The Space News of the day is seemingly that Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy has said that we need to build a nuclear power station on the moon by 2030 if we're really serious about getting to the moon and establishing a presence there.
"We're in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy," Duffy told reporters in response to a question about reports that surfaced earlier in the week about his ambitious directive to launch a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor to the moon by 2030. Such a reactor would produce roughly the same amount of energy as an average U.S. household uses every 3.5 days.
Statements like that last one pretty much make me throw up, and this one is no exception. He mixes units between 100 kilowatts and the energy a household uses in 3.5 days, which would turn that into Watt-Hours, making the 100 kiloWatt number meaningless. Does he really mean kWH? That leads us to multiply 100 kilowatts * 3.5 days * 24 hours/day or 8400 kWH. If he means in 3.5 days, a house uses 100 kWH then we divide 100 by 24*3.5, which says the nuclear power generator is producing 1.19 Watts, but 1.2W is nothing. I have some 18650 cheap Lithium Ion batteries that deliver almost 10 times that - 9.25 Watts - although I'll readily admit a chunk of nuclear fuel will last far longer than a charge on one of those batteries.
I think that disqualifies that second approach and this nuclear power plant must be 100 kW and 8,400 kWH. And that statement "... roughly the same amount of energy as an average U.S. household uses every 3.5 days" is still nonsense.
100 kW isn't much - it's more than small house backup generator, which might be in the range of 20 to 25 kW, but it's not an outrageous number. I would guesstimate that a small group of buildings on the moon getting baked by the sun for two weeks and frozen by not having that sun for two weeks could need 100 kW, if not more. Depends on how big the colony is, how it's laid out, what they need to run instruments and important details like that.
Still, the most remarkable aspect of this story is that it's not really news. NASA has been talking about nuclear power for the moon and other places for years. One approach, first mentioned here in March of '18 has been called KRUSTY - Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology. KRUSTY went through testing from November '17 through March '18.
That's just the first one that comes to mind (KRUSTY kinda sticks in my mind),
but it's not the only one.
Rolls Royce, yes - the luxury car maker, has been working with the UK Space
Agency
to produce a small nuclear power source for use on the moon or Mars.
Various government agencies have been working on reactors for power in space since the early days of the space program. The only thing about this week's talk that seems new to me is just the guy giving the talk.
Rendering of one of the Kilopower Stirling Engines from KRUSTY. These were rated as 10kW for 10 years. Image credit: NASA
French nuclear subs have reactors that are about 50 megawatts. US subs use reactors roughly in the 500 megawatt range. This would seem to be type we would need since we have them already designed. Though not for the moon
ReplyDeleteFirst time I read about the reactors on aircraft carriers I thought I wanted one in the backyard. They're too big, though, not to mention they seem to be designed with the idea that the entire ocean is a few feet away so cooling is easy. Still, the idea of one of those down the block powering a few thousand homes is more interesting than a much bigger reactor powering a large chunk of the state. It's got a National Stock Number so we can just order one, right? ;-)
DeleteNimitz-class reactors are ~550MW thermal power but a fraction of that for electrical power (~100MW) and those are by far the biggest reactors the US Navy deploys. Ohio-class subs have about 220MWt unit and SSNs are in the 100-150MWt range, and the French SSBNs are in 150MWt range...
DeleteWe care about thermal power since the reactor provides both electricity and propulsion. The NASA reactor is focused on electrical output.
MM1(SS)
Probably some sort of mixed generation would be feasible with a storage device to smooth the fluctuations. Mix the nuclear reactor as base generator with a boiling liquid turbo generator using mirrors. Considering the unfiltered sunlight and low moon gravity should make for good efficiency and minimal support structure for a boiling liquid generator.
ReplyDeleteI think that the story is not about the size of the generator at all. Rather it is about the U.S. fast tracking it's claim to having a nuclear presence on the moon, thus making the Russians and the Chinese unable to somehow hold that over our heads.
