You must log in or register to comment.

stoniruca t1_jcjwkfv wrote

I’m sorry, what


121221222 t1_jcjy2hy wrote

Rolls-Royce secures funds to develop nuclear reactor for moon base


productivewinks t1_jck0dbt wrote

Come again?


Rikuddo t1_jck0i5u wrote

I'm tired. Give me a minute


DemSocCorvid t1_jckea0b wrote

Rolls-Royce secures funds to develop nuclear refactory period for moon base


gautamdiwan3 t1_jckp6ej wrote

But he is still tired


LiberalFartsMajor t1_jcldtxl wrote

Meanwhile, students are still waiting to find out if they can afford to finish their degrees because apparently money is tight.


1015267 t1_jckb804 wrote

They’re actually a pretty important player in the energy sector.

SMR info

Gas Turbines


account22222221 t1_jcmv8pm wrote

Add to that they also are big players in jet turbines. Most people know the from their cars but they definitely have the big engineering chops to build a reactor!

Edit: I think they are technically a different company now according to some other comments. The cars are now owned by bmw. Doesn’t change the fact that the actual rolls Royce company has a lot of big engineering expertise.


zluszcz t1_jcohak5 wrote

Their turbines are ass to work on from all the mechanics ive talked too.


SlowInsurance1616 t1_jcldh6g wrote

They got on meeeeellllion dollars to not blow up the moon. Or something along those lines, idk I didn't read the article.


dnuohxof-1 t1_jclhox5 wrote

You’d be surprised the things RR develops and their engineering history.


[deleted] t1_jcmbgx2 wrote

Rolls-Royce makes more than fancy cars, like Jet engines etc.


viconha t1_jck8zdb wrote

Btw this is not the same Rolls-Royce that makes cars, in case anyone is confused.

They separated in the 70s


KKCruiser t1_jckfu8p wrote

This whole time I'm thinking they make really cool cars AND other cool science stuff. TIL


jormungandrsjig t1_jckng71 wrote

> This whole time I'm thinking they make really cool cars AND other cool science stuff. TIL

Nuclear reactors in space today, TIE/LN starfighter's tomorrow


Zjoee t1_jcljpbw wrote

Will I be able to place an order for a TIE/IN tomorrow as well?


KuatRZ1 t1_jcpmkz6 wrote

You know you guys are real nerds for specifying the full designation with /IN. Who knows the full ship names like that?


Zjoee t1_jcpogqz wrote

I had to look it up, I was just following his designation scheme haha.


KuatRZ1 t1_jcpvek5 wrote

There was a joke in here, maybe look up my username :)


Zjoee t1_jcpvz21 wrote

Lmao I got you, I didn't even notice. The Interceptor has long been my favorite starfighter. Back when I played Star Wars Galaxies, all I did was fly around in my Interceptor getting into dogfights.


lhl274 t1_jcmnnbv wrote

.... you know Yamaha doesnt make pianos AND motorcycles, dont you?


MisterCatLady t1_jckqrb3 wrote

Is it the same company that makes plane engines?


ioisis t1_jcmlhtu wrote

Their new nuclear refrigerator is chill.


foreverturningleft t1_jckqixg wrote

Yup, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars is owned by BMW.


mrbittykat t1_jckwchc wrote

It WAS owned by Volkswagen.

Edit: they own Audi, Bentley, Cupra, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, Škoda, Ducati and several other heavy duty vehicle companies.

I was wrong about RR


redactosaur t1_jcnt28h wrote

Also Bugatti


human_af74d t1_jcoy0e8 wrote

It's called consolidation; strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.


Arcanegil t1_jckyfin wrote

Wait so the company divisions separated entirely to become their own entities, but kept the same name?


lhl274 t1_jcmnrlg wrote

Yes. Common when the division becomes more profitable or equal to the original arm of the company.


