It's worth noting that the risk of a nuclear explosion from a fission reactor being launched into orbit is not just extremely low - it is zero. Any reactor configuration that might be qualified for launch would literally not be able to go supercritical under any conceivable faults; both from not requiring highly-enriched materials that might explode in the first place, as well as (to a lesser extent) NASA's categorically extensive risk management on the design, assembly, etc. starting years prior to launch.
watching this gave me the same feeling I used to get in school when I left science class with tons of facts I was definitely going to shoehorn into conversation with my parents at dinner that night thank you Camille!! learned so much
There was nothing to learn. It's taken as fact that they were on the moon, which stays to discuss. They aren't capable to send humans to the moon atm. All just theoreticall stuff.
the rims south pole are in perpetual sun which is ideal for solar, Lunar nights don't affect these. Run a cable down into a crater to power heat drills and you have plenty of water
Molten salt reactors anyone? How does a solid fuel reactor cool itself? What if there’s a problem with the liquid sodium system? How do you cool the water steam with only radiative cooling? A molten salt reactors solves all of these issues.
There are other options, for sure. However, the NASA's nuclear reactor project is attractive and useful for its size and output. Another option for the moon could be solar concentrators focused on a sand battery. That is, it wouldn't take many or cost exceedingly much to place reflective mirrors on the rim of crater to redirect sunlight back down on a glass window into a heavily insulated container of regolith. Energy could then be drawn from the heat in the regolith during the lunar nights. Most likely, you are going to bury your habitat anyway, to protect from cosmic rays. This, in addition to a layer of polyurethane foam will make exceptional insulation for the already abundant and free-for-the-taking regolith. The mirrors could be any super thin and light reflective material that doesn't decay in the hot/cold or UV. By the way, solar panels would not be cheap. Even on Earth, silicon based panels loose efficiency after only around 25 years. Due to hot/cold extremes in space, they would decay within weeks. Therefore, longer lasting solar cells in space are normally made of gallium-arsenide, which is very expensive. As for Mars, the planet itself may receive around half the sunlight as does Earth but the amount that reaches the surface of Mars is only slightly less yet more if you consider the lack of clouds. Nevertheless, the long lasting dust storms are a big challenge. Water ice is very plentiful on Mars. If it were me, I'd store energy in water batteries within the habitat. However, I'd also stick with wind turbines. Yes, the air is only just under 1% of Earth's air density but it is consistent night and day at around 15 mph. You merely need to make the turbine blades much wider and this can be done with a lightweight fabric. During the dust storms, energy output will be greatly increased. The sand battery concept could also work on Mars.
Use thermal generators to make electricity placed in a radius around the area to mine and explore. 100 degrees in the Sun, -100 degrees in the shade. A dark surface would absorb light and heat. A liquid withing, heat and pressure, and gravity could create convection to drive a generator when light shines on it.
I believe you'd need a variety of power sources on the moon. Yes, a fission reactor is probably necessary, but I think solar energy can still play a role. And what about solar power satellites? Those would not be available soon, but they would provide power regardless of lunar night.
nuclear fission is the obvious choice for a primary power source but it'd also make a lot of sense to use electrolysis and fuel cells as an energy storage system so that it can be used as a backup power source, as well as used to power vehicles and equipment, and even produce propellant for space ships from frozen water ice mined from the Moon's surface
thankfully hydrogen allows us a way to take energy with us until we can setup something on the moon. and then build another space station? then theres zero point energy, i bet these things exist on most planets.
@@lemont64 Starship will be great as a Low Earth orbit lift vehicle. Hopefully, they will get it working. I am referring to calling it “interplanetary” in the sense that it will not be taking humans anywhere due to the inefficiency of chemical rockets
@@lemont64 I am not sure under what scenario do you see a reusable rocket in the Moon mission.. Do you mean the fuel depot? The one leaving LEO are not coming back. Starship is not coming from the moon, not even the lunar lander. So the only reusable rockets are the starship that will fuel the Starship going to the Moon. All the other vehicles are on a one way mission.
Thanks for the support! The sound level is at a good level, perhaps turn your volume up a bit 🙂 not to be sassy haha.. it’s just a great volume when you have your volume roughly in the middle !
Why bother? The moon has free access to the biggest power source around, The Sun, there's no magnetic field to interfere with no atmosphere.. the sky is raining soup! And you want to play with fireworks? 😢
Personally I prefer RTGs. 410 RTGs weigh about 18.5 metric tons and SpaceX is claiming Starship can deliver 100 tons to the lunar surface 410 RTGs produce 45.1 kw but also a lot of heating which if your at the lunar poles is going to be needed. They are modular and can placed around the outside of the habitat to distribute heat if that's required. If one fails it can easily be swapped out for another. They can also be used in electrical vehicles to recharge the vehicles lithium batteries while the vehicle isn't in use. Far more flexible , modular and redundant than a monolithic reactor and the radiation they give off is easier to shield. They are a proven technology that just needs to be mass produced. No moving parts and very simple in operation. And proven zero maintenance as per the mars rover.
