US To Expedite Plan For Nuclear Reactor On the Moon (politico.com) 163
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox News host as the interim NASA administrator. NASA has discussed building a reactor on the lunar surface, but this would set a more definitive timeline -- according to documents obtained by POLITICO -- and come just as the agency faces a massive budget cut. [...] The reactor directive orders the agency to solicit industry proposals for a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor to launch by 2030, a key consideration for astronauts' return to the lunar surface. NASA previously funded research into a 40 kilowatt reactor for use on the moon, with plans to have a reactor ready for launch by the early 2030s.
The first country to have a reactor could "declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States," the directive states, a sign of the agency's concern about a joint project China and Russia have launched. The directive also orders NASA to designate a leader for the effort and to get industry input within 60 days. The agency is seeking companies able to launch a reactor by 2030 since that's around the time China intends to land its first astronaut on the moon. The nuclear initiative means that NASA will continue to have a hand in nuclear development even after the Pentagon's recent cancellation of a joint program on nuclear-powered rocket engines. "While the budget did not prioritize nuclear propulsion, that wasn't because nuclear propulsion is seen as a non-worthy technology," the NASA official said.
The first country to have a reactor could "declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit the United States," the directive states, a sign of the agency's concern about a joint project China and Russia have launched. The directive also orders NASA to designate a leader for the effort and to get industry input within 60 days. The agency is seeking companies able to launch a reactor by 2030 since that's around the time China intends to land its first astronaut on the moon. The nuclear initiative means that NASA will continue to have a hand in nuclear development even after the Pentagon's recent cancellation of a joint program on nuclear-powered rocket engines. "While the budget did not prioritize nuclear propulsion, that wasn't because nuclear propulsion is seen as a non-worthy technology," the NASA official said.
Start small (Score:2, Funny)
Start by remembering. (Score:2)
Perhaps land a man on the moon first.
Cant even build a fucking reactor on planet in under 30 years because of red tape corruption. This entire concept is a con job. We’ll have broadband for all before we have nuclear off-planet. In case we forgot how these scams work.
Re:Start on Earth, or orbit. (Re:Start small) (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with landing a reactor before demonstrating a capability to land humans is that the reactor could, depending on the design, well have reached the end of its service life by the time the humans are finally landed.
Alternatively, they should fit it with type I power outlets so at least the taikonauts can use it when they get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
allowed to fall at terminal velocity
lol. Yes. Lunar terminal velocity.
It's quite fast. Can do a lot of damage traveling at 0.9999999999c.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really think a 100 kW nuclear power plant wouldn't be secured?
Putting it on board a rocket means there is a significant chance that it will be scattered across the launch site or the area downrange of the launch site, if the launch goes wrong. I don't know how you could mitigate that risk.
Re: (Score:2)
It will happen some day, but today is not this day.
I’d love to know what celestial pastry tool as used by the aliens to decorate our moon so well.
Isn’t it cute how they made it look exactly like lunar rover tracks? And in all the patterns that line up with named lunar missions too.
Damn. It’s almost as if we’ve been there..
Dictatorships always have grandiose projects (Score:4, Interesting)
Hitler's was Germania. Trump's is a nuclear moon base.
And of course, on top of that, the orange utan needs all the distractions he can throw at his idiot MAGA base to make them forget the Epstein file.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe TACO Don is planning to open a golf course / bolthole there?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You misspelled "butthole".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dictatorships always have grandiose projects (Score:4, Interesting)
He spends quite a bit of time denying he did anything wrong. If what you said were true, then the FBI wouldn't have had to spend all that effort scrubbing the files of his name. I don't think the files describe him committing any crime. I can see the Biden administration holding their fire lest people think it was a political vendetta like unto what we now see from la Presidenta.
However, I am beginning to suspect that he was running an operation that was almost but not entirely unlike Epstein's (thanx Douglas Adams for that turn of phrase). Why was he hiring underage girls? To work in a spa? What was the appeal except that they were young and nubile? Why were was he hiring underage girls if he was running a legitimate business and not something shady? He is above shadiness in the way a brick is above the Sargasso Sea (thanx again D.A.).
