1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AVIATION.MILITARY

  • Re: Moon - US plan to put a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface by 203

    From a425couple@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 7 08:47:03 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, sci.military.naval, soc.history.war.misc
    XPost: alt.economics, or.politics

    On 8/7/25 08:31, a425couple wrote:
    from

    'We want to get there first and claim that for America': NASA chief
    explains push for nuclear reactor on the moon (video)
    News
    By Brett Tingley published 21 hours ago
    "If we're going to engage in the race to the moon and the race to Mars,
    we have to get our act together.">

    Comments (12)
    When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.

    Click here for more Space.com videos...
    NASA's interim administrator says his call for the United States to put
    a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface by 2030 is part of a new race to
    the moon.

    this was from https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/we-want-to-get-there-first-and-claim-that-for-america-nasa-chief-explains-push-for-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-video

    Agency chief Sean Duffy made the remarks during a press conference
    titled "Unleashing American Drone Dominance" hosted by the U.S.
    Department of Transportation (which Duffy also runs) on Aug. 5.
    According to Duffy, the reactor is part of a new space race, one with
    the ultimate goal of establishing a sustained human presence on the moon.

    "We're in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to
    have a base on the moon, we need energy," Duffy told reporters

    One of the comments was:
    SiGraybeard
    15 hrs ago
    I don't understand why this concept is getting the reactions it's
    getting. NASA has been working on nuclear power for the moon and Mars
    for years. One approach has been called KRUSTY - Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology. KRUSTY went through testing from November '17
    through March '18.

    https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo-missions-program/kilopower-hmqzw/

    There are more and not just here in the states. In March of '23, the
    U.K. Space Agency and Rolls-Royce announced a decision to continue
    funding Rolls-Royce's project to create a small nuclear-powered reactor
    that could serve as a long-term energy source for lunar bases. And that
    one is covered here:

    https://www.space.com/rolls-royce-funding-microreactor-moon-base

    I'll stop there, with one small addition: if you think a nuclear power
    system designed with human safety requirements would be dangerous on the
    moon, you have no idea how dangerous the moon's environment really is.

    SiG

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Thu Aug 7 22:05:07 2025
    XPost: alt.astronomy, sci.military.naval, soc.history.war.misc
    XPost: alt.economics, or.politics

    a425couple <[email protected]> writes:
    from

    'We want to get there first and claim that for America': NASA chief
    explains push for nuclear reactor on the moon (video)
    News
    By Brett Tingley published 21 hours ago
    "If we're going to engage in the race to the moon and the race to
    Mars, we have to get our act together."


    NASA is notorious for wasting allocated funds and for world class
    planning failures. The thought that they could develop a nuclear
    powerplant for the moon, build and test it, and have it on the moon
    in five years is beyond ridiculous.

    While I'm glad they're setting their sites on the moon, I'd bet a $5
    footlong that SpaceX will beat them by far. They ought to focus on
    keeping their existing programs funded, especially the Pluto express and anything still crawling on Mars.

    NASA needs to stick with what they know and let the market determine the
    best course of action for manned launches to the moon. So far SpaceX
    seems to be on a measured and direct path with their reusability
    schema. Yeah the development cost is on the higher end, but the
    long-term benefit outweighs all of that.

    That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    D

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)