Grimlakin
Forum Posting Supreme
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 8,944
- Points
- 113
No the radioactive engines would be needed exo atmosphere. Meaning only in space. Where our radiation belt could treat it like harmless amounts of background energy.
Rolls-Royce Gets Funding for Its Bid to Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
- Thread starter Peter_Brosdahl
- Start date
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,214
- Points
- 113
You need to get the Uranium off planet, into orbit and then off to the moon.
The very fact that nuclear fuel would be out on a rocket and blasted through our atmosphere, even if it were completely inactive in the cargo hold would be the problem.
Grimlakin
Forum Posting Supreme
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 8,944
- Points
- 113
For initial launches that would be the issue. Unless it was a salt based unit. But that probably wouldn't be the case. Getting the uranium up there for initial setup would be the risky part. After that mining it from nearby formations could make further production much less risky. But that is a distant unknown.
MadMummy76
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,218
- Points
- 113
Yeah but a solar sail is not harnessing the energy of empty space it harnesses the tiny force of photons coming from the sun, which would get less effective the further you go (just like solar panels) and offer no way to come back, which would be essential to manned missions.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,348
- Points
- 113
If it could be 100% automatous then it would. Who's going to live there while they put together this system? Things break and people will need to be there to fix it. The fuel needs to be refined and ready to go BEFORE the rocket needs it. Sending someone on a rocket to refuel at the Moon and having to produce this fuel when they get there adds valuable time.
You think building a colonization on Mars would be difficult? Of course, too many unknowns. Much easier to test that technology and techniques on something closer to Earth such as our Moon. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk and walk before you can run.
We would grow our own food on the Moon. Think before you type, please.
What? Obviously the craft would be mostly assembled/built on Earth and then sent to the Moon where it would stay in Space. Need repairs? Then repair it while it's on the Moon. The craft that goes from the Moon and beyond wouldn't need to come back to Earth.
You don't think that's already in the works? SpaceX's Falcon rocket is mostly reusable, only the upper stage isn't. You wouldn't need multiple stages to leave the Moons gravity to discard parts of the rocket.
The Starship rocket, also from SpaceX, will be 100% reusable. That's the type of craft that will get to the Moon. That's the type of technology that will be used to for the craft that uses the Moon as it's base station.
For 1 stop, 1 mission, pointless. Build the space craft on Earth, launch it to the Moon and use it for multiple missions while refueling at the moon.
You think building an ENTIRE space station floating around in Earths orbit is a better idea than a permanent station built ON THE MOON. Where it can be self sufficient. Wow, just wow.
What's the point of building a craft that can refuel on the Moon if there isn't fuel on the Moon? This isn't a car. You want to build a rocket/space craft and just let it sit around chilling until we figure out the fuel situation from the Moon first? lol. Yeah, dude. That's how to do it.
Gotta have power on the Moon. Can't just fly up there and begin work and expect to use the fuel/energy you bring with you.
I'm sure you are referring to the fact that the Falcon 9 rockets need to be "refurbished" before they can be used again. Thinking this can't be done on the Moon is short sighted, but that's not the type of rocket that will move us around space.
What? What energy are you trying to harness in space?
Radioactive power on Satellites and Probes have been launched into space before in the past. While it's not a fission reactor of the type that's being designed for the Moon if you'd read the article you'll see the amount of radioactive fuel used to power these small reactors would pose 0 threat on anything on Earth should the rocket explode in flight. Really don't understand why people are so scared of Nuclear power. It's not as dangerous as people make it out to be.
The amount of uranium used to power (not sure it's even uranium) the nuclear reactor is about the size of a roll of paper towels. This nuclear reactor is only going to be ~40 KW. It's extremely small compared to the Nuclear Reactor power plants that produce 100s of MW of power here on Earth.
As I said before. Read the article. Read about the topic. The amount of fuel being used for these reactors is about the size of a roll of paper towels, and wouldn't pose a threat to anything on Earth should the rocket blow up.
Last edited:
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,909
- Points
- 113
90%* of the reason that SpaceX and the Space Shuttle require so much maintenance between launches is because of the atmosphere - re-entry is hell on anything, and achieving escape velocity through the atmosphere isn't a cake walk either.