VanillaLifestyle t1_jcmt0b8 wrote

And in a totally different industry. Hard to find a CEO who can run both a consumer car company and an industrial/military engine supplier with the same proficiency.


lhl274 t1_jcmvglg wrote

What, you saying a CEO can't make a Motorcycle Piano?

Cus that'd be fuckin awesome


Lord_Frederick t1_jclhslc wrote

Any chance of them getting back together so we can get Fallout-style nuclear-powered cars?


[deleted] t1_jcmcnwz wrote

No, but that's mostly because nuclear powered cars aren't worth the effort and they'd weigh like 10 tons. Plus, fallout's nuclear cars only came about because of the resource shortage anyway, and you still had to "Gas" them with coolant which is why Red Rocket was a thing, so you didn't have unlimited range either.

They'll develop a way to charge cars through their tires on road surfaces before they put mini nukes on them. Fallout's culture was...not the most safety orientated as well.


glacialthinker t1_jcn07vj wrote

> Fallout's culture was...not the most safety orientated as well.

The presence of Vaults -- and excellent safety videos -- begs to differ.


[deleted] t1_jcnm5vr wrote

They can beg, but considering how many vaults killed all their residents? Sorry no sale. There’s a lot more tucked up ruins than vaults that worked as advertised.


orphf13 t1_jcl1wwk wrote

Also worth noting that pre-brexit, they moved most of their IP to Germany and effectively re-organized as a German company.


avl0 t1_jcopwhx wrote

literally total bollocks


orphf13 t1_jcq1hc2 wrote

What is? They actually did that and for good reason. Their biggest customer is Airbus and they didn’t want to pay all the import duties into the EU.


Killer_Moons t1_jcjy5mq wrote

Important context from article:

*All space missions depend on a power source, to support systems for communications, life-support and science experiments.

Experts suggest nuclear power could dramatically increase the length of lunar missions.

The UK Space Agency has announced £2.9m of new funding for the project, which will deliver an initial demonstration of a UK lunar modular nuclear reactor.

This comes after a £249,000 study funded by the UK Space Agency in 2022.

The science minister George Freeman said: “Space exploration is the ultimate laboratory for so many of the transformational technologies we need on Earth: from materials to robotics, nutrition, cleantech and much more.

“As we prepare to see humans return to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years, we are backing exciting research like this lunar modular reactor with Rolls-Royce to pioneer new power sources for a lunar base.*


Hunky_not_Chunky t1_jckriy4 wrote

I’m no scientist but in space if our bodies can lose heat by convection and we need special water suits to help how will nuclear reactors work? Will we need a bunch of water?


ACCount82 t1_jckt8e2 wrote

The issue with cooling in open space is that there's nothing you can dump your waste heat into.

Things like ISS use special radiators to radiate away waste heat - while small things that can generate a lot of heat for their size, like space suits, use water evaporation to mount a compact heat removal system.

On the surface of the Moon, you have the entire Moon that you could dump your waste heat into.

Of course, actually dumping the heat into the ground is an engineering and construction challenge - so early Moon and Mars reactors might opt for radiators, like the ones ISS currently uses. They would need a lot of them, but it's still doable for small reactors.


PHATsakk43 t1_jckucl6 wrote

These reactors will not use water but work with liquid metal coolant.

The heat sinks are giant radiative arrays. Similar designs were proposed for spacecraft during the SNAP program in the 1960s and 1970s.


TheFarawayOne t1_jck5gmw wrote

The title sound like what a Bond villain would do.


jormungandrsjig t1_jckniy3 wrote

> The title sound like what a Bond villain would do.

Hugo Drax has entered the chat


Ronny_Jotten t1_jckjcg0 wrote

I can't pay no doctor bills
But whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
The man just upped my rent last night
Cause whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon


Aelok t1_jckkvxp wrote

Idk guys, sounds a little racist and ignorant to me.


