Idk this seems dumb as hell even as a fan of lunar landings and nuclear power

Gotta build TRL for this sort of stuff whenever the political stars align

What, why? There is no reason to support this at all.

We should fly a ton of nuclear reactors. They're great for deep space

We already use nuclear batteries on our mars rovers and some satellites. We know how to use nuclear energy in space and have it in a form factor that can power vehicles. Creating a nuclear power plant on the moon, makes no sense unless we have *other* things there.

This has all of the hallmarks of a Musk scam. It's a huge Sci-fi idea that sounds great that we will divert billions of dollars to private corporations for instead of doing anything to actually HELP people.

RTGs with peltier cells are a completely different thing from a reactor with an actual power cycle

You're 100% right. And one is practical for power vehicles and equipment in space. One is practical if we wanted something like, a colony. Without talk of a a colony on the moon, what would be the benefit of the reactor?

The point is to *build TRL* because you're never going to design a mission around something that doesn't have flight heritage

There is nothing saying anything nuclear propulsion, only moon based reactor that can be launched by 2030. So 5 years to design, deploy, and install a lunar based reactor just for fun. While massively slashing the NASA budget, so all of this work will go to for-profit company.

We are going to see a massive contract go to SpaceX and then have a bunch of things explode in Florida and Texas, but this time it will contain nuclear material.

This has nothing to do with propulsion www.nasa.gov/centers-and-...

I know. I said that.

The only reason we don't now is low TRL and low Pu production. We're cranking up Pu production from what I understand, and this builds TRL

Bruh can't even get the planes to land half the time and we think he's gonna build nuclear reactor on the fuckin' moon?

It's more like "deploy a reactor". They're self-contained and generally designed to survive vehicle breakups. Worst case scenario you smack a dozen kg of plutonium into a geologically boring part of the moon

I think we could do it easy, last year. I'm now worried that the guy they would have getting it up into Earth's orbit has had his rockets blow up and scatter their contents across several neighborhoods a couple of times in the last few months.

I would also love to get Sean Duffy on the record with what he thinks the moon waxes and wanes (after explaining to him that means turns into a thumbnail and then disappears and then comes back).

He's got 2 (really 2.5) types of rocket. One has never worked a single time, and the other is the safest/most proven vehicle in the history of spaceflight

Nuclear Reactors replaced Fossil Fuel as a heat source for water to produce steam that spins turbines to create electricity within the confines our atmosphere and gravity. I'm not sure this process would the same way on the moon if at all.

Of course if the goal is to simply put a nuclear reactor on the moon, for no other reason than to put one there, then there are a variety of small reactor modules and micro reactors that could potentially be landed on the moon.

I think one could be built in a Dragon capsule if needed. If the first reactor reduces the interest for China/Russia to put a reactor there, then it should be done ASAP with minimal spending. www.dw.com/en/china-and...

If you are going to have nuclear fission reactors, the best place for them is on the moon (or orbit)

I guess, but do they just mean an RTG? What’s the point lol

RTGs are subcritical and only use peltier cells. Most designs I've seen for these have fairly substantial radiators and a full on fluid power cycle. Tons more power on tap, and once you can point to an example, you a ton of new missions become possible

*example, a ton

No, this isn't an RTG at all if you go by what was literally uh, being done in terms of work. www.nasa.gov/centers-and-...

It just kinda seems pointless while we’re dumping all the earth science and astronomy shit. It’s a bunch of men in cowboy hats imaging oil derricks on the moon

They're doing arson on a bunch of stuff that matters and then also building a small sandcastle, and I do like the sandcastle

A great mental model here is comparing a preindustrial water mill to a hydroelectric dam, but here the water is thermal power

Is the challenge here more in "building the small reactor" or "building it so that it can operate without maintenance on the lunar surface" or "getting it there in one piece"

All are challenging. If there's a failure, it'll be in landing or in extending the radiator. Some corners of the problem can be shaved down to ~0 risk with a ton of time and effort. Those two in particular are almost impossible to get to 0

how big is it (in terms of mass)

Under 6,000kg

Yes.

oh no

they're just saying things, it's not actually going to happen

There was real chance the NASA administrator was going to fly into space and fix Hubble himself and that was going to be the one good part of this Trump term

Idk, my favorite characters both died the last time I saw something about nuclear reactors on the moon.