You eliminate that, and yeah, you probably do not need weeks or inspection and refitting between launches.
Hence - the moon.
* made up percentage
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,909
- Points
- 113
Those are some awesome paper towels.
Also, e=mc2, doesn't take a lot of mass to get ridiculous amounts of power out, if you have the fuel refined pure enough. Civilian reactors are only huge because they are diluted down so the fuel isn't anywhere near what they would consider "weapons grade". Well, that, and the majority of what you see on the outside is the steam plant and auxillaries, the reactor isn't all that big even with civilian grade fuel.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,348
- Points
- 113
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,909
- Points
- 113
1.21 jiggawatts (sic) to be precise. Which, ironically enough, is about the same power that the dual reactors provide in a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 9,032
- Points
- 113
I've been on that, btw Final Countdown is one of my favorite movies and I once knew someone who was serving on it during filming.
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,214
- Points
- 113
I was just thinking about that film the other day.
It's a great "Star Trek, but in the U.S. Navy with time travel" film
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 9,032
- Points
- 113
Yeah, in the past when I've shown it to friends who were Trekkies I'd explain how the original Enterprise had something like 500 crew, and then D had around 1000 but could house a bunch more in a pinch, that the Nimitz might have an active crew of ~6,000-9,000 with the ability to transport 15,000. I'd also explain how it was, to some extent, designed to be self-sustaining for prolonged deployment. They were usually blown away to know something like it exists.It's a great "Star Trek, but in the U.S. Navy with time travel" film
Edit: Just to add, if you get the chance to see it via 4K disc, last year's release is incredible.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,348
- Points
- 113
I did a little more reading on the subject. I think the main reason why we want to be on the moon has to do with Helium-3 which could be used as a fuel source for Fusion reactors since its not radioactive and wouldn't put out dangerous waste product.
Earth has a low, low supply due to our magnetic field, but the moon apparently has a lot.
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,214
- Points
- 113
Not disagreeing that the amounts are small compared to large scale power plants, but large scale powerplants are not rushing through the atmosphere at thousands of miles per hour strapped to explosive fuels
It doesn't take much radioactive material if detonated in the upper atmosphere to spread a really long way.I agree that ground based nuclear power plants are reasonably safe (unless they happen to be Soviet era graphite moderated plants, or be built in areas where tsunamis, earth quakes or flooding are feasible. I mean, we have operated a pretty large number of them here in the U.S. 24/7 without an incident releasing serious amounts of radiation since - what - 1979 at Three Mile Island?
It's not like there haven't been incidents since then though, and quite a few:
October 17, 1981 | Buchanan, New York, USA | 100,000 gallons of Hudson River water leaked into the Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2 containment building from the fan cooling unit, undetected by a safety device designed to detect hot water. The flooding, covering the first 9 feet of the reactor vessel, was discovered when technicians entered the building. Two pumps which should have removed the water were found to be inoperative. NRC proposed a $210,000 fine for the incident.[71] |
January 25, 1982 | Rochester, New York, USA | Steam generator-leak at the Ginna Nuclear Generating Station causes extensive injection of the high pressure emergency core cooling system |
March 20, 1982 | Lycoming, New York, USA | Recirculation system piping fails at Nine Mile Point Unit 1, forcing two year shutdown |
March 25, 1982 | Buchanan, New York, USA | Damage to steam generator tubes and main generator resulting in a shut down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 for more than a year |
June 18, 1982 | Senaca, South Carolina, USA | Feedwater heat extraction line fails at Oconee 2 Pressurised Water Reactor, damaging thermal cooling system |
February 12, 1983 | Forked River, New Jersey, USA | Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant fails safety inspection, forced to shut down for repairs |
February 26, 1983 | Fort Pierce, Florida, USA | Damaged thermal shield and core barrel support at St Lucie Unit 1, necessitating 13-month shutdown |
September 15, 1984 | Athens, Alabama, USA | Safety violations, operator error, and design problems force six year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2 |
March 9, 1985 | Athens, Alabama, USA | Instrumentation systems malfunction during start-up, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units |
April 11, 1986 | Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA | Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison's Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant |
1986 | Surry, Virginia, USA | Broken Feedwater pipe at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 |
March 31, 1987 | Delta, Pennsylvania, USA | Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems |
