3 ms·
But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D cost
by wongarsu 4y ago
But do we need unattended reactors for the moon? Adding a "nuclear reactor tech" person to the mission control room in Houston sounds cheap compared to R&D costs, latency to the moon is small, and for any hands-on tasks you can presumably train the astronauts (or train a couple experts as astronauts if you want to vindicate the plot of Armageddon). After all, just like a submarine a moon base would be staffed by trained specialists.
- zopa 4y agoSure, but many fewer of them. There are over a hundred people on a submarine crew; it’ll be a good while before a moon base gets anywhere near that big.
- Zigurd 4y agoThat is a good question. Even on Earth, a large number of small reactors may not be better than a small number of large reactors. Pebble bed reactors might be inherently safer and easier to operate, but the German demo reactor got its pebbles jammed and they can't figure out what to do with it. Fast reactors can consume what is otherwise high level waste, but they also have risks. On top of all that, are fission reactors compatible with VC fund liquidity horizons? I think that may be part of why some startups are focusing on operating instrumentation and software. You can patent that and sell it as a product separate from the reactor. Or worst case backstop your investors from losing their whole investment.