ReplyDeleteWhether that is just for bragging rights or for some meaningful reason, I don't know. But it seems that I read that the other nations with the same desire won't be ready until 2035.
I hadn't thought of it just being a publicity stunt, but that's in character for the way the Land Developer in Chief works. Nothing wrong with that, but I figure everybody that cares about this topic already knows. And probably knows the status of all of the development projects better than I do.
DeleteWhat's really bizarre is the loonies who think that a reactor on the moon is somehow dangerous - I assume to anyone up there. As if being exposed to cosmic rays, gamma ray bursts and a thousand other things isn't already dangerous.
SiG (and all the rest of you readers), assume the Great Unwashed Masses are technologically impaired. Nuclear reactors such as KRUSTY would be ideal for nighttime operations in the Lunar or Martian environments. Ideal, I say!!
DeleteIt's why my first article on KRUSTY was called, "If This Thing Was 20kW, I'd Have to Start Looking for Financing" Put one of those in the backyard. Yeah, it'll be a lot of money out pocket, but it's like solar panels only more eco-friendly. Sell electricity I'm not using back to the grid and make money off it instead of paying for electricity.
DeleteIf any real development is done on the Moon, a 100kw reactor would be considered a good start, like having a 1kw generator as a backup for a whole house generator.
ReplyDeleteGet into cracking water out of rocks or processing and smelting lunar ores and the nuke needs go up exponentially. Add in just scientific reasons like powering telescopes and image processors.
Agreed, it's a good start and later could become a backup.
DeleteJonathan
I wouldn't be surprised if the loonies decried the American imperialist colonizers colonizing the moon.
DeleteNot because it would be profound, but because it is within the realm of them saying it.
Duffy is not known for and was not hired for his brilliance. If he is saying something, it is comiing from Trump. A bit like the game Telephone, a lot might be lost in translation. Trump built buildings with massive power draws so he understands a bit. The administration is saying we need power on the moon. How much, what type or even how we get there remains to be seen.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! Fifth paragraph on the space.com article, "There's a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best," Duffy said. "We have ice there. We have sunlight there. We want to get there first and claim that for America." Seems like violating some treaties. This gets interesting.
IMO, the idea is we think that if China gets there first, they claim it and keep everyone else out.
DeleteI'd re-check that "treaty" again, if I were you. We can't claim the moon, but we can claim ground.
DeletePlease be more specific "Anonymous". "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", the 'Outer Space Treaty' was ratified by the US Senate 1967, so it is a US law, still in effect and a treaty. Article 2: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." If you meant "we" in the sense of individuals/ corporations or organisations, then yes, you would be correct.
DeleteExcept , that is not what Duffy said.
Si, I truly enjoy your coverage of space-related topics and check in as often as possible. I find it a bit pedantic to razz Duffy, a non-technical person whose duties would not remotely include technical specifications for anything, for clutzy verbiage about a nuclear power plant. He sets the goals and the presumably highly competent staff and sub-contractors get it done. That’s what matters and it truly also matters that we establish our presence and stake out our lunar turf before the ChiComs. If someone doesn’t think the Chinese would do everything in their power to make it difficult to follow them once they’re ensconced, they haven’t paid attention. Up to and including destruction of the vessels of any country that follows. The moon is the high ground and they see its value. I will be happy with a nice little GoalZero solar setup if it helps establish US presence first.
DeleteJeffD, that treaty isn't worth the paper it's printed on, especially to the Chinee Commiecrat Party.
DeleteGet there, hold ground. Throw rocks at other parties if necessary.
An ambitious idea. We should probably concentrate on working out the bugs here before we try something like that a quarter million miles away from any help should something go wrong. And while there is probably water on the moon I doubt it's useable as a coolant system for a reactor. So keeping the beastie from melting down without lots of water available is another issue to perfect.
ReplyDeleteThat is the key issue, after all. There has been a NASA project going on for years to develop a 40kW reactor for the moon, and this has just complicated their lives.
DeletePayload article on the project.
NASA like to Their FINAL paper.