Thread 213496624

The last time the US started construction on a nuclear power plant that wasn't an additional unit was back in 1978.

We are SO back!

>>213496624 (OP)
anything to not talk about epstein

>>213496624 (OP)
Why is this even hard? Nothing about the moon would make it more difficult to build a nuclear reactor

>>213497421
Probably not being on earth would make it harder

4chan and reddit told me the US is collapsing tho

>>213497421
Lack of water supply, different G's, why do you even need a nuclear reactor on the moon?

>>213497421
bringing the materials and supplies there for one

>>213496624 (OP)
Never gonna happen

Not going to happen. More feel good bullshit distractions.

>>213497421
Moving the weight of the required materials is basically impossible, and that's just the start

>>213497421
Several km^2 of radiator could work ? But then there an asteroids

Probably one of those thermal decay reactors they use on probes

>>213496624 (OP)
What's the purpose of a nuclear reactor on the moon?

usecase?

>>213497421
carnot, making a cold reservoir in a vaccuum isn't trivial. on earth you can dump it in the atmosphere or rivers (you'll need water for your cooling towers) but try to do this in space. overheating in space ships is already big enough of a problem, now try to do this while getting rid of megawatts of heat
temperature hasn't got much meaning in the emptiness of space when there's nothing to conduct or convect. radiation is the only meaningful way

>>213496624 (OP)
Imagine unironically believing this sci-fi shit, the US hasn't been back to the moon for the past 50 years. I'm sure they'll build a nuclear reactor on it in 2 more weeks though

>>213497768
If this was an actual real nuclear reactor the heat would probably have to be transmitted deep into the rock for it to work at all

>>213497835
i don't even know to what degree this would work on a stone dead rock spinning around the earth. this is way more challenging than smoothbrains on reddit seem to realise
i know some explorers are "technically" powered by nuclear but that's because of nuclear decay spouting electrons on a higher orbit and then falling back, but semi conductor physics and nuclear decay aren't my strong points so i'm not going to elaborate

>>213497495
>>213497421
I like how 2 of the dumbest comments in this thread are browns.

>>213497421
Getting all the material and gear up there, which is a colossal task, is probably the easiest part.
There are maybe couple hundred trained astronauts at the moment on the whole planet. There is no one trained for low gravity, zero atmosphere construction work. We have no experience in that.

>>213498001
>>213497768
it's extremely challenging on the most fundamental level. you can have all the materials and work force, resources, unlimited funding, you're still not going to break the laws of thermodynamics. pic related

>>213497421
>Why is this even hard?
are you fucking serious?

>>213497506
I have the same thing in my mind.
- needs water
- solar panels sound better in the vacuum

>>213496624 (OP)
Good luck building a heatsink in a vacuum

>>213497506
to power the new Epstein Colony And Resort

>>213500332
Firstly the moon does have a very thin atmosphere. Secondly, the moon may be so cold from lack of atmosphere that you can probably use the moon itself as a heatsink just like using ground for electricity. Might have to keep the reactor dormant during sun hours or something though.

>>213496624 (OP)
maniac mutts going to blow up the moon if that happens, i wonder who they will blame for this ... no more falling tide and rising tide, thats gg

>>213500408
>Firstly the moon does have a very thin atmosphere
that's the main issue, it has de facto none. i'm an engineer but i don't see immediately how a vanilla rankine cycle would work. smarter people probably have working ideas but it's still far from trivial
>just build a nuclear plant, but on the moon :) why is this so difficult

First of all they aren't going to build the reactor on the Moon. Instead they'll build it here on Earth and install it on the Moon. It’ll be a small reactor under 6 tons and producing around 40 kW of power.
As for cooling? They're using radiators. The picrel might give you some idea.

>>213501086
you ignored the rest of the post