“Duffy to announce the nuclear reactor on the moon” is not a headline that I imagined reading last week. Certainly, as a fool -loving Science -Fi -fool, I could see a future where nuclear power played its role in the permanent moon settlements. But in the next five years, the idea of making NASA’s 100kW micator looked ridiculous. Not so, according to scientists.
Professor Bhuya Lal told me on the phone, “I don’t know why this is happening so much.” Once you understand the arc of his career, the red answer is understood. It has spent most of his professional life thinking how the United States should use nuclear power to find a place. In NASA, he served as acting chief technician, and was awarded the agency’s prominent service medal. In his other abilities, he also testified to the Congress on the topic of nuclear propolishes, and even helped re -write the rules that run radioactive content.
Recently, he wrote a dissertation Future Weight: Strategic Options for US Space Nuclear Leadership Where he and his co -author, Dr. Roger Mayers, examine the past failures of US policy because it is related to nuclear power in space and argue that by 2030, this country should examine a small nuclear system on the moon. Many people have been told in the planet’s society, the chief of Space Policy, who advocates for a non -profit that advocates for it and studies, which many people have been told.
The LAL is more modest and the directive issued in NASA describes Duffy as “accelerating the ongoing work”. According to him, the agency has been “funding for years (space),” he added, adding that there is only one new thing here. “We have done this for more than 60 years,” he said, “They tell me, and if NASA ends the supply of Duffy’s plan, it will not be a difference in the United States.
The United States has spent decades in search of space capable nuclear reactors. The nuclear advocate about the nuclear, reactor physicist, niche tour and nuclear founder, describes the founder of Nick Tour. And to launch in space, the amount of pay load must be kept low.
Just how much power are we talking about? Dr. Lal says, “When a fully physiological, a soft ball of uranium -235 offers more and more energy like a coal -laden freight train.” In conjunction with the limits of solar energy, especially a spacecraft travels away from the sun, atom is a game changer.
Lunar level an artist of a fisherman power system
(NASA)
Dr. Lal, for example, refers to the investigation of new horizons. In 2015, the spacecraft blew Pluto in the past in the process of capturing the amazing images of the dwarf planet. If you follow the mission closely, you will remember that New Horizon did not stop in Pluto. The reason for this is that it did not have the power to enter orbit. “We had close to 200 watts on New Horizons, Dr. Lal said. It is basically two light bulbs power.” After that it took 16 months to new horizons to send all the Gigabytes data to more than 50. If the investigation had 20 kW microorkers, Dr. Lal says that the data could be run in real time, after entering orbit and running all its devices permanently.
When it comes to the moon, there will be a nuclear change. On our only natural satellite, nights are the last 14th day, and pits that never see sunlight. Solar NASA outpost can be strengthened on the moon with solar powers, but not without a large number of batteries to eliminate the difference in power generation, and these batteries will need to be taken from the ground.
Dr. Lal said, “At some point, we would like to work on an industrial scale on the moon. Even if we want to print 3D, it needs hundreds of kilograms-if not much,” Dr. Lal said. “If you are going to do any kind of commercial activity on the moon, we need more than providing solar.”
In the meantime, nuclear power will be absolutely necessary. The Red planet has a home for dust storms that can last for weeks or months, and cover the entire continents. In these situations, solar energy is incredible. In fact, when NASA finally eliminated the 15 -year -old mission on Mars, it was a wide dust storm on the planet that left Rover unbearable.
Thus, if the United States wants to establish a permanent presence on Mars, Dr. Lal says it will be more meaningful to make the necessary reactor technology on the moon perfect. “We don’t want our first nuclear reactor to be on Mars. We want to try it on the moon first. And I think NASA is trying to do it.”
Of course, many technical obstacles will need to be removed from NASA before none of the reality is closer. Surprisingly, the most straightforward problem is looking for a 100kW microbial. Right now, there is no microorker producing company in the United States. Aviation of Atomics International and North America, the companies that built the SNAP-10A, were defused decades ago.
NASA and NNSA engineers reduce the vacuum chamber wall around the Christie system.
