Russia and China to Build a Nuclear Plant on the Moon.

[tggzzz]

The moon doesn't rotate, so no night or day.

Of course the moon rotates. Once a month.

The dark side of the moon is a music album, not any description of reality.

The moon did have a "dark side", but stopped having one on October 7th 1959.

Hint: Africa used to be called "The Dark Contininent", and it wasn't because of the melatonin in the inhabitants' skin

[Psi]

Building nuclear power stations on the moon is probably not an issue that needs solving until we have a pretty decent sized base up there, or we want to start doing some actual mining/manufacturing up there.

Until then solar + RTGs make more sense.

[SiliconWizard]

The moon doesn't rotate, so no night or day.

Of course the moon rotates. Once a month.

The dark side of the moon is a music album, not any description of reality.

The moon did have a "dark side", but stopped having one on October 7th 1959.

Must have been a rough day.

[tggzzz]

The moon doesn't rotate, so no night or day.

Of course the moon rotates. Once a month.

The dark side of the moon is a music album, not any description of reality.

The moon did have a "dark side", but stopped having one on October 7th 1959.

Must have been a rough day.

So bad it was front page news around the world. Scared the USA witless.

[vk6zgo]

The moon doesn't rotate, so no night or day.

Of course the moon rotates. Once a month.

The dark side of the moon is a music album, not any description of reality.

Which was what I meant to convey, but stuffed it up.
I was thinking about how the moon presents the same side to us, & that there was always some part of the moon lit by the sun.
I neglected the fact that we don't see all of the same side, all of the time.

[jonovid]

luna-concrete is going be a thing,  the problem is in finding water. 

IMO in this age of micro engineering robotics.
anybody with a modified 3 stage intercontinental ballistic missile on the back of a modified semi-trailer
can put a shoebox sized satellite-robot-camera on the moon.  if your smart enough? looking at you Kim Jong Un.

[coppercone2]

this sounds like the plot of 'star wreck'

[EPAIII]

Build a nuclear reactor on the moon?

Well, let's see, Russia can't build a tank past WWII models that doesn't go "Pop Goes the Wiesel, er the Turret that is" when struck by almost anything larger than a 30 caliber (7.62mm¹ for you metric types) bullet. Actually their WWII models do that too.

And China has three aircraft carriers but no viable aircraft to use with them. Oh, and have you ever purchased anything from Ali Express? One month delivery and their electronic parts fall apart if soldered for a second time.

And those wonder houses of technology are going to build a nuclear reactor on the moon? I bet it will be a small one. And I wouldn't be surprised if it melts down after a year or two. If it takes even that long.

And it's not a lack of brain power. They have some excellent scientists and engineers. It's the political bosses who are so corrupt that everything gets stolen or "misdirected".


Note 1: I have to admire the European nations which have changed their military rifles to a metric caliber. Lets see, 30 caliper = 0.300 INCHES = 25.4 mm/inch X 0.300" = 7.62mm. Viola, it's metric! That's it, a mathematically exact conversion. No decimal places past the "2", just zeros to infinity. Boy was that ever so,so smart of them. No more old-fashioned units of measure there.

[Andy Chee]

high power reactor cooling in space will be biggest challenge because there is no way to dissipate excess heat

Sure there is.  The same way the sun sends its heat to earth.  Radiation.

Heat can transfer in four ways; phase change, conduction, convection, and radiation.

Whether a high powered nuclear reactor can be cooled via radiation alone, now that's an engineering challenge.

[Coordonnée_chromatique]

high power reactor cooling in space will be biggest challenge because there is no way to dissipate excess heat

Whether a high powered nuclear reactor can be cooled via radiation alone, now that's an engineering challenge.

Hello, this is an idot question but, if you radiated energy hits nothing there is no heat transfer ?

[tggzzz]

The moon doesn't rotate, so no night or day.

Of course the moon rotates. Once a month.

The dark side of the moon is a music album, not any description of reality.

Which was what I meant to convey, but stuffed it up.
I was thinking about how the moon presents the same side to us, & that there was always some part of the moon lit by the sun.
I neglected the fact that we don't see all of the same side, all of the time.

Correct. We see more than 50% of the lunar surface.



Since the 1850s this has been used to show remarkable stereoscopic views of the moon, originally for Brewster viewers. Get out your red-blue anaglyphs, and see the football

[strawberry]

vacuum tubes can radiate some IR ~20W heat but it is not enough to radiate more power per volume
 need direct anode cooling heatsink fins or water cooling for power TX tube >100W

probably reactor will melt if sun shines effectively onto such IR radiator

[dcbrown73]

So, People are I believe already building Thorium-based molten salt reactors that basically are manufactured in what amounts to a shipping container.    Some people think they can be the future of nuclear reactors for all.  Each house subdivision has it's own energy supply.  Instead of street side transformers, you have street side Thorium-based molten salt reactor powering the neighborhood.  That could eliminate the need for electrical grids and remove all the risk that they pause to greater communities.

So, why build one if you could just deliver one already built? 

Obviously, I'm no nuclear scientist, but if this is the future.  Why would you ever attempt to build a reactor on the moon?   Well, unless it's weight or something else makes it not practical to deliver / use.   Melt down shouldn't be a problem since molten salt reactors operate in a meltdown state!

[dcbrown73]

probably reactor will melt if sun shines effectively onto such IR radiator

A heat shield would fix that.  The James Webb Telescope has a heat shield.  It's -452F (-269C) in the shade and 752F (400C) on the hot side that faces the Sun.

[CatalinaWOW]

probably reactor will melt if sun shines effectively onto such IR radiator

A heat shield would fix that.  The James Webb Telescope has a heat shield.  It's -452F (-269C) in the shade and 752F (400C) on the hot side that faces the Sun.

The Webb heat shield benefits from being a long ways from anything else, so the cold side effectively sees the cold sky everywhere.  A shield over a reactor on the lunar surface would stabilize to the temperature of the lunar surface, which would in turn be set by thermal conduction from the subsurface layers.  Somewhere around 300K.   

But in any case radiating the heat from a reactor is just an engineering problem.  A heat pump can raise the hot side temperature above any local temperature and radiate the heat away.  Adds weight and complexity and reduces net power available, but doesn't violate any physical laws.

[strawberry]

dont know some say that earth could be overheated by sun if didnt radiate excess heat to space
energy conservation law

maybe some fraction converts into kinetic energy

[Bud]

Get out your red-blue anaglyphs, and see the football

It worked! 👍

[tggzzz]

Get out your red-blue anaglyphs, and see the football

It worked! 👍

Fun, isn't it. APOD has stereo anaglyphs infrequently, so I keep my anaglyph specs handy. A few examples:
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap221217.html
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap240117.html
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap211023.html
That last one is a good example of why stereo photos can be better than flattie photos.

But then I've been taking stereo pictures for 40 years, and have a pleasant collection of vintage glass stereoscopic slides.
https://vintagestereoscopicglassslides.wordpress.com/