Ronny_Jotten t1_jckoq84 wrote

Lol. This is an excerpt from the 1970 spoken-word piece Whitey on the Moon by hall-of-famer Gil Scott-Heron. It's one of the most famous and well-respected poems of the "space age". It's unfortunately still topical today, with white billionaires in a pissing match to see which can get their rocket-powered cocks up first, while regular folks are becoming homeless by the thousands every day because their rent has doubled. Think you can work at Bezos' Amazon warehouse and afford basic food and shelter, let alone health care? Good luck. Some people might say that the idea of a moon base, with a Rolls Royce nuclear reactor, sounds a bit hard to swallow, under the circumstances.


PurpEL t1_jcn5mq8 wrote

Can't we finally just have a racially diverse selection of billionaires to exploit and fuck the rest of us!?

Black, white, whatever, the ruling class is the real enemy and we need to wake the fuck up and band together to take them off their thrones.


lhl274 t1_jcmo40g wrote

Just update it to Tribe Called Quests space program, nobody knows who Gil is any more. It wasn't televised, you know...


SeveralDiving t1_jclcw0s wrote

That something a racist would say, and it’s common describing the ignorance of the filthy rich by that comparison. Have some class or at the very least some substance you shriveled bean countin ignoramus.


Aelok t1_jcldxw7 wrote

That literally makes no sense as I'm both not racist and definitely not filthy rich. I see you've been using your Jump to Conclusions mat.


jens-2420 t1_jckii5t wrote

A Tesla car in orbit, soon a nuclear Rolls on the moon


martixy t1_jckt964 wrote

In other news, Rolls Royce taken over by Bond villain. More at 11.


marshlands t1_jco1fkz wrote

Cool, do it on earth first please.


jennybearyay t1_jckg4p4 wrote

What is there is a nuclear reactor meltdown on the moon? Or an explosion that damages the moon? How will that affect the Earth?


TechNickL t1_jckiy4y wrote

Realistically, it won't.

a) reactor meltdowns don't cause nuclear explosions like a bomb does. They just get radiation all over the place. Chernobyl was a pressure explosion, and it was an exceptionally badly built and operated reactor.

b) the amount of radiation that the sun puts out that hits the earth is orders of magnitude greater than anything man-made could ever create.


jennybearyay t1_jckqcvj wrote

Thanks for the reply. Not sure why my question was downvoted. I'm not a scientist and was curious lol.


TechNickL t1_jcl2b95 wrote

On reddit, you're not allowed to ask questions if too many people think the answer is obvious.

Score is meaningless anyway.


jennybearyay t1_jcl9cie wrote

Yeah, I don't care about the karma. It's just interesting what people will downvote. I don't know much about nuclear science so I don't see how the answer is obvious enough to get mad someone asked 😂


TechNickL t1_jcldie9 wrote

Don't think of it as mad, think of it as passive-aggressive ego padding lol


na_gooyin t1_jckkvvc wrote

Following up on point A, let’s say hypothetically the reactor does have a meltdown and we have another Chernobyl disaster. How will we suppress a reactor meltdown were it to happen in space, away from the equipment and resources we have down here on earth? How will it affect future missions to the moon?


NotShey t1_jcknk77 wrote

It won't. The particular structure the reactor is housed in will be ruined, but um... it's the moon, it's already a mildly radioactive wasteland. If they can, likely stick it in the bottom of a crater a couple miles from the main base, so even if the whole thing melts down, the base will be fine.


jormungandrsjig t1_jcknp7i wrote

> Following up on point A, let’s say hypothetically the reactor does have a meltdown and we have another Chernobyl disaster. How will we suppress a reactor meltdown were it to happen in space, away from the equipment and resources we have down here on earth? How will it affect future missions to the moon?

Use an oversized spatula and flip it off the surface into interstellar space.


whtml t1_jckhon8 wrote

that's like asking what spitting into the ocean will do to the sea levels


jennybearyay t1_jckqfj7 wrote

I'm not really smart when it comes to physics and outer space. What was the harm in asking?


DampTowlette11 t1_jcm1dw4 wrote

No harm. Ignore the people who are giving you shit.

