4 ms·

This is a funny attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear considering they operate a fleet of nuclear powered submarines and warships.

GordonS 4y ago
The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that they can operate for a very long time without refueling - despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff the planners are willing to make.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I think the Navy has actually shown that nuclear for those ships is cost competitive. Refueling a large ship for decades is expensive.
lostlogin 4y ago
Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/mcmurdo-antarctica.asp https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]", "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the Navy's McMurdo Sound". McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees". Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy." [1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=VkjNgAvyhE&dq=PM-3A+Nukey+Poo&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=V... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
    - throwaway4aday 4y ago
      > The US Navy made a nuclear reactor Still wrong, made != owned
      - jodrellblank 4y ago
        If you want to make a shitty throwaway account to just post "wrong wrong wrong" and ignore citations and evidence, can you do it somewhere else? Change "Navy made a nuclear reactor" to "Navy comissioned, owned, operated, bungled, mismanaged, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on, a nuclear reactor". Happy?
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  It's listed there ... as "owned by the Navy" and "The PM-3A was not operated by the Army, but was under the NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), the shore-based power division of the US Navy."
jodrellblank 4y ago
It isn't an attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear, it's an attempt to say that humans failed to run a nuclear reactor in Antarctica, why think one will be any easier on the moon? The crew is way more expensive, spare parts are not available, tools are not available, there's no bulldozers or other way to move 12,000 tons of contaminated rocks away from the area like they had to do in the Antarctic, plus solar is so much better these days than the 1960s and the moon has no atmosphere to get in the way of it.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  > the moon has no atmosphere to get in the way of it. The lunar night is 14 days long

GordonS 4y ago

The benefit of nuclear powered ships/submarines is that they can operate for a very long time without refueling - despite being extremely expensive, that can be a tradeoff the planners are willing to make.

panick21_ 4y ago
I think the Navy has actually shown that nuclear for those ships is cost competitive. Refueling a large ship for decades is expensive.

lostlogin 4y ago

Are you sure it wasn’t a navy reactor? The VA says it was operated by the navy. It sounds like the Antarctic design deserves some ridicule. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/mcmurdo-antarctica.asp https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/... Edit: A history of the plant: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/ It was an army plant, the reactor is listed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program

throwaway4aday 4y ago
In that case the original commenter was wrong calling it a Navy reactor.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  My comment link has a link to[1]: which is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists saying "The Navy shuts down and dismantles a nuclear reactor in Antarctica", "Sometime soon the US Navy will have to find some place to quietly dispose of [...] by-product of 10 years of operating a small military power reactor in Antarctica", "The Navy considered nuclear power particularly suitable for the inland bases, where oil fuel was being flown in over such long distances[...]", "all the electricity for the 1,000 men stationed at the Navy's McMurdo Sound". McMurdo station[2] "built by the US Navy Seabees". Army Nuclear Power Program on Wikipedia[3] "PM-3A: 1.75 MW electric, plus heating and desalinization. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy." [1] https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=VkjNgAvyhE&dq=PM-3A+Nukey+Poo&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=V... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    > The US Navy made a nuclear reactor Still wrong, made != owned
    - jodrellblank 4y ago
      If you want to make a shitty throwaway account to just post "wrong wrong wrong" and ignore citations and evidence, can you do it somewhere else? Change "Navy made a nuclear reactor" to "Navy comissioned, owned, operated, bungled, mismanaged, wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on, a nuclear reactor". Happy?
jodrellblank 4y ago
It's listed there ... as "owned by the Navy" and "The PM-3A was not operated by the Army, but was under the NAVFAC (Naval Facilities Engineering Command), the shore-based power division of the US Navy."

jodrellblank 4y ago

It isn't an attempted dunk on US Navy nuclear, it's an attempt to say that humans failed to run a nuclear reactor in Antarctica, why think one will be any easier on the moon? The crew is way more expensive, spare parts are not available, tools are not available, there's no bulldozers or other way to move 12,000 tons of contaminated rocks away from the area like they had to do in the Antarctic, plus solar is so much better these days than the 1960s and the moon has no atmosphere to get in the way of it.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
> the moon has no atmosphere to get in the way of it. The lunar night is 14 days long