Starship can't get an empty shell to orbit at the moment at the rate the Musketeres are processing. You'd better be buying granite blocks to build a staircase, see Babylon 😊😊😊
Why not just look for a door? More than likely, we can reactivate an old auxiliary generator left by the moons builder's. 😂 no need to reinvent the wheel like Elon Musk 😢
It's worth noting that the risk of a nuclear explosion from a fission reactor being launched into orbit is not just extremely low - it is zero. Any reactor configuration that might be qualified for launch would literally not be able to go supercritical under any conceivable faults; both from not requiring highly-enriched materials that might explode in the first place, as well as (to a lesser extent) NASA's categorically extensive risk management on the design, assembly, etc. starting years prior to launch.
I don’t think that’s the worry. I think the worry is spreading radioactive particles in the atmosphere.
watching this gave me the same feeling I used to get in school when I left science class with tons of facts I was definitely going to shoehorn into conversation with my parents at dinner that night
thank you Camille!! learned so much
OMG I love that!!!
There was nothing to learn. It's taken as fact that they were on the moon, which stays to discuss.
They aren't capable to send humans to the moon atm.
All just theoreticall stuff.
the rims south pole are in perpetual sun which is ideal for solar, Lunar nights don't affect these. Run a cable down into a crater to power heat drills and you have plenty of water
Easy peezy from any 50s sci-fi 😂🎉
Solar on the rims is an option for some things but not at the large scales we’re talking about
The Elephant in rhe room the Aliens told us not to come back to the Moon we would be evicted quickly 😂😂😂
I love how you make these crazy cool topics so accessible!!
Aw thank you so much!!
would love to watch an interview with the companies building!
I think there is a reason that no names were mentioned. (wink)
Molten salt reactors anyone? How does a solid fuel reactor cool itself? What if there’s a problem with the liquid sodium system? How do you cool the water steam with only radiative cooling? A molten salt reactors solves all of these issues.
Thorium tech! 😂👍👍👍👍👍🎉
Space is already super cold so I don’t think cooling will be the problem. Just put fins to radiate heat to space.
There are other options, for sure. However, the NASA's nuclear reactor project is attractive and useful for its size and output. Another option for the moon could be solar concentrators focused on a sand battery. That is, it wouldn't take many or cost exceedingly much to place reflective mirrors on the rim of crater to redirect sunlight back down on a glass window into a heavily insulated container of regolith. Energy could then be drawn from the heat in the regolith during the lunar nights. Most likely, you are going to bury your habitat anyway, to protect from cosmic rays. This, in addition to a layer of polyurethane foam will make exceptional insulation for the already abundant and free-for-the-taking regolith. The mirrors could be any super thin and light reflective material that doesn't decay in the hot/cold or UV. By the way, solar panels would not be cheap. Even on Earth, silicon based panels loose efficiency after only around 25 years. Due to hot/cold extremes in space, they would decay within weeks. Therefore, longer lasting solar cells in space are normally made of gallium-arsenide, which is very expensive. As for Mars, the planet itself may receive around half the sunlight as does Earth but the amount that reaches the surface of Mars is only slightly less yet more if you consider the lack of clouds. Nevertheless, the long lasting dust storms are a big challenge. Water ice is very plentiful on Mars. If it were me, I'd store energy in water batteries within the habitat. However, I'd also stick with wind turbines. Yes, the air is only just under 1% of Earth's air density but it is consistent night and day at around 15 mph. You merely need to make the turbine blades much wider and this can be done with a lightweight fabric. During the dust storms, energy output will be greatly increased. The sand battery concept could also work on Mars.
😂
I can’t wait for that level of power density!!
Imagine that on EARTHHHH
That is about 53 Hp for 6,000 kg.
The Hp power of an average car is about 180 Hp at a weight of 1,500 Kg give or take a few 100kg.
So it's 4x heavier with 1/4 the power of an average car.
Continually importing gas (and the needed oxygen) to the lunar surface is heavy and expensive though.
Use thermal generators to make electricity placed in a radius around the area to mine and explore. 100 degrees in the Sun, -100 degrees in the shade. A dark surface would absorb light and heat. A liquid withing, heat and pressure, and gravity could create convection to drive a generator when light shines on it.
I believe you'd need a variety of power sources on the moon. Yes, a fission reactor is probably necessary, but I think solar energy can still play a role. And what about solar power satellites? Those would not be available soon, but they would provide power regardless of lunar night.
I agree multiple sources will be needed! This is for the large scale stuff
They named it after Krusty the Clown from the Simpsons!
Let's see these contraptions!
Hell yeah we should!!!!
Has the idea of a Geotechnical solar panels or mirrors aimed at the habitat?
4:11 couldn't we use that H2 and O2 as battery? or hydrogen storage is that horrible?
theyr gonna blow up the moon with this
Excellent video and lovely as always! Looking forward to the next one! Keep up the good work 👍🏼
Thank you very much!
Thank you for making these videos and keeping us informed. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for the support!!
Your energy is contagious and I Love it ❤️🔥
What about lunar thermal?
