India considers joining Russia, China to build nuclear plant on Moon. (www.rfi.fr)
from 101@feddit.org to world@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 11:22
https://feddit.org/post/2840403

#world

threaded - newest

MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 11:24 next collapse
RFI - Radio France Interntionale - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for RFI - Radio France Interntionale:
> MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - France
> Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20240914-india-considers-joining-russia-china-to-build-nuclear-plant-on-moon

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

Maeve@kbin.earth on 14 Sep 12:46 next collapse

I'm not sure this is a great idea.

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 14 Sep 12:57 next collapse

Later:

Ukraine’s controversial but wildly successful fledgling domestic space program has successfully landed exo-atmospheric tactical drones on the moon and destroyed crucial construction components of Russia’s moon reactor facility, forcing many to question if it’s feasible to continue the project

barsoap@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 17:08 next collapse

Fledgling? They’re an ESA member and have been building rockets since there’s been space programmes. Ignoring that drone part for a second the only thing they’d have to figure out is how to strap a warhead to one of their rockets, clear a launch site, do some maths, and press the button.

gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works on 15 Sep 17:47 collapse
  • it was pretty obviously a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the ingenuity of Ukraine and the ineptitude of Russia
  • I am an NCD enjoyer
BlindFrog@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 08:18 collapse

Onion worthy

PugJesus@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 13:03 next collapse

… why tho

That sounds like a maintenance nightmare.

Deceptichum@quokk.au on 14 Sep 13:18 next collapse

<img alt="" src="https://quokk.au/pictrs/image/daf86fe0-a3bc-49d3-adcd-c02d29bca5ba.jpeg">

Ferrous@lemmy.ml on 14 Sep 14:42 collapse

Why do any space exploration?

While the west sells off space to billionaires and the private sector, we need players doing actual science.

PugJesus@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 14:53 collapse

Why do any space exploration?

The issue isn’t space exploration or the concept of a base on the moon. The issue is a nuclear plant on the moon. There’s a reason solar cells are so universal in space applications near the Earth, and it isn’t because the space industry is obsessed with being green.

mlegstrong@sh.itjust.works on 14 Sep 15:07 next collapse

They already use nuclear power in loads of applications. The mars rover, perseverance satellites and even satellites in LEO. They can provide power during lengthy lunar nights and the heat they produce as a byproduct would be useful for keeping people warm. This isn’t even even mentioning advancements in nuclear reactor designs that make meltdowns conditions considerably less likely. Your right that solar cells are a great way to produce power in LEO but on the moon there are more variables that make it viable for a nuclear reactor to be a rational power source.

Ferrous@lemmy.ml on 14 Sep 15:37 collapse

You’re out of your depth here… Those reasons for affordable solar cells on earth in no way directly translate to applications in completely different environments (planets or moons)

… why tho

Just ask NASA or ESA

ans.org/…/nations-envision-nuclear-reactors-on-th…

esa.int/…/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

This idea of “well earth has solar, so solar must work just as well on the moon!” doesn’t take into account natural lunar resources (solar needs rare earth metals) , atmospheric conditions, thermal conditions, material transport, etc… Sure, a well-functioning moon settlement would probably have a combination of thermo, solar, and nuclear power, but it is strange how you’re writing off one of the most promising forms of energy that excites and interests space scientists most.

These issues you’re having just sound like cope due to the fact that the US is now lagging in space science.

PugJesus@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:21 collapse

You’re out of your depth here… Those reasons for affordable solar cells on earth in no way directly translate to applications in completely different environments (planets or moons)

‘on earth’

Did you miss the bit where I specified space applications, or did you just ignore it?

esa.int/…/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

The Apollo programme’s own geologist, Harrison Schmidt, has repeatedly made the argument for Helium-3 mining, whilst Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the helium fusion reaction with a net power output.

This idea of “well earth has solar, so solar must work just as well on the moon!” doesn’t take into account natural lunar resources (solar needs rare earth metals) , atmospheric conditions, thermal conditions, material transport, etc… Sure, a well-functioning moon settlement would probably have a combination of thermo, solar, and nuclear power,

Holy fucking shit, dude, natural atmospheric and thermal conditions and material transport are exactly why nuclear power seems dubious to me as the basis for a moon base. I’m a proponent of nuclear power here on earth.

but it is strange how you’re writing off one of the most promising forms of energy that excites and interests space scientists most.

