Comments
paulfromatlanta t1_jcjykf7 wrote
>> £2.9 million of new funding for the project which will deliver an initial demonstration of a UK lunar modular nuclear reactor
That seems unlikely unless Rolls Royce is putting a lot of funding on their own.
NinjaLanternShark t1_jck6g5y wrote
I hate when articles don't make sense and the writer/reporter can't be bothered to clarify.
You literally couldn't put a photograph of a nuclear reactor on the moon for that.
MisterBlizno t1_jck9u2c wrote
Nobody is suggesting that the quoted cost is to build a reactor on the moon. The money is to make and demonstrate a prototype on Earth.
[deleted] t1_jcljnj1 wrote
[deleted]
BranchLatter4294 t1_jcm5bxe wrote
Isn't there plenty of sunlight for solar panels on the moon? They have about 2 weeks of daylight, then 2 weeks of night. Should be plenty of time to charge batteries for a small base station.
tanrgith t1_jcr8eo7 wrote
You're gonna need a whole lot of batteries to support 2 weeks of energy needs
BranchLatter4294 t1_jcrbxc7 wrote
About 3 typical EV battery packs. Six for redundancy.
ItsAConspiracy t1_jctyfgi wrote
If each of those EV batteries is a 100 kilowatt-hour Tesla battery, and your lunar base uses just one kilowatt like an average American house, then sure, three batteries will last for (almost) two weeks since there are 336 hours in two weeks.
But Rolls-Royce is talking about a reactor that can provide megawatts. If we need a megawatt of power instead of a kilowatt, then we multiply our battery requirement by a factor of a thousand.
BranchLatter4294 t1_jcuvm6g wrote
Yes, if you're building a city. Not sure we are at that stage yet. And mirrors in orbit could still direct sunlight to the panels even during the night weeks.
ItsAConspiracy t1_jcuzi3u wrote
Depends, if they start mining then they could easily need a megawatt or two. Which is probably why Rolls-Royce is including that size in their designs.
PretentiousPickle t1_jcmm6rd wrote
The moon is way smaller and father away so less light. Don't be dumb
Reddragonking4 t1_jcmpsa1 wrote
Not sure what you mean here. I mean sure the surface area of the moon is smaller, but a square meter of solar panels on earth is the same size as a square meter of solar panels on the moon. And it may be further away from us but half the time it’s closer to the sun than we are by a small amount. I somehow doubt the variation in the distance between the moon and the sun is very much or significant for powering but maybe.
If anything maybe the atmosphere (or lack of) would be the biggest difference but I’d imagine that would only help solar panels work better (but I also don’t know). Don’t be rude
PretentiousPickle t1_jcmu5sa wrote
Tell me you don't know anything about the moon without telling me you don't know anything about the moon
Reddragonking4 t1_jcmuv2l wrote
Okay assuming your not a troll, what is it that you’re saying? Since the moon is smaller than the earth that solar panels don’t make sense? Nobody is suggesting covering the entirety of the surface of the moon in panels. I was talking about the efficiency of panels that are the same size on the moon vs earth
PretentiousPickle t1_jcmvj8l wrote
It's not the panels at all. The panel is the same if it's on earth and the moon. The reason it's dumb is because the moon has significantly less light than earth. It's further away and half the time it's covered by earth. Earth is way bigger as well so less percentage of it is covered by the moon. Yea nuclear reactor makes more sense
Also why the downvotes. You can just move on
Reddragonking4 t1_jcmx3wi wrote
The moon is not necessarily further away from the sun as the earth. Half the time it’s closer half the time it’s further
The earth also spends about half the time without the sun in the sky.
If you built the panels on the far side of the moon, the earth would never interfere with the sun while the panel is facing the sun
If you built the panels on the face of the moon we can see, the earth would only block during a lunar eclipse which is rather rare.
And what is your source for the moon receiving less light than the earth? They receive essentially the same amount
Slightly_Shrewd t1_jcnbe5n wrote
Appears to be a fabled “Reddit expert”. Lol
[deleted] t1_jcndduf wrote
[removed]
okieRod t1_jcjz553 wrote
Years after, Chernobyl animals started to return. Maybe the scientists are hoping to build up the wildlife in the area. LOL! On a more serious side, please tell me they are looking to use Thorium rather than uranium.
vorpal_potato t1_jcqek71 wrote
It'll almost certainly use highly enriched uranium.