December 19, 1987 | Lycoming, New York, USA | Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1 |
September 10, 1988 | Surry, Virginia, USA | Refuelling cavity seal fails and destroys internal pipe system at Surry Unit 2, forcing 12-month outage |
March 5, 1989 | Tonopah, Arizona, USA | Atmospheric dump valves fail at Palo Verde Unit 1, leading to main transformer fire and emergency shutdown |
March 17, 1989 | Lusby, Maryland, USA | Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns |
November 17, 1991 | Scriba, New York, USA | Safety and fire problems force shut down of the FitzPatrick nuclear reactor for 13 months |
April 21, 1992 | Southport, North Carolina, USA | NRC forces shut down of Brunswick Units 1 and 2 after emergency diesel generators fail |
February 3, 1993 | Bay City, Texas, USA | Auxiliary feed-water pumps fail at South Texas Project Units 1 and 2, prompting rapid shutdown of both reactors |
February 27, 1993 | Buchanan, New York, USA | New York Power Authority shuts down Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3 after AMSAC system fails |
March 2, 1993 | Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee, USA | Equipment failures and broken pipes cause shut down of Sequoyah Unit 1 |
December 25, 1993 | Newport, Michigan, USA | Shut down of Fermi Unit 2 after main turbine experienced major failure due to improper maintenance |
14 January 1995 | Wiscasset, Maine, USA | Steam generator tubes unexpectedly crack at Maine Yankee nuclear reactor; shut down of the facility for a year |
May 16, 1995 | Salem, New Jersey, USA | Ventilation systems fail at Salem Units 1 and 2 |
February 20, 1996 | Connecticut, USA | Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found |
September 2, 1996 | Crystal River, Florida, USA | Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3 |
September 5, 1996 | Clinton, Illinois, USA | Reactor recirculation pump fails, prompting shut down of Clinton boiling water reactor |
September 20, 1996 | Senaca, Illinois, USA | Service water system fails and results in closure of LaSalle Units 1 and 2 for more than 2 years |
September 9, 1997 | Bridgman, Michigan, USA | Ice condenser containment systems fail at Cook Units 1 and 2 |
May 25, 1999 | Waterford, Connecticut, USA | Steam leak in feed-water heater causes manual shutdown and damage to control board annunciator at the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant |
September 29, 1999 | Lower Alloways Creek, New Jersey, USA | Major Freon leak at Hope Creek Nuclear Facility causes ventilation train chiller to trip, releasing toxic gas and damaging the cooling system |
February 16, 2002 | Oak Harbor, Ohio, USA | Severe corrosion of control rod drives in the reactor head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor |
January 15, 2003 | Bridgman, Michigan, USA | A fault in the main transformer at the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant causes a fire that damages the main generator and back-up turbines |
June 16, 2005 | Braidwood, Illinois, USA | Exelon's Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station leaks tritium and contaminates local water supplies |
August 4, 2005 | Buchanan, New York, USA | Entergy's Indian Point Energy Center Nuclear Plant leaks tritium and strontium into underground lakes from 1974 to 2005 |
March 6, 2006 | Erwin, Tennessee, USA | Nuclear fuel services plant spills 35 litres of highly enriched uranium, necessitating 7-month shutdown |
November 21, 2009 | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA | Twelve workers were contaminated after radioactive dust was mobilized at the Three Mile Island plant during pipe maintenance works.[72] |
January 7, 2010 | Buchanan, New York, USA | NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented after an automatic shutdown of Indian Point Energy Center Unit 2. The levels of tritium in the steam were below those allowable by NRC safety standards.[73] |
February 1, 2010 | Vernon, Vermont, USA | Deteriorating underground pipes from the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies |
August 2011 | Louisa county, Virginia, USA | A 5.8-earthquake in the region caused the loss of offsite power at the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station. Later in the incident, the plant lost an emergency diesel generator, leading to the activation of the so-called SBO diesel generator - an emergency situation. |
March 13, 2013 | Russellville, Arkansas, USA | Temporary overhead crane collapsed at Arkansas Nuclear One's Unit 1[74] |
January 2014 | St. Lucie, Florida, USA | Flooding of the auxiliary building of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, caused by lacking proper flood barriers[75] |
July 2016 | Michigan, USA | Massive steam leak in the turbine building of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, unit 2 |
December 2019 | Nebraska, USA | One of the two safety related component cooling systems of Cooper Nuclear Station was unable to operate, because its service water system, that takes water from the river, was plugged with silt.[76] |
Now some of these are not directly related to the reactor, but it does illustrate the problem. When something, anything goes wrong (falls, blows up, etc) and there is a reactor nearby, you are only a hop skip and a jump away from puncturing the wrong thing and letting out lots of **** that won't be good for people.