“Space scientists” here meaning ‘you’, apparently, since major investment into space-based nuclear power for earth-orbit and lunar applications has been very slim since the 60s despite niche applications and a small chorus of proponents, not unlike ‘Practical fusion in 20 years’ types.

These issues you’re having just sound like cope due to the fact that the US is now lagging in space science.

Uh. Okay.

MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz on 14 Sep 13:21 next collapse

It’s to serve as a power source for a potential moon base, apparently.

nutsack@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:03 next collapse

I like the idea personally

MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz on 14 Sep 16:28 collapse

As an infrastructure project its conceptually pretty sick. A nuclear power plant would be fairly ideal for the first long-term human presence on the moon.

The problem is that it’s Russia and China doing it.

nutsack@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:53 collapse

a country that is exceedingly good at space, and a country that is exceedingly good at infrastructure. sounds good to me.

MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz on 14 Sep 17:06 next collapse

Don’t be obtuse.

There are other concerns with developing space tech besides ones concerning competence and expertise.

Even that is worth questioning, as Russia is suffering historical levels of brain-drain for obvious reasons.

Shard@lemmy.world on 15 Sep 21:48 collapse

Excuse you.

China to this day still can’t bloody land spent rocket stages safely away from populated areas and you want them to fire off radioactive material into space and hope it doesn’t accident crash land back on populated areas?

hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 15 Sep 11:07 collapse

Ohh, I was confused because I assumed the power would somehow be transported to Earth, which seems rather inefficient.

Chickenstalker@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 13:40 next collapse

For what purpose??? Solar power makes the most sense on the moon. No atmosphere.

atro_city@fedia.io on 14 Sep 13:59 next collapse

But it would require a stable power supply – which only a nuclear reactor can provide, as the Moon’s lengthy lunar nights make solar energy unreliable.

Passerby6497@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 14:04 next collapse

Just put 4 solar stations equidistant around the moon and wire them together. Boom, stable solar power!

ours@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 14:18 collapse

Boom thousands of kilometer of cable to install and loss of power on transmission.

They would need lots of power to run life support, produce air and fuel from water. Solved problems on nuclear subs.

Jumuta@sh.itjust.works on 14 Sep 14:53 next collapse

Just put them at the poles??

catloaf@lemm.ee on 14 Sep 14:56 collapse

And batteries are heavy. It would take a lot of lifts to get enough capacity up there.

tunetardis@lemmy.ca on 14 Sep 16:03 collapse

The trouble with solar on the moon is that the day-night cycle is a month long. You have to figure out what to do during the 2 Earth weeks worth of night.

I suppose with a polar base, you could have several solar farms strategically placed so that at least one of them is operational at any given time, but that’s a lot of infrastructure and this is early days.

Jumuta@sh.itjust.works on 14 Sep 14:52 next collapse

how would you even start with the cooling? that sounds like a nightmare

catloaf@lemm.ee on 14 Sep 14:54 next collapse

Lots of radiators.

Valmond@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 20:44 collapse

No wind…

StoneyDcrew@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 21:59 next collapse

That’s why it’s a nuclear plant instead of a wind turbine /jk

DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social on 15 Sep 06:30 collapse

Lithoradiators

Eczpurt@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 15:32 next collapse

Only operate when your side of the moon is dark or even near the poles where it can be coldest? I’m not sure what the plan is for daytime operations since it apparently gets really hot.

No atmosphere up there to insulate so the temperatures fluctuate to extremes

SARGE@startrek.website on 14 Sep 16:24 next collapse

No atmosphere means very little thermal radiation is pulled from radiators.

I imagine the best bet would be to drill into the surface of the moon and sink your radiators into the ground, fill the gaps with a material that transfers heat well.

Easiest version of that would probably be to lay the radiators on or just below the surface and bury them in a regolith concrete mixture of some sort. Probably not as efficient as drilling straight in, but way less complicated I imagine.

AccountMaker@slrpnk.net on 14 Sep 20:52 collapse

I read this in chief O’Brien’s voice

realitista@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 09:28 collapse

Unfortunately you can’t really turn off a nuclear reactor.