Re:Dictatorships always have grandiose projects (Score:5, Informative)
"Somehow I doubt if Trump was implicated in them in the slightest way whatsoever, the Biden administration would have plastered it all the fuck over MSNBC and CNN every single day."
Democrats re not corrupt, they are not like you. Every accusation is an admission.
"all the woke anti-Semites..."
Palestinians are semites. There are no "woke anti-semites", only very stupid people.
"...suddenly demand their release!"
MAGA is demanding the release, Trump ran on releasing that information.
"It's the usual hateful, hysterical, hyperpartisan nonsense from the usual terrorist loving monsters on the left!"
Every accusation is an admission.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a way to distract (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, I wasn't previously aware of this Epstein guy. Pretty convoluted situation, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah dagnabbit, I should have clicked the link first. Laziness finally yet again bit me on the arse :D.
Re: (Score:2)
A Project Worthy of the Apollo Legacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The American people would prefer to have their health care back.
Public announcements don't cost anything.
Pointless and Dangerous Stunt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this a "dangerous stunt" exactly?
You should know that uranium comes from the ground. Maybe people aren't aware of this but there's uranium salts dissolved in the sea. If there's a failure on launch and this reactor lands in the ocean then we would be returning the uranium to where it came from in the first place. I don't know what form the uranium would be in inside the reactor but I'm taking a guess that it would be uranium ceramics, like the stuff coffee mugs are made of. Drop that in the ocean
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium is so low in radiation that it's used as radiation shielding
No need to be deceptive. Radiation shielding is made from depleted uranium [wikipedia.org], which has had the fissile U-235 removed, so it's irrelevant to this topic. A reactor would use some form of enriched uranium or plutonium or thorium with higher than natural levels of fissile material.
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium is so low in radiation that it's used as radiation shielding, to protect people from radiation emitted from something else.
lol. Did you honestly not know that they don't use fissile Uranium for that purpose?
Since they don't fill fuel rods with U-238, I don't think that's very relevant here, now is it?
Re: (Score:2)
"...then we would be returning the uranium to where it came from in the first place."
Which is why 3 mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima never threatened the environment. They were all deep state propaganda.
"don't know what form the uranium would be in inside the reactor but I'm taking a guess..."
Great, we love your guesses. You're so informed on the issues.
"There's been nuclear powered submarines lost at sea before, can anyone detect radioactive material leaks from them?"
A loss at sea does not mean there
Re: (Score:2)
The poison is in the dose, has everyone reading this read something to that effect before? I'm quite certain they have.
How much radiation would we expect from the core of a 100 kW reactor that's not yet gone critical? Explain to me the dangers of launching this into space? What precisely could be expected if there is a failure upon launch? Maybe the core is obliterated and spread as a tiny bits over the ocean? Okay, then what? The ocean already has tiny bits of uranium it in. So don't drink the water
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me the dangers of launching this into space?
The main danger is failing to launch it into space. Think Kosmos 954, where the reactor is a bit too robust and doesn't break up into tiny bits, and doesn't fail over the ocean.
Now this 100 kW reactor has been actively developed as a project for the Moon and Mars since 2008. It's a manageable amount of risk, and a useful experiment for future missions. The media just latched onto the story because nobody pays attention to what is going on at NASA and everyone wants a break from the Epstein list.
Re: (Score:3)
A loss of the lifting vehicle would cost billions of Dollars to clean up. Is private industry going to pay clean that up? Besides, there is plenty of solar power on the moon, where there is little of any atmosphere.
I don't think you realize how little radioactive material we're talking about here. 1 kilogram of U-235 would power a 100 kW reactor for more than two decades, if my math is right. That's about the size of a golf ball. You're telling me you don't think they can put enough lead around a golf-ball-sized chunk of uranium to ensure that it doesn't end up exposing anyone if the ship explodes during launch?
