China signs deal with Russia to build a power plant on the moon — potentially leaving the US in the dust

[Admin]

A new memorandum has firmed up China and Russia's intent to lead the construction of a new lunar base to be completed by 2036, as NASA talks about scaling back its own lunar ambitions.

China signs deal with Russia to build a power plant on the moon — potentially leaving the US in the dust : Read more

 

[contrarian]

Good to see these two spending a lot of money on space exploration rather than on weapons of war.

China is doing too much of that right now, and Russia are trying to.

The biggest initial concern on this project is/are explosion(s) of the heavy-lift rocket(s) carrying all that radioactive material. It would not be pleasant to see that debris raining down on Earth, like Musk's Starships often do. But might not be so bad if it is limited to their side of the world.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

When the nuclear reactor is launched from Earth, it will not yet have fissioned any of the uranium or plutonium fuel, so it will not be very radioactive. You can hold such fuel in your hands. Only after the reactor is assembled on the Moon and its control system used to start the fission process will it produce the "highly radioactive nuclear waste" that is such a concern on Earth with commercial nuclear power reactors.

 

[billslugg]

The implied contest between the Stalinists and the free countries was settled on July 20, 1969. I was 16, watched it on a black and white TV. Dick Nixon, personal friend of mine, made a phone call up there. BTDT. Got some rocks. Nice try though. Keep the wrist straight next time. Did I miss one?

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't think those countries can afford to do it. It's a lipstick wish list.

 

[COLGeek]

Admirable goal, way too ambitious. We shall see.

 

[Harry Costas]

The power station on the moon will come soon.

 

[contrarian]

When the nuclear reactor is launched from Earth, it will not yet have fissioned any of the uranium or plutonium fuel, so it will not be very radioactive. You can hold such fuel in your hands. Only after the reactor is assembled on the Moon and its control system used to start the fission process will it produce the "highly radioactive nuclear waste" that is such a concern on Earth with commercial nuclear power reactors.

If the rods disintegrate on launch (very likely), they would spread radioactivity over the "landing' zone, which could pose hazards to anything living there. If they stay intact, you are right, they pose little trouble.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

First, you need to address how much radioactivity and then how much area it is spread over before you can determine how much of a hazard it could be.

Yes, uranium and plutonium are somewhat radioactive before they undergo any fission.

But, so are you, and everything else in the world, probably everything in the whole universe.

So, you can't just avoid "radioactivity". You need to understand it and be able to determine how much dose a person would receive from it under specific circumstances to determine whether it makes any difference to a person's health.

Unirradiated nuclear fuel is not considered a radiation hazard. It is actually far less radioactive than the ores from which it is refined.

That said, a reactor falling to Earth from a failed launch or from orbit is likely to stay intact and be a falling object hazard to anybody on the ground in the impact area.

And so are many other parts of spacecraft. That is why we have safety zones for launches and try to de-orbit into remote parts of the ocean.

 

[Classical Motion]

I operated naval propulsion reactors when I was young and dumb, back in the early seventies. I haven’t kept up on it but I’m sure everything has changed.

Still, I wouldn’t think any one would want a reactor like that in space. It’s way too goose y.

Shouldn’t need those kind of variable power ranges. And you need an efficient heat sink.

For space one needs a more or less a steady smudge pot, not a blast furnace.

Any that’s not even considering the cost and weight---- and water. I wouldn’t try using water to modulate heat transfer in space.

But saying that, I have no idea what they can do today.

I would worry about safety of operation, not launch. A launch mess can be cleaned up. And certain components can be hardened.

Just a civilian’s opinion.

 

[contrarian]

That said, a reactor falling to Earth from a failed launch or from orbit is likely to stay intact and be a falling object hazard to anybody on the ground in the impact area.

