3 ms·

I think you might be overestimating how much they'd weigh. It isn't like they need a MW or even GW scale reactor up there right away, and kW reactors like NASA'

I think you might be overestimating how much they'd weigh. It isn't like they need a MW or even GW scale reactor up there right away, and kW reactors like NASA's Kilopower are expected to be ~1.5t, easily allowing several dozen (so, ~600kW worth) to be carried on one Starship. That said, while nuclear power would be pretty useful in permanently shadowed craters and during lunar nights, Kilopower is probably still not mature enough and the public too scared of the nuclear boogeyman for them to power a moon base this decade.

panick21_ 4y ago
A larger version of Kilopower is probably what you want. And that probably enough for now. But I also think a machine that mass produces enough solar panels and batteries on the moon wouldn't be that light. Kilopower is pretty mature, all it needs it to be actually tested in space. > public too scared of the nuclear boogeyman We can not be hostage to a uninformed public opinion. NASA can go ahead with these things just fine. The public doesn't know the difference between a nuclear battery that are often used and a small reactor. The public doesn't start a revolution everytime nuclear is mentioned. NASA and DoD are literally going to test a nuclear thermal rocket, if they can do that, a tiny nuclear reactor shouldn't be an issue.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  I agree that we should not be held hostage to uninformed public opinion, but I feel that we effectively are being held hostage by it. As you mention, the public can't even tell the difference between an RTG and a reactor and while that doesn't stop flagship missions like Perseverance, it does limit how innovative NASA can be with the use of nuclear technology in space. NASA and the DoD do have the plan to test a nuclear thermal rocket, but it's in such an early stage that much of the public isn't even aware of it. I'm certain there will be much more backlash from the uninformed masses as the program approaches the point of testing in space, and I'm not at all confident that it won't be cancelled as a result. Hell, with how low the standards are with Congresspeople, I wouldn't be surprised if the program is shut down by them for similar reasons, without much public involvement.

panick21_ 4y ago

A larger version of Kilopower is probably what you want. And that probably enough for now. But I also think a machine that mass produces enough solar panels and batteries on the moon wouldn't be that light. Kilopower is pretty mature, all it needs it to be actually tested in space. > public too scared of the nuclear boogeyman We can not be hostage to a uninformed public opinion. NASA can go ahead with these things just fine. The public doesn't know the difference between a nuclear battery that are often used and a small reactor. The public doesn't start a revolution everytime nuclear is mentioned. NASA and DoD are literally going to test a nuclear thermal rocket, if they can do that, a tiny nuclear reactor shouldn't be an issue.

dotnet00 4y ago
I agree that we should not be held hostage to uninformed public opinion, but I feel that we effectively are being held hostage by it. As you mention, the public can't even tell the difference between an RTG and a reactor and while that doesn't stop flagship missions like Perseverance, it does limit how innovative NASA can be with the use of nuclear technology in space. NASA and the DoD do have the plan to test a nuclear thermal rocket, but it's in such an early stage that much of the public isn't even aware of it. I'm certain there will be much more backlash from the uninformed masses as the program approaches the point of testing in space, and I'm not at all confident that it won't be cancelled as a result. Hell, with how low the standards are with Congresspeople, I wouldn't be surprised if the program is shut down by them for similar reasons, without much public involvement.