NASA Wants to Go Nuclear [power] on the Moon and Mars for Astronaut Settlement

scitechdaily ^ | May 31, 2020 | American Chemical Society

[BenLurkin]

With NASA planning its next human mission to the moon in 2024, researchers are looking for options to power settlements on the lunar surface. According to a new article in Chemical & Engineering News, the weekly newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society, nuclear fission reactors have emerged as top candidates to generate electricity in space.

When it comes to powering an astronauts’ settlement, there are many factors to consider, writes correspondent Tien Nguyen in collaboration with ACS Central Science. The power source must be capable of being transported safely from Earth and of withstanding the harsh conditions of other worlds. Past space missions have used solar power as a scalable and renewable source of electricity, but the dark craters of the moon or the dusty surface of Mars may not offer enough light. The limited lifespans of battery and fuel cell technologies typically relegate them to backup options. Nuclear devices that run on decaying plutonium-238 have been used to power spacecraft since the 1960s, including Mars rovers and the space probes Voyager and Cassini, but they don’t provide enough energy for a settlement. In contrast, nuclear fission reactors that split uranium-235 atoms, which are used by power plants here on Earth, could provide a reliable power source for a small space settlement for several years, scientists estimate.

[Ozark Tom]

Lunar polar region has water in the craters and is suitable for a solar installation with full time access to sunlight.

[ConservativeInPA]

I know I am barking up the wrong tree with this. I've been a proponent of thorium based reactors research since TMI. I live within 10 miles of TMI. There's a ton of research required. The technology is not ready, and yes, there is the breeder issue. However, if you look at total cost of ownership (that includes dealing with nuclear waste) the costs may be viable. There are a ton of potential advantages, but they always get knock down by the military establishment and companies that invested in other technologies (it's not just the fuel). The amount of capital involved for profitable thorium reactors makes it very risky to change direction. But we willing spend hideous amounts of money on wind and solar power that will never be profitable as long as fossil fuels are legal. So go figure.

All of these reasons contributed to my original post, "Should look into ...", as in investigate. Most people are not even aware of it.

[Terry L Smith]

There is no other way, no rivers, no wind, solar panels do not work well when broken ...

[Pollard]

Well my hs segregated us but not by color. I took shop class and then they wouldn’t let me take algebra even though I wanted to as I was always getting an A in math and was bored. They said nope, you gotta take shop math. More of the same basic math for the most part. Pi was about all I learned in the following three years while I sat there with a bunch of kids who just didn’t get the basics. I wondered what else I missed. They probably sent me to shop/dumb science too. Basically they segregated blue collar from white collar.

[Ignatz]

And the leftists will protest against nuclear power on the moon and demand that wind turbines be used.