InvertedParallax@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 17:47 collapse

Russians: “Sure you can, it’s just this red button right here…”

linearchaos@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 15:54 next collapse

I suspect you would dump the heat into the Moon itself. You wouldn’t need that much power up there.

nutsack@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:03 next collapse

you could use space that shit is called as balls

Exusia@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:24 next collapse

Cooling is the process of offloading heat from one atom to another. In space and the moon, there’s very little…anything. You can’t transfer heat onto nothing - so an “air cooled” heat vent doesn’t work. Another user suggested they use the moon itself or moon dust as a heat sink, and you could do that in theory.

TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz on 15 Sep 04:17 collapse

You can’t transfer heat onto nothing

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation

PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone on 16 Sep 10:36 collapse

Since we’re being pedants, that’s moving heat through nothing, not transferring it to nothing.

Not that it’s a viable means of heat removal for a reactor.

PugJesus@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:24 next collapse

Dissipating heat in space is actually one of the major issues that comes up in designs for space applications. It’s… not easy.

mctoasterson@reddthat.com on 14 Sep 17:24 collapse

The temp is low but it is a vacuum. Vacuums are bad at dissipating heat. Think of the vacuum walled drinking vessels. They are so efficient at keeping beverages hot/cool because the vacuum insulates the majority of the surface area that heat can move across.

Likewise a cooling tank of water (typical nuclear reactor design) itself surrounded by vacuum, will not cool efficiently at all. Presumably they’d have to use piping to circulate the water over a large surface area of some other medium like the moon rock itself.

Plopp@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 20:06 next collapse

I’ve got it. Since we’re worried about rising sea levels on earth, we can just pipe the excess water to the moon and flood the moon’s surface with water and use that for cooling.

Shard@lemmy.world on 15 Sep 21:52 collapse

Hello, Nobel prize foundation?

Yes, this man right here!

barsoap@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 17:12 collapse

Vacuums are bad at dissipating heat.

They’re also very good at not stopping infrared radiation.

InvertedParallax@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 17:49 collapse

The IR band gap is high enough that you’d need really efficient heat pumps to keep things radiating well. Otherwise the heat pumps generate more heat than you can radiate.

tunetardis@lemmy.ca on 14 Sep 16:10 next collapse

I suppose the regolith itself could be used as a heat sink. I don’t know what its thermal properties are like?

But yeah, I imagine heat dissipation is a limiting factor. Everything I’ve read suggests the 1st gen reactors will put out something on the order of 10s of kilowatts, so rather modest by nuclear standards but still plenty for a nascent Moon base I imagine?

assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world on 15 Sep 15:14 next collapse

… That’s a very good point actually. Vacuums are rather insulating. Without convection cooling from a fluid, you’re relying on radiative heat transfer for cooling, and that’s piss poor.

InvertedParallax@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 17:46 next collapse

If you have enough ice, you evaporate it.

If not, heat pump/ sink into basalt probably.

crapwittyname@lemm.ee on 15 Sep 20:07 collapse

Heat pipes running to radiators in vacuum is how you do it in space. It’s efficient and scaleable, though it hasn’t ever been done on an industrial scale. Definitely doable though. Considering the temperature on the moon is a balmy -270°C

Krzd@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 11:14 collapse

It’s extremely difficult to cool things in space, as everything is basically insulated in a vacuum.

crapwittyname@lemm.ee on 16 Sep 12:20 collapse

Yes. You need to use radiation, via radiators. It’s a shame I’m getting downvoted on this, because I really do know what I’m talking about on this one. Ammonia in heat pipes wicks the heat away from the thing you want to be cold, towards the radiator, which is usually just a dumb coil, but could be enhanced with a bimetallic thermally decoupled louver if you want to keep it cool in sunlight. Or bury it, since we’re on the moon. From an engineering perspective it’s not that difficult to do, as the variables which affect it are well known and don’t change that much. It is for sure slower than combined conductive/convective cooling, but it’s a known quantity, so you can plan quite effectively.

Krzd@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 16:26 collapse

It’s definitely possible, however nukes have like 30-40% efficiency so to cool even a tiny 10 kW reactor you’d need twice the capacity the ISS currently has (14kW) for just the reactor without any safety margins.

