - maybe some of you being ...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 03:46 PM
Nov 2021

Last edited Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

snarky about some folks questions might consider easing up.

We all started as students. 👍

(No I, don't have any science degree. I'v been fascinated by some of the sciences since I was a kid: Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology, Oceanography, Ecology, Meteorology, and the wilder sides of physics. )

While I couldn't do any higher math than geometry, and I've been wanting to read "Chemistry for Dummies" for a long tine [I've gotten a bit better at understanding some]

As a preemie with a group undergoing experimental treatment back in the '50's I was tested for potential coginitive defects at several intervals. My dad was told my abstractng abilities were nearly off the charts. And was reconfirmed later.

So you folks know a lot more in areas I wouldn't get.

But I know a lot more than some asking questions here.

Let's be kinder to one another.

As for you who were stationed in the Antartic (wow)...
what was was it like for you especially for those coming from usually all round warm to hot climes - dry, or humid.

You from moderate 4 seasons, and way colder (interior, or more Northern States) what was it like for you. I'm a 4 seasoner myself.
I'm fascinated ho people react to very different climates, and geography.

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
56. It's possible that I misread some of the replies...
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 04:33 PM
Nov 2021

To me some of the replies we're quite snide about the uninformed questions some people were asking the OP.

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)
61. What "questions" are you referring to?
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 05:28 PM
Nov 2021

I don't see questions. More than anything else, I see pontificating. And in that context, questions are rarely posed honestly.

electric_blue68

(15,009 posts)
72. 'Questions' might have been the wrong choice of words.
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 07:47 PM
Nov 2021

Here's the first one I just saw


12. An explosion that knocks it off its orbit?
For real


But I don't get your comment about pontificating, and honesty.

DFW

(54,488 posts)
52. Sounds good in theory, but I'd bet the devil is in the details
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 03:52 PM
Nov 2021

There is no atmosphere to burn up all the tiny meteorites that strike the surface of the moon at a gazillion miles an hour. If any of these penetrate the layers of safety covering, who will be on nearby call to do damage control?

hunter

(38,346 posts)
75. It's not like the moon is otherwise hospitable to humans.
Tue Nov 30, 2021, 08:43 PM
Nov 2021

Even on a good day, wearing a space suit, radiation exposure is 200 times what it is on earth, and two or three times what visitors to the International Space Station normally experience.

On a bad day, depending upon the mood of our sun, it could be much worse. Best have someplace underground to hide.

Any meteor event that could significantly damage a silicon carbide nuclear reactor fuel core would do much worse damage to any humans who happened to be about. Cleaning up a breached reactor core would probably be a much nicer job than recovering freeze dried human remains, whole or in parts.

Personally I can't think of many reasons for humans to visit the moon. It's a harsh place.

Radio and optical telescopes on the far side of the moon might be interesting but I suppose those could be assembled and maintained by robots.

Solar power is problematic on the moon because of the two week nights.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NASA wants to put a nucle...