Nuclear reactors have been done safely in the navy since the 50s. It absolutely can be done.
lol shades of space 1999
Yessssssssssssssssssss
Let's wait till they really go to the moon.
nuclear fission is the obvious choice for a primary power source
but it'd also make a lot of sense to use electrolysis and fuel cells as an energy storage system so that it can be used as a backup power source, as well as used to power vehicles and equipment, and even produce propellant for space ships from frozen water ice mined from the Moon's surface
solar panels at the poles (in perpetual daylight) would also be a good auxiliary power system to have for that matter
Hell! Just. Move to Fukushima. There is plenty of free fission there😢
Definitely agree we will need more than one power source!
you're thinking of Oklo, in Gabon, Africa
How can you say there is no sunlight on the moon when the moon literally reflects light from the sun, which is why we can see it.
Lots of places on the Moon get sunlight! It’s only certain areas, near the poles, that are permanently shadowed - as I dive into in the video :)
When will general public will be able to get moon to the moon colonies
Never going to happen
If Americans return to the moon, they'll be renting space from the Chinese ❤
@@richardscathouse
Haha, you could have a point, but the Germans are probably charging the Chinese rent, as they have been there since the 1940's 😅
So it's 4x heavier with 1/4 the power of an average car.
I mean geothermal could also work, but only on the moon. Mars is too geologically stagnant
There is no Moon base without nuclear power. There is no human Mars exploration without nuclear power. Elon’s Mars solar panel farm is a joke
thankfully hydrogen allows us a way to take energy with us until we can setup something on the moon. and then build another space station?
then theres zero point energy, i bet these things exist on most planets.
This deserves more upvotes.
That kinda true...but also there is no moon base without a reusable rocket....simply impossible economically
@@lemont64 Starship will be great as a Low Earth orbit lift vehicle. Hopefully, they will get it working.
I am referring to calling it “interplanetary” in the sense that it will not be taking humans anywhere due to the inefficiency of chemical rockets
@@lemont64 I am not sure under what scenario do you see a reusable rocket in the Moon mission..
Do you mean the fuel depot? The one leaving LEO are not coming back. Starship is not coming from the moon, not even the lunar lander. So the only reusable rockets are the starship that will fuel the Starship going to the Moon. All the other vehicles are on a one way mission.
Never Went! Never Will.
Sigh
3d printed stuff and fix.
Not holding my breath unless the Chinese or Russians start on the tech! Americans are hopeless
I like what you are doing. Please keep it up. However the sound level on this vid is very low.
Thanks for the support! The sound level is at a good level, perhaps turn your volume up a bit 🙂 not to be sassy haha.. it’s just a great volume when you have your volume roughly in the middle !
What system did you watch this on?
Yes for nuclear power on the moon
The moon already has nuclear power.. from the sun.. nothing is in the way of just collecting it
The problem seems to be the use of water.
ua-cam.com/video/nLqL_lZIkiI/v-deo.htmlsi=yqGkkSxxiJOJ6Di7
There are human colonies on the moon and Mars already. Why not ask them what they do for power?
Dude what
Why bother? The moon has free access to the biggest power source around, The Sun, there's no magnetic field to interfere with no atmosphere.. the sky is raining soup! And you want to play with fireworks? 😢
You should actually watch the video to understand why we can’t just use the sun on the Moon
Personally I prefer RTGs.
410 RTGs weigh about 18.5 metric tons and SpaceX is claiming Starship can deliver 100 tons to the lunar surface
410 RTGs produce 45.1 kw but also a lot of heating which if your at the lunar poles is going to be needed. They are modular and can placed around the outside of the habitat to distribute heat if that's required. If one fails it can easily be swapped out for another. They can also be used in electrical vehicles to recharge the vehicles lithium batteries while the vehicle isn't in use. Far more flexible , modular and redundant than a monolithic reactor and the radiation they give off is easier to shield. They are a proven technology that just needs to be mass produced. No moving parts and very simple in operation. And proven zero maintenance as per the mars rover.
Starship can't get an empty shell to orbit at the moment at the rate the Musketeres are processing. You'd better be buying granite blocks to build a staircase, see Babylon 😊😊😊
Love your content. Hate how you talk through your nose.
Unsubscribed.
Sorry
Really hate the tats 😢
What a miserable life you seem to live!
So your telling me the power source nasa will be using converts nuclear energy to thermal energy then to power
Yup!
@@TheGalacticGal ok
Star Trek was a soft documentary, we already have that technology. Please make videos that are upto date.
This is the most up to date information publicly available but ok 👍🏻
I wish they would go back but politics keep getting in the way
Yeah politics always do😭
The volume is kinda low.
Can I ask what system you listened to it on? The sound is great on all of my devices but you aren’t the first person who said that
@@TheGalacticGal I listen on my PC. It's low compare to most other youtube videos I watch. Hope that helps.
Why not just look for a door? More than likely, we can reactivate an old auxiliary generator left by the moons builder's. 😂 no need to reinvent the wheel like Elon Musk 😢
Nasa going back for good? I think she mean : this time for real"!
No I meant what I said