Hard to imagine fuel rods staying intact during a de-orbit. Unless they are designed to survive (unlikely), they will disintegrate. The problem of course is where all this debris lands, and how much they originally contained.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The reactor(s?) under discussion in this thread are not intended to be working in orbit - they are intended to be used on the Moon for (more or less) permanent bases. So, the energy needs are not those of small satellites, they are more like the space station, but probably a much bigger station that also needs to charge batteries for surface exploration vehicles and maybe even resource extraction machinery.

Finding a heat sink in space is a bigger deal than finding one on Earth, and that will probably limit the power available from a reactor, and probably make the higher temperature reactor types more attractive because they can radiate heat more effectively into a vacuum.

As for falling to Earth from orbit, considering that is the expected fate of old satellites and that nuclear fission waste remains highly radioactive for a long time, using reactors in Earth orbit is not considered a good idea. But, that is not a problem for reactors that are only started when in-place on the Moon.

However, an unused reactor falling to Earth from a failed launch or failed lunar transfer would probably not completely burn up in the atmosphere. Remember, uranium oxide does not melt until it reaches 5,189 °F, and does not vaporize until about 6,350 °F. Plus, it will be in some sort of pressure vessel that has to burn up first. This is far from the typical aluminum satellite, or even a SpaceX stainless steel rocket, of which pieces hit the ground even though one was intentionally blown up at near orbital velocity over the Bahamas, twice.

 

[contrarian]

But, that is not a problem for reactors that are only started when in-place on the Moon.

And that is part of the problem. The reactor is going to be assembled on the Moon. It is not going up in one go. The problems which might occur are during a launch failure or unexpected re-entry. Again, it all depends on how the fuel rods are made and stored, and how much fuel is in the vehicle. And searches indicate that the heat of re-entry can get up to 7,000 °F.

 

[Classical Motion]

I would go with a module strategy. A 200 lb. “smudge-pot” with a DC output terminal(possibly with I/O), could be structured into a battery for the project, or expansion project needed. With replaceable redundant spares.

A common standard energy source. Light weight and stackable. With an idle state.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not sure what you mean by a "smudge pot". If you mean some sort of radioisotope "battery", then you are talking about sending up more radioactivity, not less, in the launch phase for the same amount of power on the Moon,. And it would be in a form that is much more susceptible to reentry heat and probably much less well protected than a reactor core in a pressure vessel.

And you still have not addressed the amount of radioactivity or the potential doses to people on the ground from a launch failure. You just seem to be afraid of reactor fuel. But, strangely, not afraid of radioactive "smudge pot" material.

 

[Classical Motion]

You miss understand my fear. Chain reaction takes way to much structural engineering, process control and monitoring and human monitoring. And many shut down failure scenarios. Much training. In space we want simplicity and dependability.

Yes RTGs. I don’t know but would guess these have improved. Or maybe I should say could be improved. Perhaps even a variable internal structure, to change the density. Or another throttle.

The danger from a failed launch is of no concern. For me, that would be a false distraction.

But no one should worry, I’m not running things.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Classical Motion, you r experience with Naval propulsion reactors is not very relevant to stationary electrical power production reactors. Nobody is going to turn the Moon reractor upside down, and it does not have to have enough excess reactivity to achieve xenon over-ride. Take a look at the Fort St. Vrain helium cooled, graphite moderated power reactor, for example. That seems to be more like what NASA is considering. I don't know what the Russians will do, though.

 

[Classical Motion]

That’s very true. I am way behind on this tech. I thought the commercial plants were steam turbine too.

That was my concern. There is just too many fault scenarios with that complex system. And all the AUX equipment. And the logistics of it all. And training. Lots of people preforming constant maintenance.

There has to be better, simpler, safer systems then water/steam reactors. I would hope.

I searched for your suggestion but could only find gas generators and news of such.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Fort St. Vrain still uses steam turbines. But, there is no water in the reactor. The helium is heated in the reactor and then passes through tubes in a water tank called a steam generator, which boils that water to produce steam for the turbines.

There are other possibilities, where the helium gas directly drives a turbine. That would be a Brayton Cycle, rather than the Rankine Cycle that you are familiar with.

 

[Classical Motion]

Thank you UE.