Re: (Score:2)
A loss of the lifting vehicle would cost billions of Dollars to clean up. Is private industry going to pay clean that up? Besides, there is plenty of solar power on the moon, where there is little of any atmosphere.
I don't think you realize how little radioactive material we're talking about here. 1 kilogram of U-235 would power a 100 kW reactor for more than two decades, if my math is right. That's about the size of a golf ball. You're telling me you don't think they can put enough lead around a golf-ball-sized chunk of uranium to ensure that it doesn't end up exposing anyone if the ship explodes during launch?
* Glances over at black box recovery statistics *
Considering we can’t even make those fucking things good enough to survive every time, no. No, I do not. Why do you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, that as long as the rocket exploded before the craft was going too fast you're probably just gonna launch a ball of lead into the ocean.
It turns out, however, that the safe time for it to explode is quite a small fraction of its total flight time, and if it explodes at say, mach 3, that lead will melt off.
If it explodes at say, mach 10, that lead will boil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to read about this high-melting point lead you have discovered. You're right, that as long as the rocket exploded before the craft was going too fast you're probably just gonna launch a ball of lead into the ocean. It turns out, however, that the safe time for it to explode is quite a small fraction of its total flight time, and if it explodes at say, mach 3, that lead will melt off. If it explodes at say, mach 10, that lead will boil.
Doesn't matter. The absolute worst case heat situation should be reentry. Apollo's ablative heat shield is only three inches thick. Putting a three-inch ball of phenolic epoxy resin, wrapped around a half an inch of lead, wrapped around something the size of a golf ball is well within the realm of what can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot put nuclear fuel in a reentry capable aerodynamic body.
Everything you have just described has effectively rendered the fuel as unusable. We're not talking about an RTG. This stuff needs to function as reactor fuel.
Your armchair physics expert take on this is absurd.
Launching fissile material into space is dangerous. Period.
That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done, but you acting like it's no risk, waving your
Re: (Score:2)
Solar on the moon is problematic. Unless you like losing power for two weeks at a time.
At some point it becomes clear we need to understand the difference between a solar problem and a battery problem.
That point, was a fucking decade ago.
A reactor on the moon? What a fresh, new idea! (Score:2)
A reactor on the moon? What a fresh, new idea! After all, it is not like someone had thought of that before, let's say around 85 years ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowups_Happen [wikipedia.org]
Re: A reactor on the moon? What a fresh, new idea! (Score:2)
It is like something from a 1960's comic book. Or that movie with the Moon Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But is it necessary? (Score:3)
The Sun sends out charged particles that hit the surface of the moon constantly. However, in many of the craters, the particles don't reach the crater flood because they are masked by the crater walls.
This causes a strong electrical potential difference. Ie. moon craters are essentially batteries. You should be able to connect a wire between the crater floor and the crater top that would cause electricity to flow and you'd get an endless source of energy.
Why bother with reactors when you can simply take a few wires?
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, that sounds fishy .. I feel like we'd see some arcing on the moon if that were the case. I get that we wanna play Nikola Tesla on the moon, but solar may be easier since you have to wire stuff up anyway. Is it any better than solar + batteries?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty cool (Score:2)
However, it is powerful enough to send a beam of energy to say, a humanoid shaped robot with an antenna shaped as a X on the back, to power a gun that has enough firepower to destroy an O'Neill space colony?
Ideally it should be able to power several of those at time, just in case we have a situation where several of these colonies are being dropped on earth at once.
Space 1999 (Score:3)
Re:Space 1999 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm surprised Space:1999 wasn't the very first comment about this! For those not in the know, it was a 1970's UK sci-fi TV show (great first season, not so hot second season) where a nuclear pile on Moonbase Alpha explodes on the moon and hurtles it away from the earth (spoiler: no, they never return to earth). Have we not learned our lesson from Professor Gerry Anderson after all these years? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
lol (Score:2, Funny)
Geek enthusiasm struggles against Trump hate, like a 60's sci fi robot caught in a contradiction ...
Nuclear reactor on the Moon? (Score:2)
This is just stupid. This is what you get when you put in as president a person ignorant of science and technology, who is also incapable of rational thought.
