this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
127 points (93.2% liked)

World News

38987 readers
2555 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 5 points 1 month ago

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 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

https://www.ans.org/news/article-5894/nations-envision-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon/

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/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 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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?

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Preparing_for_the_Future/Space_for_Earth/Energy/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.