In the future will it be possible to build nuclear power stations on the moon?

Question

and transmit the power back to earth like Radio waves etc.

So many good answers I can't choose, so will leave it to you lot to select a best answer cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

There's no reason why that couldn't be done. However, there are several reasons why it wouldn't be done.

1) There's no nuclear fuel on the Moon
2) Space flight is extremely expensive
3) Though the same side of the Moon always faces Earth, the same side of Earth does not always face the Moon, so your microwave emitter or whatever it is would be pointing at a different location on Earth every second.

Answer 2

Yes it would be possible, but I think a better idea would be to put the nuclear power station in geosynchronous orbit, which is where communications satellites are. It would take only about one third as much fuel to get there as it take to land on the moon. The receiver could be pointed at a fixed location in the sky, just like a satellite dish antenna. The station could be programmed to periodically eject the nuclear waste on a trajectory which would carry it into the sun.

I don't think anyone has yet built a microwave power receiving station. It's certainly possible. I suspect that would be the biggest engineering obstacle in this plan.

Even if this works, it still would have an environmental impact. All that extra energy would eventually wind up in the atmosphere as heat.

It would probably be safer to build solar panels out in the desert to soak up the energy which is already being beamed at us daily from that nuclear power station we call "the sun".

Answer 3

Another obstacle that hasn't been mentioned yet is that there would probably be a huge protest against any launch of radioactive materials in quantities necessary to power a nuclear reactor for any reasonable amount of time.

The pollitical backlash against just the small amount launched with New Horizons actually posed a threat big enough to possibly delay its launch. Safety concerns about a failure that spreads radioactive material in the atmosphere are high with a public that is not confident in Nasa's safety record of late.

Other mentioned reasons are definitely very true:
The Moon doesn't stay above one point on the Earth, so there would have to be many relay stations on Earth to pick it up.

The beam wouldn't be completely focused on the receiver, and power would be getting dissipated into the atmosphere on its way back to Earth.

The expense of putting such a station into service would outweigh its economic benefits at current levels of technology. It's like getting the gold out of seawater. There's more gold dissolved in the oceans than there is buried in the land. It just costs more per ounce to extract it than the current market value of gold, so nobody does it.

A nuclear reactor on the Moon would be more useful in powering a lunar base. However, with there being no atmosphere there, solar power would be much more effective, safe, and reliable. There's no weather to interfere with the reception of sunlight, and the daytime lasts about 15 Earth days, extending the periods of active power collection. They could even put more pannels on the far side of the moon and run a cable to them to ensure constant power.

I think that if we were to use microwaves to transmit power to Earth, it would be from solar pannel arrays, which would need far less maintenance than a nuclear reactor.

Answer 4

It would be like struggling to put a car wash on the top of Mount Everest.

A very difficult job with little reason to do it.

If power were to be generated off-world (assuming a practical, efficient and safe way of transmitting the power to the Earth was devised) then solar panels in Earth orbit would make far more sense: lighter, easier to put there, safer and unlike the surface of the moon, it would be in continuous sunlight. Lunar days and nights each last 14 Earth days.

Answer 5

Nuclear ability vegetation are costly to construct in the international. that they had be prohibitively costly to construct on the moon. we would desire to be waiting to pass the capability returned employing microwaves, even though it may purely fee too plenty. There could additionally be the project of having the nuclear gasoline rods there. would desire to you think of the an infection if the motor vehicle wearing them exploded on the way up? I do think of we would desire to construct some style of photograph voltaic stations in orbit around the solar to beam returned to the earth as microwaves. that they had be waiting to hold at the same time incredibly a lot of photograph voltaic ability 24/7 and be thoroughly sparkling and risk-free.

Answer 6

I don't know, but is a good idea.
It is possible that in the future we will try to find and use resources from other places in the universe, because ours are decreasing.

Answer 7

i think its possible but y would they send the power back to earth wouldn't they use it on the moon

Answer 8

totally

Answer 9

...way to much trouble... Solar panels will do the job for a lot less construction... (The Moon...on one side is always in the Sun light)

Answer 10

Only if America allows you and you're not part of the axis of Elvis.