Too bad no sunlight reaches the moon... (Score:2)
Significantly inhibit the US (Score:3)
No, what's significantly inhimbiting the US is 47.
All scum. I want back to "FOR ALL MANKIND."
The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (Score:3)
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!).
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do... do... do you know anything about sunlight on the Moon?
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:4, Funny)
Nooooo....that will kill moon whales!! And destroy all that beautiful scenery. Suppose someone wants to build a gold-plated resort there.
Re: (Score:3)
If I learned anything from watching Futurama, it's that protecting the jobs of the whalers on the moon is every important for the future!
Re: (Score:2)
Fine, Tidal power then!
The moon is the source of tidal power here on Earth. From 384,000km away it generates 250MW at plants in Korea and France.
Imagine how much more energy it can produce close up! It'd be like putting photovoltaics on the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Do... do... do you know anything about batteries/energy storage?
My guess is some sort of cold-tolerant batteries like Ni-H2 will be needed anyway as backup to nuclear. Speaking of which, nuclear is a single point of failure.
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I'll take a fueled reactor, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will, however, say that reactors can be build to quite high levels of reliability.
As been pointed out elsewhere, Naval reactors have been operating for decades with a near zero failure rate.
A buried reactor feels much safer to me than a field of solar panels on a surface that is constantly pelted with high velocity dust, and larger impactors.
Spaceflight is all about quantifying and mitigating risks. Perhaps, we simply bug out if the reactor blows, while the loss of panels
Re: (Score:2)
Naval reactors have been operating for decades with a near zero failure rate.
Low likelihood, but a high level of consequence would be possible on the Moon. Nuclear subs have backup battery systems in case the reactor fails when underwater, for example. It's less of an issue for a carrier as it is on the surface with a fleet around it. But it suggests the navy doesn't think that you should necessarily rely on a reactor even on Earth. So I wouldn't really want to risk just a single reactor on the Moon, thanks very much. The other thing to consider is that whilst naval reactors are a k
Re: (Score:2)
Low likelihood, but a high level of consequence would be possible on the Moon. Nuclear subs have backup battery systems in case the reactor fails when underwater, for example. It's less of an issue for a carrier as it is on the surface with a fleet around it. But it suggests the navy doesn't think that you should necessarily rely on a reactor even on Earth. So I wouldn't really want to risk just a single reactor on the Moon, thanks very much. The other thing to consider is that whilst naval reactors are a known quantity on Earth, the Moon isn't the Earth - there are some additional unknowns.
Indeed. Not just backup. They're also used for silent running (steam turbines aren't silent)
Backup power is as much a problem for a submarine or a surface vessel. To become a surface vessel, submarines simply blow out ballast (sea water) with compressed air that is already stored- i.e., they just need to open a valve.
Using what power during the time to prepare for that? You need a backup power source for that period.
The power of a fueled and ready to go rocket.....
If things are modular then every now and then you could send up more. It's not as if you wouldn't want to send missions to/from the base, presumably. There would be a balance in costs compared to a reactor, but you are likely talking some level of battery backup anyway. If it's bug out on failure, maybe it's only a day not 14 of backup, though.
A battery backup is different than an array of batteries that must be charged with 14 days of power, and drained of 14 days of power every 28 d
Re: (Score:2)
The power of a fueled and ready to go rocket.....
Right, because it's always going to be ready to go in five minutes and you can tell Houston on the way? Even pre-flight checks on a Cessna take longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody suggested 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
To become a surface vessel, submarines simply blow out ballast (sea water) with compressed air that is already stored- i.e., they just need to open a valve.
That's very much a last resort. A proper engineering solution shouldn't go from fine to catastrophe unless there is no other option from some reason. So not from reactor is fine to let's get on the emergency rocket in the next five minutes and hope it works. And that has knock on effects like checking the rocket systems daily just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
The emergency rocket is there for emergencies- stuff you cannot resolve down there. Nobody suggested that you have 5 minutes to get on the fucking thing and slam the big red bug-out button.