FuturologyBot t1_jcjzj66 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the Article
>Rolls-Royce has received funding from the UK Space Agency to develop a nuclear reactor for a Moon base.
>
>The project will look into how nuclear power could be used to support a future base on the Moon for astronauts.
>
>Scientists and engineers at the British company are working on the micro-reactor programme to develop technology that will provide power needed for humans to live and work on Earth's natural satellite.
>
>All space missions depend on a power source to support systems for communications, life-support and science experiments.
>
>Experts suggest nuclear power could potentially dramatically increase the length of lunar missions.
>
>The UK Space Agency has announced £2.9 million of new funding for the project which will deliver an initial demonstration of a UK lunar modular nuclear reactor.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11to9uk/rollsroyce_goahead_to_build_a_nuclear_reactor_on/jcjwljy/
[deleted] t1_jcko7mi wrote
[removed]
Royal_Intention_8282 t1_jcl7wu5 wrote
I used to work for the largest Oil & Gas company in the world and Rolls Royce made a lot of the critical parts for their oil rigs and equipment. I think if anyone could do this it would be Rolls Royce.
JediASU t1_jclfwt1 wrote
The moon going to have more electricity than Earth.
[deleted] t1_jcmb83t wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jcm63n9 wrote
[deleted]
eyecantfocus t1_jclcug6 wrote
What's the point, we can't even live on Earth correctly.
crashtestpilot t1_jcmdrsd wrote
Some people can.
kaminaowner2 t1_jcn8kl8 wrote
We didn’t know we where living on earth “wrong” until we went to space and could gather data to prove it, our best technology to combat the “wrongness” has all come from space exploration. Computers solar panels etc. Putting humans in unique situations leads to unique solutions that then get absorbed by the race for other uses. That’s why we use algorithms made to chart the stars to find cancer, science is freaking amazing.
blinkysmurf t1_jcm2sir wrote
I know, it’s like- what do we need to live and work on the Moon for?
crashtestpilot t1_jcme4we wrote
Science!
Also, ask dinosaurs in re space programs.
Also, nice low grav point defense against incoming spicy rocks.
Also, read Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein.
blinkysmurf t1_jcnafxw wrote
Ok, I acknowledge that meteor defence is a pretty cool reason.
crashtestpilot t1_jcpa1hm wrote
And I acknowledge that defence is cooler with a c.
See, we can get along.
snoogins355 t1_jcz2uto wrote
Someone needs a field trip to NASA!
eyecantfocus t1_jczdf8z wrote
So excited to hear about moon war in the future.
snoogins355 t1_jczdmta wrote
That's the show For All Mankind
lil-doinky t1_jcmjwlx wrote
Now I like some of the Rolls-Royce cars but what the fuck do they know about nuclear reactors??
itsRadioVoice t1_jcmq95c wrote
Rolls-Royce is an aerospace company - they design, build and supply nuclear reactors for submarines for the past 60 years. The car brand and division was sold off to BMW 24 years ago.
Slight-Ad3026 t1_jcon0do wrote
Wow so Rolls Royce cars are actually bmw cars?
tablesNshit t1_jcsjjqp wrote
Different companies. The car business is owned by BMW.
Gari_305 OP t1_jcjwljy wrote
From the Article
>Rolls-Royce has received funding from the UK Space Agency to develop a nuclear reactor for a Moon base.
>
>The project will look into how nuclear power could be used to support a future base on the Moon for astronauts.
>
>Scientists and engineers at the British company are working on the micro-reactor programme to develop technology that will provide power needed for humans to live and work on Earth's natural satellite.
>
>All space missions depend on a power source to support systems for communications, life-support and science experiments.
>
>Experts suggest nuclear power could potentially dramatically increase the length of lunar missions.
>
>The UK Space Agency has announced £2.9 million of new funding for the project which will deliver an initial demonstration of a UK lunar modular nuclear reactor.