Adderbox76@lemmy.ca on 14 Sep 16:35 next collapse

Cold War II: Lunar Nuclear Boogaloo

dsilverz@thelemmy.club on 14 Sep 16:41 next collapse

I can imagine a rocket full of plutonium and uranium rods, sitting above immense tanks of combustible liquid: what the odds of such a rocket exploding during ascent? What are the effects of solar and cosmic radiation energy over these rods (even if they’re lead shielded), especially around Van Allen radiation belt? So many questions.

Womble@lemmy.world on 14 Sep 16:53 collapse

We’ve been launching nuclear reactors into space for decades (mostly RTGs) they’re just much smaller. There isnt any chance of them exploding or anything when exposed to radiation, but yes the chance of the rocket failing, exploding and showering radioactive material over the ocean is why this has to be done incredibly carefully if it is done.

dsilverz@thelemmy.club on 14 Sep 18:10 collapse

According to my searches, while a RTG uses radioactive material weighting in the scale of kilograms (average of 5 Kg across missions such as Voyager and Cassini), a nuclear power plant requires several tonnes worth of plutonium and enriched uranium. The minimal critical mass for plutonium is 10kg, the double of how many fuel RTGs hold (that’s why RTGs don’t blow while ascending and/or on space). It’s a large difference of mass/weight between RTG fuel and rods for nuclear power plants. They’d need to carry the whole tonnes worth of radioactive material split across very small quantities (which would require a lot of lead walling and/or launches)

pandapoo@sh.itjust.works on 14 Sep 17:16 next collapse

Considering India and China are nuclear armed geostrategic rivals, with ongoing territorial disputes, and not too distant history of hot wars, I think this type of cooperation can be a good thing.

But that’s also why I’m skeptical about how much dual use technology they’d be willing to share with each other. And when you’re talking about space travel, or moon bases, practically everything is dual use technology.

If anyone is unclear why Russia would be involved, it’s their rocket and nuclear technology. Or rather, the Soviet legacy of R&D that is still useful.

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world on 15 Sep 10:26 next collapse

I’m sure that money couldn’t be better spent. It’s not like there are hundreds of millions of Indians living in horrific levels of poverty.

theacharnian@lemmy.ca on 15 Sep 21:26 collapse

Of all the things to kick-start industry on another planet, isn’t a nuclear fucking plant the most complex?

SlothMama@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 00:51 collapse

Yes but also no, might be significantly easier to cool for instance and no environmental concerns.

I got downvoted by people without critical thinking skills. A plant on the moon isn’t in space, it’s on the moon, a large cold rock, I don’t understand why no one charitably understood you can dissipate heat into the actual moon which is not warm and quite cold.

Railcar8095@lemm.ee on 16 Sep 07:24 collapse

It is notoriously hard to cool things in space. There’s no water or air to dump the heat.

Zozano@lemy.lol on 16 Sep 13:31 next collapse

Can you elaborate more? I’m under the impression space is very cold, and the heat would get sucked out like I wish I was, at least once before I eat shit.

three@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 13:44 next collapse

the cold is helpful but moving the heat, but is the hard thing getting it away from the space craft. Since there is no atmosphere to take away your heat it just kinda sits there. If it is getting the suns rays it can be even more difficult. so basically it is quite hard.

Telodzrum@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 15:09 next collapse

Space is cold and not dense. Heat needs to move from a high energy medium to a low energy medium to be dissipated. Since there isn’t any matter for the thermal energy to be transferred to, cooling in space is actually quite difficult.

Railcar8095@lemm.ee on 17 Sep 15:38 collapse

You need to put the heat somewhere. In the vacuum, heat can only transfer by radiation, which is much less efficient.

SlothMama@lemmy.world on 16 Sep 19:49 collapse

Bro you have hundreds of tons of cold stone on the moon. I didn’t say space.

Railcar8095@lemm.ee on 17 Sep 15:39 collapse

I’m not taking scientific inputs by somebody who starts sentences with “bro”.

SlothMama@lemmy.world on 17 Sep 16:57 collapse

That’s on you if you want to dismiss my insights on the basis of the language I use to express ideas. Pretty surface level evaluation tbh, bruh.

Railcar8095@lemm.ee on 17 Sep 18:14 collapse

I dismissed your idea because it’s bad. I decided to not waste my time explaining on the basis of the language you use.

The fact that I have to clarify this confirms I made the right decision.

SlothMama@lemmy.world on 17 Sep 19:32 collapse

What a pompous position to take. I sure hope you don’t make important decisions anywhere.