It's your way off if you can't get the thing working before your batteries run out.
The batteries in a nuclear submarine only last hours. The only time a submarine would be expected to be running *only* on batteries is when it's running silently.
The more critical backup power so
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:2, Troll)
Speaking of which, there is nothing on the Moon to power. Get back to your comic books.
There are exceptions - consider the lunar poles (Score:4, Informative)
There are exceptions to the 14 day night rule - consider the lunar poles
Every year, a location near the Shackleton crater rim in the south polar region is sunlit continuously for 240 days, and its longest continuous period in total darkness is about 1.5 days.
Illumination conditions of the lunar polar regions using LOLA topography [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not really the practicality of it anyway, it's about staking a claim. As TFS notes, they have some dubious concerns about China landing one first and using its presence to declare an area off-limits to other countries. I think that's probably exaggerated for the sake of distracting from the Epstein Files, but obviously solar and battery storage would not have the same effect of working around existing treaties that forbid claiming ownership of parts of the moon.
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:5, Informative)
but obviously solar and battery storage would not have the same effect of working around existing treaties that forbid claiming ownership of parts of the moon.
The US, China, and Russia are not party to any treaty that forbids controlling parts of the moon.
The only limitation is that any installations be non-military in nature.
No spacefaring nation is party to the more comprehensive Moon Treaty.
France has signed, but not ratified.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nations can't make claims of territory, or sovereignty, but the treaty allows for Registered Space Objects, and the terms of their control over them. This would cover moon bases, and any "nuclear exclusion zones" any country wanted to claim.
It's frankly not *that* useful of a treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you ignore of mis-state the terms of the treaty [unoosa.org], perhaps.
Article II: 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.
That explicitly covers the Moon so there is no need for a separate Moon Treaty to ban claims of ownership.
Article VIII: A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.
Those "objects" are devices that the nation has built and already owns. It would cover actual Moon bases that were built on the Moon -- but only the actual physical structure. The notion of "exclusion zones" is denied by the treaty terms, not supported by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you ignore of mis-state the terms of the treaty [unoosa.org], perhaps.
Incorrect.
That explicitly covers the Moon so there is no need for a separate Moon Treaty to ban claims of ownership.
Nobody was discussing ownership of the moon. Control and jurisdiction was being discussed.
Article II: 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.
Keep reading that until it clicks.
You get no sovereignty over the space or celestial body where your object resides. That does not mean you do not control the parts of it required for your object.
Those "objects" are devices that the nation has built and already owns. It would cover actual Moon bases that were built on the Moon
Correct.
but only the actual physical structure.
Incorrect. It can be argued that the spirit of the treaty suggests as much, but the language does not prohibit considering parts of the dirt necessary for functioning of the object.
As an example, if you hav
Re: (Score:2)
You can only claim what you can defend. So far getting there and bringing some rocks back is about the best humans can do. I personally don't think there will ever be people living on the moon. Or anywhere else other than Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
You can only claim what you can defend. So far getting there and bringing some rocks back is about the best humans can do. I personally don't think there will ever be people living on the moon. Or anywhere else other than Earth.
Yeah! Suck it international space station and Tiangong! (I'm mostly kidding since they aren't self-sufficient...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So don't install them on the dark side.
Re: (Score:3)
Do... do... do you know anything about sunlight on the Moon?
Yes. So use storage or build two solar plants and put in a long cable. The former is probably easier. However, resilience is the key here - it's a long way to Radioshack to get spares.
Re: 100 KW nuclear ? (Score:4)
Most of the mission profiles for the Moon these days focus on the south lunar pole, where there's likely to be water in permanently shadowed craters. Nearby there are also ridges that receive near-continuous sunlight [wikipedia.org]. By deploying solar at several sites, you can reduce the worst-case blackout period to less than 2 Earth days.
Re:100 KW nuclear ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or a second set of panels and an extension cord connecting them... that'd *only* be about 3,392 miles long... which come to think of it, isn't totally crazy as SEA-ME-WE_3 [wikipedia.org] is 24,000 miles long.
