It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Eyes Nuclear Power for Moon Base

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Nuclear power could make a comeback beyond Earth if NASA goes forward with a proposed a fission reactor in its future moon base.

A fission-powered system could generate up to 40 kilowatts and give any lunar outpost enough power to supply eight houses on Earth. More importantly, astronauts will require a reliable and steady energy source on the moon and Mars.

www.space.com...


This will not be the first time nasa has attempted this.




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This is what it will look like



A concept of a nuclear reactor buried below the lunar surface to make use of lunar soil as additional radiation shielding. The engines that convert heat energy to electricity are in the tower above the reactor, and radiators extend out from the tower to radiate into space any leftover heat energy. The power system would transmit 40 kilowatts of electric power, enough for about eight houses on Earth, to the lunar outpost. Credit: NASA

Edit to add
www.space.com...



[edit on 9/17/2008 by altered_states]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
8 years of power is pretty impressive IMO. In this design, the radiation is absorbed into the soil??? I would have thought they would have a solar solution like they have on the ISS. Would have believed that to more friendly to the lunar environment.. Not that it matters much, but I wonder how much radiation they expect to be emitted to the surface? The astronauts not only have to contend with solar radiation, but nuclear radiation as well.. I've never seen anything like this on a small scale, but I guess these smaller nuclear power plants are going to become more commonplace. Im not sure whats up with the 100ft wings tho, seems like they could come up with a better way to dissipate the heat. I guess its a little different when you have no wind to cool things down.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mapsurfer_
 


Yes your quite right my friend the design is a bit shoddy but this is a stepping stone to bigger and better things
if it can be done on the moon it can be done other places in the solar system .



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
They will draw the power from enegy fields on the moons surface . All this truth about the lunar bases Amerika and others have now that they use rarely brings up what planes the United States have .

There is the Mars Rover , it doesnt fly down it stays up over 1000 miles above the earths atmosphere and it looks like space 1999 stuff from old Amerikan TV . OK and France have stuff and England thats all I know . We have Planes in canada and the eastern half of the country has rockets and shuttles only . What you see at night or day in Kanata or eatern is planes , shuttles landing and gliders and rockets flying up only thats all and it is all called CANCOM ok ?

Whos planes are illegally over Canadian skys and why ? Why do people see our Planes in kanata and lie and say they are space ships that want to molest thier person , they all sound like they went to Saint Mildreds girls lesbian skool system in Ontario territory back in the 1970's . Canaa and the KOC shut down a stanaic cult there in the 1980's with local police . Why do you fakes all sound like the little girls who sued ? You aernt moving thousands of people to the BC old coast so they can pin out and drown are you United States police uions officials ? You cant sue no, flood signs are still up all over the Rez from the United States actual border in Evrit washington and up to that damn homo land of Alaska Juno Canibirou people whevere they really are ?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
heres some info on the failed reactor in 1965

The US SNAP-10A launched in 1965 was a 45 kWt thermal nuclear fission reactor which produced 650 watts using a thermoelectric converter and operated for 43 days but was shut down due to a voltage regulator (not reactor) malfunction. It remains in orbit.

The last US space reactor initiative was a joint NASA-DOE-Defence Dept program developing the SP-100 reactor - a 2 MWt fast reactor unit and thermoelectric system delivering up to 100 kWe as a multi-use power supply for orbiting missions or as a lunar/Martian surface power station. This was terminated in the early 1990s after absorbing nearly $1 billion. It used uranium nitride fuel and was lithium-cooled.

There was also a Timberwind pebble bed reactor concept under the Defence Dept Multi-Megawatt (MMW) space power program during the late 1980s, in collaboration with DOE. This had power requirements well beyond any civil space program.

Between 1967 and 1988 the former Soviet Union launched 31 low-powered fission reactors in Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSATs) on Cosmos missions. They utilised thermoelectric converters to produce electricity, as with the RTGs. Romashka reactors were their initial nuclear power source, a fast spectrum graphite reactor with 90%-enriched uranium carbide fuel operating at high temperature. Then the Bouk fast reactor produced 3 kW for up to 4 months. Later reactors, such as on Cosmos-954 which re-entered over Canada in 1978, had U-Mo fuel rods and a layout similar to the US heatpipe reactors described below.

www.world-nuclear.org...








no doubt that the new version is more efficient also looks better



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   
It seems with people finding discoveries such as this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That nuclear power may become more readily available than once thought.
Radiation and radioactive waste can be rendered harmless as the fibers absorb it and lock it away.
That's if it really works as they say.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
What happens when the thing gets pelted with meteorites and why do people always seem to ignore the fact that the lunar surface is bombarded by meteorites on a fairly regular basis?
I'm not saying space exploration doesn't have it's risks or anything...just wondering if this is a considered risk(presumably it is).

Same thing goes for building anything on the moon...even walking around on it's surface.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4N6310
What happens when the thing gets pelted with meteorites and why do people always seem to ignore the fact that the lunar surface is bombarded by meteorites on a fairly regular basis?
I'm not saying space exploration doesn't have it's risks or anything...just wondering if this is a considered risk(presumably it is).

Same thing goes for building anything on the moon...even walking around on it's surface.


yes that is a valid point but this is only a concept I would expect the real mcoy to be more rugged to a level where they would hold up against minor meteorites.




top topics



 
0

log in

join