Nukes & solar panels

I don't doubt your claim that having an SP-100 reactor around would be a
great benefit versus solar power for space resource bootstrapping
operations. I don't think the choice of destination (Moon, NEA,
Phobos/Deimos) changes that technical advantage.

You used the phrase, "...just because a few earth-side environmentalist
might throw a tantrum". I wouldn't underestimate the political power of
the environmentalists. I think that it is risky to design a bootstrapping
operation around nuclear power. Not "risky" in a physical sense, but
risky in a political sense. One might design a bootstrapping operation
around the assumption that there will be an SP-100 available, and then have
that idea crushed like an eggshell by the environmentalist lobby. That
wouldn't be a good outcome for us.

You say, "... then we might as well brave the environmentalists and ship a
nuke up to the moon". You're a braver person than I.

Ron Menich

hollroa@...
Please respond to
ssi_list

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An SPS itself is a major engineering project, so long as were tackling
major
engineering projects, building a crane in not out of the question. I think
the first thing would be to cast the steel or aluminum beams. The
scaffolding
would be built and from the scaffolding you would build the tower. I don't
thing the World Trade Center was built from cranes that were as tall as it
was. I think the cranes were mounted on top of the structure that was
already
built and lifted beams up so that the tower could be raised higher. Cranes
aren't terribly complicated or high technology and could be made with local
resources. Anyway Island one was compared with building a suspention
bridge,
so the technical skill of building towers on the Moon shouldn't be any
greater. I'm not a construction engineer, but it seems fairly logical that
if
your going to tackle big construction projects you'll need things like
cranes. You can't get away with the fairly flimsy structure that you can in
space, but their are stong metals available on the Moon that can hold up
their own weight and then some. The lesser gravity on the moon lessens the
engineering restraints on building tall objects and tall objects have been
built on Earth so even taller ones can be built on the moon. These are just
towers, not office buildings so some of the things such as floors and
windows
can be left out.

Tom Kalbfus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If building the a polar solar power supply is as difficult as all
this,
then we might as well brave the environmentalists and ship a nuke up to the
moon. No one likes the idea of having a pot of radio-isotopes sitting in
their
back yard (myself included). But if we have to go to so much trouble using
solar
power, just because a few earth-side environmentalist might throw a
tantrum,
then I don't see the point of hobbling ourselves. Erecting a solar power
station
at the moons pole would be a major industrial project. We would have to
refine
and cast local metals, construct crains, pulleys, nuts and bolts, gear
systems
for rotating the thing, e.t.c. and the whole project would take months or
even
years.

Alternatively, we ship up an SP-100 reactor. The entire power system (
including, reactor unit, sterling cycle generators, heat sink, transformer
systems and power transmission gear, would weigh just 20 tonnes. A few
astronauts, working in space suits, could have the thing online, within a
few
days. The reactor would produce 825-Kwe, round the clock, without
maintainance,
for the entire core life of 7 years, at full power. See:
http://powerweb.lerc.nasa.gov/psi/DOC/lbpaper.html

This is a hell of a lot easier than the solar power concept, which would
have
to replaced after about 10 years due to cumulative radiation damage.