(Los Alamos National Laboratory)
“There are many who are in progress, but there are almost no one who is also in the prototype phase,” said Tourn. As he explains, this is an important detail. Most nuclear reactors do not work at all when they first turn on. “The reactor needs some repetition to get to the level where it is viable, reliable and cost -effective,” he said.
The good news is that Touron believes that NASA or any of the private company also has enough time to make a working reactor for the project. “I think we are in a huge place to take a good swing flag on it by 2030,” said Tourn. In 2018, NASA and the Department of Energy demolished Christie, a lightweight, 10kW -cage system. “It was one of the only new reactors we have changed in decades, and it was done on a sharp budget,” he said.
Finally, deploying a reactor on the moon can be much more difficult than one construction. On the basis of some rough mathematics by Dr. Mayers, the 100 kW reactor will weigh between 10 and 15 metric tons, which means that the current commercial rocket cannot take it to space. NASA will also need to find a way to fit a reactor radiator inside the rocket. The revealed, the component will be about the size of the basketball court.
According to Dr. Lal, the 2030 timeline for the project is likely to be ready to fly by then. But Elon Musk’s super heavy lift rocket has been 2025. Of the three test flights, Space X has tried this year, two of the spacecraft ended up. One of these stars increases in the flames during which the usual ground test should have been.
Space x’s stars. As seen during its eighth test flight
(Reuters)
If the starchy is not ready by 2030, NASA can fly separately from all other components needed to create a viable power system, but according to the LAL, “this is a combination of its challenges.” Basically, the agency does not have a great way to collect such a complex system independently. In any case, at least one concrete work is underway. The same cannot be said for a landler, which needs to be needed to bring the reactor to the moon level. In 2021, NASA contracted with Space X to make a landler for Artemis missions, but the latest latest update on the spacecraft was a 3D rendering dress. Similarly, Blue Origin’s Blue Moonlander has yet to fly, despite the promises he can make the first journey of the moon in the spring or early summer.
Another question mark is hanging all over the project. By the end of July, NASA is on the path to losing about 44,000 employees, who have agreed to leave the agency through initial retirement, voluntary separation or delayed resignation – all of which are a wider effort of the Trump administration to trim the number of workers throughout the federal government. Everyone was told, NASA is on the way to lose a fifth of its manpower, and the agency’s morale is low at all times. Even despite providing assistance to the Department of Energy and the Private Industry, there is a good reason to believe that this reduction will affect NASA’s ability to provide timely supply.
“The contradiction in this proposal is that the White House is instructing NASA to do two extremely difficult and difficult projects of any space program, which is to send humans to the moon and Mars, but to do so with the level of resources and manpower, which the agency had earlier in 1961.
A NASA spokesperson refused to share details about the shortage – which focuses the number of employees ready to leave the Glenn Research Center, the Christie Reactor facility, and where the agency’s nuclear engineering capabilities focus. The spokesman said, “As more official information is available, we expect to answer your more questions.”
Dr. Lal said, “I wish there was an inventory of 4,000 people who left. What is the difference? We do not know if the departure is organized.” The dryer added, “NASA has not been open or transparent about what kind of employees have taken the resignation program, where they have skills and where they are leaving.” “Nuclear engineering is not a shared field for most people. (Deficiency) Certainly can’t help.” Nevertheless, both LAL and Touron believe that the Department of Energy is likely to change things in favor of NASA.
In a statement, NASA shared with the enzygs, Secretary Duffy eliminated the workforce concerns. “NASA is determined to our mission, even when we work in a more priority budget and change with our workforce,” he said. NASA has maintained a strong bench of skill. “We will continue to ensure that the United States will continue to guide space, and keeping progress on key goals, including returning Americans to the moon and stars and stripes on Mars, as we begin the golden era of American innovation.”
According to his report, Lal and Meyers estimates that making and deploying a nuclear reactor on the moon will cost about $ 800 million annually for five years. Even if the DOE support can prevent NASA staff from kneeling the project, its feasibility will be dependent if the Trump administration has prepared cash for implementing its bold claims.
Is there a tip for Egor? You can reach it E -mailOn, on Blusky Or send a message to @Dachom .72 to chat secretly on the signal.
1 Comment
fznfio