Back to fun space facts, have you ever heard of time dilation? If you were to accelerate to an insane speed in order to reach another planet, you would be perceiving time at a slower rate than the rest of us. There is a scifi book where soldiers go across the galaxy, fighta brief war, then return to an earth that has seen centuries pass during their trip.

Space is expanding at an ever increasing speed. At some point, we may not be able to see other galaxies as the space between galaxies is expanding faster than the light can travel to reach us.


iqisoverrated t1_jcm63d9 wrote

Not at all. Space is a pretty perfect application for nuclear because theres no environment to pollute.


kamekaze1024 t1_jckhkea wrote

Massive destruction to the moon could affect tides worldwide


NotShey t1_jckntd7 wrote

Fucking what? Lmao. You could detonate 1000 of the largest nuclear bombs ever built by man at once and it wouldn't effect the mass or orbit of the moon enough to have any effect on earth. A single small reactor sure as shit wouldn't do anything.


Shavethatmonkey t1_jckuvyq wrote

What would destroy the moon? You guys have a weird idea of what you think a small reactor can do. We've had dozens of reactor failures on earth, none came close to destroying the planet.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the size of planets vs the size of nuclear explosions.


SeverePsychosis t1_jckirvk wrote

Will I be able to get a hemi in my moon buggy?


Ronedog22 t1_jcksrh2 wrote

I guess the tv show For All Mankind wasnt that sci-fi. Nuclear powers the moon-base on that show.


CupcakeHistorical625 t1_jcl0fth wrote

ijust hope I’ll be able to see space odyssey IRL… 22 years too late


Azetik t1_jcl4pz8 wrote

Quite the headline… However, they already make engines and involved in defense industry, this doesn’t surprise me very much…


mood_le t1_jcldzvp wrote

One time I was on a plane & noticed the turbines were made by RR


Gooner71 t1_jcll7w7 wrote

UK own the Moon, its ours now.


rwilcox t1_jclr87n wrote

r/ForAllMankindTV has entered the chat


sungod-1 t1_jcmdfhp wrote

It better be thorium instead of u-235


vorpal_potato t1_jcq8z3c wrote

Thorium is great, but it complicates fuel handling. Almost certainly they'll use highly-enriched uranium, just like the rest of the space nuclear reactor designs.


sungod-1 t1_jcwim4a wrote

Well that’s a lot of waste and possible acids btw waiting to happen


Lord_Blizzard t1_jcmkbll wrote

The first inhabitant of the moon base should be Joel Kinnaman.


robjpod t1_jcmo2oh wrote

We are living in a Sean Connery era James Bond movie.


AmthorsTechnokeller t1_jcmtzn0 wrote

What has rolls royce to do with nuclear power?


Bensemus t1_jcrkm2g wrote

They are a massive industrial company. The car division was sold off decades ago.


Remarkable-Net-2030 t1_jcn0net wrote

It’ll be gorgeous, not work that well, and super hard to find anyone who can work on it.


Bearet t1_jcn8ovr wrote

Why not use solar and batteries? There are no clouds to block the sun, the days are two weeks long and it shines on the whole moon so that if you needed to, you could run on batteries for extra power as needed. Otherwise, do like we do on earth: run a cable from the power source, a solar array to where ever you need the power. And since it doesn't rain, and there is no wind, you will never need to clean the solar panels. Well, maybe once every millennium, but that's all the maintenance you'll ever have to do. Cheap at twice the price.


Bensemus t1_jcrkpms wrote

Mass. While solar will be used a small reactor will be way more efficient.


Linegod t1_jcna5cm wrote

Moon Base Alpha here we come


davidmlewisjr t1_jcnr31d wrote

Is there a problem with the General Atomics Design(s) from the 50’s & 60’s.

Let them build their Orion, please….


Badtrainwreck t1_jcnu61v wrote

We will be building nuclear weapons in space in no time!


SmashTagLives t1_jcny0sn wrote

I think I’ve seen this movie. And if I haven’t, I want to see this movie.