Extension cords? (Re:100 KW nuclear ? ) (Score:2)
I hope you aren't being serious. How much would that extension cord weigh versus a 100 kW nuclear reactor? Or take in volume? My guess is that the nuclear reactor would be much easier to get to the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:100 KW nuclear ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Undersea cables like that only work because it is optical cabling for communications only.
One does not simply run a 5500km extension cord.
The maximum length of a power cable is ultimately dictated by the losses, and the drop across such extreme length would also be extreme.
The voltage required would be so astronomical you can't necessarily manufacture the transformer to pull it off, and you might as well look into the wireless power transmission route at that point.
Maybe a 10m extension cord instead? (Score:3)
As long the settlement is near the lunar poles, maybe panels on 10m poles could do the trick?
Every year, a location near the Shackleton crater rim in the south polar region is sunlit continuously for 240 days, and its longest continuous period in total darkness is about 1.5 days. For some locations small height gains (10 m) can dramatically improve their average illumination and reduce the night duration, rendering some of those particularly attractive energy-wise as possible sites for near-continuous sources of solar power.
-- https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a data comms cable. Easy peasy.
The longest power transmission lines on Earth (Brasil and PR China) are over 2000 km long extremely high voltage DC lines. The DC circuit cable set alone (no supporting structure) are about 4000 kg / km. Flying even a few km of that to the Moon would far exceed the sum total of all stuff ever launched to the Moon.
In any event, as others have pointed out, the south polar region is especially desirable, has sunlight nearly the whole time, the temperature extremes ar
Re: (Score:3)
Or just put panels on both sides?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Deny. Distract. Don't-release-the-files-he-said-he-would.
Re: Clown show (Score:3, Insightful)
He promised to release his taxes and eventually everyone forgot about that too. Donald Trump has unshakable faith in the stupidity of the American public, a faith he has learned through nearly 80 years of life experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Pessimistic worldviews tend to lead to a sucky life, no matter the surrounding circumstances.
Just saying...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"TDS sufferers" I don't think we need to bring in the ability to believe la Presidenta into this. Those people have enough problems keeping up with the lie du jour, the *current* enemies list (it gets weekly updates, y'know), and which racial minority is at the top of the list of criminals invading U.S. Then there is the latest grift to which they are expected to contribute. It isn't easy being a Maggot, it isn't all fun and games.....well, it is during the seances to conjure up past slights, but not all th
Re: (Score:2)
Take your fucking pills, asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
"Besides according to the Left, MAPs are just a sexual orientation like gay. Oppressing them is fascism."
"MAPs" are not the issue, child molesters and sex traffickers are. And it's cute that you use the language of the "left", who refers to pedophiles as "MAPs" if they aren't one? Sexual attraction is not illegal, rape is.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sexual attraction is not illegal" Yet. Just wait a bit and the Christian nutjobs will get that outlawed as well. la Presidenta will declare the sexual attraction a scourge on America. There will be tariffs erected to stop it from coming in over the borders so that the sexual attraction industry will flourish in the U.S. At this point, the Christian nutjobs will go through the mental gymnastics necessary to square the two competing impulses, i.e., sexual attraction is a sin against God vs. their blind obedi
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of TDS, the sponsor of the TDS bill is also a pedo. https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Pedos all the way down.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"As if it’s conservative values that build pedo islands."
MAGA is not about "conservative values". It's MAGA values that build "pedo islands".
"Let’s see how liberals work to re-define the concept of backpedaling to avoid accountability..."
Don't need to re-define it, Republicans show the way.
"Everyone who was forced to vote for him sure as hell does."
Who is that? Who is forced? And what is used to force them?
"Liberals should feel fortunate people in society haven’t quite realized just ho
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the usual nonsense from the usual deceptive "environmentalists..."
Well, if the moon is that worthless, I say we ironically shoot our massive nuclear arsenal at it until we’ve had our fill of target practice and see how well that works out.
We might want to invent house anchors first..
Re: (Score:2)
and the usual reactions from pedophile lovers.