All that said, it's the rockets I'm concerned about. Anything that flies runs the risk of crashing or blowing up, and it would be better if the thing that crashed wasn't full of potentially toxic matter.
That, and some may question the wisdom of using any system that accelerates in an uncontrolled manner if not properly contained. You want things that fail gracefully, not things that fail boom. The self accelerating chain reaction is part of the problem. This is why fusion is so promising. If something goes wrong, you just pull the plug and it stops. There is no self sustaining chain reaction.
I was in Sweden in 1986 when radioactive clouds started moving overhead from Chernobyl. It was scary as all hell. All we could do was stay inside and watch the news and hope for the best. It's not like you could actually get your hands on Iodine pills once the news broke. All of that came rushing back recently when I watched the Zaporizhzhia plant in flames on the news several months ago. I'd prefer to not have to live through that again.
In 1986 there were real concerns about whether or not the fallout of caesium-137, iodine-131, strontium-90 and other radionuclides would be sufficient to poison the fields used for food production long term. While relatively few people wound up dying from direct exposure, there were elevated levels of childhood leukemia across Europe for years after. I still have friends who have come down with random unexplained cancers 35 years later, and they can't say for certain exposure to fallout from Chernobyl was not a contributing factor. A good friend of mine as a kid was recently out of the blue diagnosed with Stage 4 colon cancer. Through some sort of miracle of fortune she is in remission. Overall, I'd call Chernobyl a really scary bullet that was mostly dodged, but not 100%. And it only turned out that way because men in helicopters were sent to their certain deaths from radiation poisoning so they could drop concrete(? can't remember the details of what they dropped) on top of the exposed core to seal it up, otherwise it would have kept leaking, and more and more of Europe would have been poisoned.
So yeah, we've gone a while without a major incident, at least not nearby, but I'd rather not live through another one. Fukushima was a wakeup call. We have fault lines in this country too, and some say we are overdue for a big one. Who knows what it might crack?
Either way, at a very minimum, in my opinion absolutely no more nuclear fission projects should be approved to come online until the political battle over final storage has been resolved once and for all. I don't care if it is recycling or if it is finding a final storage place for it somewhere, just get political agreement and and fully fund final storage for 100% of spent fuel, validate it technically and make sure it will work, and work economically feasibly and THEN we can start talking about expanding capacity. This seems like it should be the minimum requirement.
It's not feasible right now based on our energy needs, but ultimately it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to end the use of nuclear fission all together. Maybe we will be able to once we get fusion working.
Last edited:
Brian_B
FPS Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,909
- Points
- 113
You can say that about an awfully lot of stuff though
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 1,348
- Points
- 113
Yeah, perhaps we should see how many deaths have been caused from coal over the years. Lol
He also clearly didn't watch the video or read about any of it. The amount of radioactive material that'll be strapped to a large controlled explosion is extremely low. Low enough to be safe if it blows up in the sky.
Edit
It was mostly boron that was dropped on the exposed core at Chernobyl.
Last edited:
Burticus
FPS Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,112
- Points
- 113
Yup. Coal plants output 100x more radiation than *functioning* nuclear plants. Maybe not Fukushima.
"The fly ash emitted from burning coal for electricity by a power plant carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."
Zarathustra
Cloudless
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
- Messages
- 4,214
- Points
- 113
I don't think anyone will argue that burning coal is good for you either, except maybe the coal lobby.
I'd support completely ending all extraction, trade, import, export and burning of coal as soon as possible.