HoplandTek t1_jcohdqj wrote

Aliens: "humans, deciding they've had enough, devised a plan to nuke space"


Sun_Chip t1_jcopo0k wrote

What about ownership and property? Is the intent to have public energy for any country that goes to the moon or does this qualify as a land grab? I don’t know space laws.


waluigishoe t1_jcpbnza wrote

i read a book as a kid about what happens to a world where the moon starts to crack and fall, and this is exactly how i would expect that to start


vorpal_potato t1_jcqbj30 wrote

I read a book in which the obliteration of all life on earth from the Chicxulub asteroid was averted by ancient kung fu wizard dinosaurs. Equally realistic!


waluigishoe t1_jcr2r3m wrote

hey i didn’t say it was a realistic, science based book. media like movies and books often make anything having to do with the words “nuclear reactor” out to be dangerous, or just a generally negative portrayal so a fantasy disaster isn’t a far out thing to associate it with in those contexts


vorpal_potato t1_jcrctkq wrote

Fair enough. :-) Some day I'd love to see someone subvert the trope and show realistic nuclear reactor failure modes, like "some little non-critical thing breaks, causing the reactor to automatically shut down, and then the operators start grumbling about 'xenon-135 transients' and what a hassle it'll be to start the damn thing back up again."


WhatTheZuck420 t1_jckbhjr wrote

would not want to be downwind when they launch the pellets/rods


NotShey t1_jcko7kb wrote

Most of our really big probes and rovers are already carrying a fair bit of nuclear material. RTGs.


ACCount82 t1_jcktdow wrote

Launching nuclear fuel into space is fairly safe, because it only becomes highly radioactive after the reactor starts running.

So you build and launch your reactor in a fully "stopped" state. You make sure it makes it to its destination. And only then you start the reactor and make the fuel "hot".


zamfire t1_jcn256b wrote

Not a lot of wind on the moon.


LeftOnQuietRoad t1_jckuose wrote

Couldn’t we just solar it?


Bottoms_Up_Bob t1_jcnwh2c wrote

Solar is notoriously weight and size inefficient, making it a poor solution for space when any real amount of power is required.


ImUrFrand t1_jcm3cnv wrote

typically nasa and other nations' space agencies use nuclear batteries, deriving electricity from decaying fissal material...

a reactor would provide long term electricity, but it will be much more dangerous than batteries.

terrestrial reactors rely on water for cooling and power generation through conversion to steam... which probably isn't going to work on the moon.

this might just be a puff project to line the pockets of the lowest bidder.


vorpal_potato t1_jcq8iex wrote

> terrestrial reactors rely on water for cooling and power generation through conversion to steam... which probably isn't going to work on the moon.

You can safely assume that the engineers working on this have thought of that. There are options that work on the moon. This isn't the first nuclear power plant designed to operate in a vacuum; e.g. NASA built and successfully tested one a few years ago.


sarcastosaurus t1_jconev8 wrote

You have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know what's the average temperature on the moon ?


ImUrFrand t1_jcprpre wrote

Water freezes at 32° F.

over night temperature on the moon is around -300° F.

do you know what you're talking about?


sarcastosaurus t1_jcqitoz wrote

Yeah Einstein good job, so they would use another cooling method. What's your point ?


OnslaughtDelete t1_jcnmx4w wrote

Yea ya know, all of space let’s just fuck with that very light object not secured by contrifugal force and no atmosphere to cushion forces, like the mass of a nuclear reactor landing on it, that our climate is highly dependent on. Ok.


vorpal_potato t1_jcq8ty2 wrote

The moon is vastly more massive than you seem to think.


OnslaughtDelete t1_jcqc2sp wrote

Sure, but once something is acted upon their will be a change. The moon is also mostly comprised of titanium and lithium, some of the lightest elements. Sure, landing to plant a flag might not do much, but constant travel, or even strong magnetic forces required to generate power may have lasting consequences.