POLL: Nuclear-Powered Moon Bases?

Should Moon Bases Be Nuclear-Powered?

  • Duh! It's the cheapest, most effective way to go.

    Votes: 65 83.3%
  • One word: solar (plus two more words: no clouds!).

    Votes: 11 14.1%
  • This is nuts! We must not export such dangerous and dirty technology to another world.

    Votes: 2 2.6%

  • Total voters
    78
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Not just yes, but HELL YES!!! It's about time they started discussing this out in the open. If people are afraid of radiation in space they'd damn well better stay out of the sunlight as the Sun is the biggest Nuclear Reactor in the neighborhood. Nuclear Power & NTR Engines will get us out to the farthest reaches of the Solar System & conceivably into the Galaxy at large too. The sooner we start to use this versatile, powerful & abundant resource the sooner we will be the Space Explorers we want to become.
 
R

rogrushton

Guest
I am not a tree hugger by any stretch but we already have the technology to put solar on the ISS so why not use the same thing on the moon.You scruntch them down into the canisters like the ISS and shoot them to the moon on Aries and you unroll them as big as you want. Plus you have to store the radioactive waste somewhere and transport it and handle it and if there is a spill the whole moon is just a rock and not viable for any resources at all. And if or when we leave the moon you take the same solar cells with you. I for one would not want to be the astro or cosmonaut that has to handle that stuff in 1/6th g.
 
L

Lemurion

Guest
rogrushton":218guilr said:
I am not a tree hugger by any stretch but we already have the technology to put solar on the ISS so why not use the same thing on the moon.You scruntch them down into the canisters like the ISS and shoot them to the moon on Aries and you unroll them as big as you want. Plus you have to store the radioactive waste somewhere and transport it and handle it and if there is a spill the whole moon is just a rock and not viable for any resources at all. And if or when we leave the moon you take the same solar cells with you. I for one would not want to be the astro or cosmonaut that has to handle that stuff in 1/6th g.
Solar doesn't work at night.

Nuclear makes much more sense for such applications.
 
M

mark_d_s

Guest
I voted for nuclear, but the best option would be solar, with nuclear power backing up primary systems, such as life support.

A base at the south pole could use solar energy continuously - there are regions where the sun is always visible.
 
N

none12345

Guest
Absolutely. Until we crack fusion, or find something else, nuclear will be our only access to space. We need to develop it now.

Solar works fine in low earth orbit, its useless for anything past mars. And even mars, its pretty crappy on.

Can we do solar on the moon? Yes, but only from a few specific locations. Most of the moon would be off limits. Its night is 14 days long, its day is 14 days long, during its day would be fine. Not having power for 14 days at night would be a game breaker tho. The exception is a few spots on the poles where you can get sunlight most of the time.

Its time to stop being afraid of nuclear, and start using it.
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
rogrushton":36lp7b6y said:
I am not a tree hugger by any stretch but we already have the technology to put solar on the ISS so why not use the same thing on the moon.You scruntch them down into the canisters like the ISS and shoot them to the moon on Aries and you unroll them as big as you want. Plus you have to store the radioactive waste somewhere and transport it and handle it and if there is a spill the whole moon is just a rock and not viable for any resources at all. And if or when we leave the moon you take the same solar cells with you. I for one would not want to be the astro or cosmonaut that has to handle that stuff in 1/6th g.
A Nuclear spill on the lunar surface wouldn't even show up through the background radiation present in the form of Solar Radiation. The Magnetosphere & the atmosphere block it all out here, on the Moon it's naked to space & any living/working quarters have to be shielded against that.
Solar power has it's advantages but Nuclear power has orders of magnitude more advantages.
 
B

bushwhacker

Guest
the only way we are ever going anywhere in the solar system, will be nuclear powered. solar is good but nuclear is magnitudes better.. look at the difference between a diesel/electric submarine and a nuclear sub
 
A

anemazoso

Guest
I am to the left politically, but I think the technology is mature enough to not worry about it to much. The advantages are spectacularly greater with compact reactors on any other body be it an asteroid or Mars. More power available for science and exploration and it will allow explores to not be confined to the poles with solar. Or build SSP you can beam it to Earth and the moon. :eek: And we will need it eventually for exploration beyond the asteroid belt, to far away for solar.
 
M

MasterSith

Guest
I am so glad there are so many pro-nuclear people that also understand the basic limitations of going full solar on the Moon. Some people mention putting the solar stations on the poles, where the sun never sets, but do you realize the additional costs and power losses you'd incur by having to build the infrastructure that transports that energy over very long distances to your base, or bases, which would not necessarily be on the pole?

A nuclear power system on the Moon could power many bases, or one huge one, and I'm all for that!
 
A

Astronutwannabe

Guest
Nuclear is the only practical power source for a moon base or even simple research/monitoring station. You get both electricity and heat (both needed on the moon). Yes solar is clean, safe, and wouldn’t require refueling. BUT a lunar night is ~336 hours long so you would need some pretty hefty batteries, unless you can find a peak at either pole which receives continuous sun light. BUT that limits the base locations to the polar regions. Also there would be the issue of dust over time which would reduce the efficiency of the solar collector.
 
