Die NASA möchte bis 2030 einen Kernreaktor auf den Mond setzen – und wählen, wo schwierig ist
https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/nasa-wants-to-put-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-by-2030-choosing-where-is-tricky
Die NASA möchte bis 2030 einen Kernreaktor auf den Mond setzen – und wählen, wo schwierig ist
https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/nasa-wants-to-put-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-by-2030-choosing-where-is-tricky
11 Kommentare
Mom said tomorrow it’s my turn to post about NASA admins wanting to put a nuclear reactor on the moon.
Alright. Who let Trump watch “For All Mankind”?
Let’s stop taking these stories so seriously. Been doing that for decades.
NASA won’t be putting a nuclear reactor on the moon.
What difference does it make? SpaceX will wind up scattering the goddamn thing all over the Gulf of Mexico
Who at NASA does?
I work at NASA. Sean Duffy’s announcement was the first any of us had heard of it as far as I know.
Edit: I’ve been educated, thanks folks. It was mostly just a tongue in cheek comment about the interim unconfirmed NASA Administrator shooting from the hip.
Nasa already out plutonium powered RTGs on the moon to power some of the experiments during the apollo era.
some of those were sending data back well into the 1970s. powered by decaying plutonium.
Yea, I want to launch a rocket and have it accidentally blow up on the way to the moon with nukes onboard in our upper atmosphere too sometimes. But, I resist these urges on a daily basis and just try to live my life instead.
I can already see a moon quake destroying the reactor.
I know it’s all performative politics, but why ?
I know they want to be there before the Chinese, but other than that ?
This requires nasa to get money. Then this money would need to be spend in a reasonable way. Both might be problematic.
Good thing is that depleted uranium is far cheaper, far far less toxic and almost not radioactive than plutonium that is used in RTG.
1. Cut NASA funding across the board.
2.
3. Nuclear reactor on the Moon