B

bushwhacker

Guest
pretty much the only way to do full solar on the moon would be an orbiting solar array and beamed power. nuclear is much easier and cheaper. we already have the reactors and the technology in our subs. not to mention the aircraft carriers... if we can send something like that up even in parts and assemble it on site these things support populations in the thousands
 
E

elroy_jetson

Guest
For initial setup of our first lunar outpost and testing of Mars bound technology, yes, a nuclear plant would be acceptable. As a long term power source - no. Solar farms encircling the lunar globe and an underground electrical grid could provide more than enough electricity for all of our needs.
 
J

jasonfields

Guest
elroy_jetson":3dirq46j said:
For initial setup of our first lunar outpost and testing of Mars bound technology, yes, a nuclear plant would be acceptable. As a long term power source - no. Solar farms encircling the lunar globe and an underground electrical grid could provide more than enough electricity for all of our needs.
Underground electrical grid? The amount of shielding necessary to protect against solar storms would be prohibitively heavy and expensive(luna has no atmosphere to help protect it). Not to mention the most obvious point: there are no mexicans in space. Who would build it? By the time that we have enough going for us and enough going on on the moon to warrant something like that, we would already be to mars and probably beyond.
 
H

HiGh_GuY

Guest
a Moon base should be NON-EXISTANT !!! Now weather or not a mars base should be nuclear, solar, solar-hydrogen powered is a question worth asking.
 
B

bushwhacker

Guest
elroy_jetson":pqoargdr said:
For initial setup of our first lunar outpost and testing of Mars bound technology, yes, a nuclear plant would be acceptable. As a long term power source - no. Solar farms encircling the lunar globe and an underground electrical grid could provide more than enough electricity for all of our needs.
elroy theres one thing your missing here. the total surface of the moon pretty much equals the total land surface of the earth burying that much cable would be almost impossible.
 
K

krash

Guest
The nuclear reactors on Naval aircraft carriers are capable of sustaining a city of 250,000 people for 25 years. Seems like a no brainer to harness that technology.

Since everyone has been brainwashed to death over how bad nuclear energy is, it will never happen. But nuclear reactors are the cleanest, most effective way to generate power.

Hopefully nobody is going to say that having hundreds of thousands of acres of windmills and solar panels is cleaner...That is such a stupid argument...
 
S

spase_rase

Guest
2 week day/night cycle makes solar problematic (except at the poles). Nuclear power is required.

Sad that so many people whom know so little about nuclear power have been conditioned (brain washed) by liberals to believe that nuclear power is unconditionally bad.

Facts:
1. A nuclear reactor can NOT cause a nuclear explosion.
2. Nuclear power is safe. (As long as Soviet engineers didn't design the reactor!)
3. Nuclear power is the BEST option for green house gas free energy production. All other options can only deliver only a fraction of the power and at many times the cost.
4. Those who fight against nuclear power are responsible for MILLIONS of TONS of unnecessary green house gas production every year.
 
A

AndySevern

Guest
Neuclear power on the moon??!!! Don't you all remember what happened on 25 November 1999!

Oh, no hang on that was just a TV series. ;)
 
M

mike1usa

Guest
Let’s see, the world is overpopulated, ice caps are melting! The environment is quite possibly in irreversible turmoil! Wars are raging!!! Superpowers almost had WWIII already etc etc etc etc!! Then a few egg heads want to use solar power or safer means in space!!!! Give me a break, we need to use whatever means or technologies possible to explorer before it’s too late. Who knows, maybe when humans get to Mars, then we as humans might understand there are bigger things and become (one people) to help us get along in this world! YES use nuclear or anything else to get the job done now period. Yeck, should have been done yesterday, ever seen the movie 2010! Guess were not as advanced as I thought:(
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
It is a false choice. You use the best power source for the mission to hand. Sometimes it will be batteries, sometimes fuel cells, sometimes solar, sometimes nuclear.

Jon
 
C

centerion

Guest
Go nuclear on Earth and in space. Solar and wind are the most technologically diverting and inefficient endeavors to waste money on. While Im at it, convert all gas station pump power to spilt water to create hydrogen and run cars on fuel cells. Batterys for cars and trucks is illogical.
COME ON, man made global warming is the biggest con in history.
1. the oceans create 90% of the evil co2.
2. Plant decompesition create 7%
3. 2.8% comes out of the ground.
4. Man contribution is immeasurably 0.2%
5. THE ICE CAPS ARE GROWING.
6. Tropical plants have been found under the poler ice caps.
7. TE ONLY WAY TO DESTROY THE OZONE LAYER IS TO DESTROY THE SUN AND ALL WATER MOLECULES.
 
C

CosmicGas

Guest
the free market will determine which power source is most cost eficent long term. Don't forget $10,000 per lb. to low earth orbit, not to mention all the way to the moon gets real spendy. nuclear materials are heavy elements. Where as silicates which solar cell are made of are one of the most abundent elements on the Moon. For long term exploration/colonization, Solar may win out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY