NASA’s Revolutionary Nuclear Reactor Plans for the Moon
NASA has revealed its groundbreaking plans to construct a nuclear reactor on the Moon. This ambitious project represents a significant leap forward, potentially providing power for future Moon bases and sustaining long-term missions. However, it also prompts several crucial questions.
What is the estimated cost? Will someone need to remain on-site to manage it? And for the pessimists, what if it malfunctions?
<
The History of Nuclear Power in Space
This isn’t the first instance of nuclear technology in space.
In the early 1950s, NASA pioneered the development of the uranium-fueled “SNAP” (Nuclear Auxiliary Power system), designed for space exploration.
In 1965, just four years prior to Neil Armstrong’s historic Moon landing, SNAP-10A became America’s inaugural nuclear-powered satellite, operating for 43 days in Earth orbit.
Nuclear devices have since powered various deep space missions, including Voyager and the Mars rover Curiosity.
Some, like the systems depicted in the movie The Martian, utilize low-power solutions known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), which convert heat from radioactive decay into electricity.
Additionally, two Russian lunar missions have carried radioactive heaters for power generation.
In a quest to supply increased energy for its lunar initiatives, NASA is exploring small-scale nuclear fission systems that focus on splitting atoms.
In 2018, NASA successfully completed a test for a compact uranium-fueled nuclear reactor called Kilopower, roughly the size of a toilet paper roll, affirming its capability to power a lunar outpost with just four units.
While the concept of “moon reactors” may raise safety concerns, these reactors are designed with extensive safety measures including passive cooling and low-enriched uranium, minimizing the risk of catastrophic failure.
Nevertheless, the possibilities of a reactor mishap are intriguing to consider.
What If There’s an Explosion?
The reality of a nuclear meltdown on the Moon remains largely speculative. Current reactor designs suggest they won’t grow large enough to even be classified as a meltdown.
(A single Kilopower reactor can generate sufficient energy to power a handful of Earth homes for around ten years.)
SNAP-10A: The first nuclear power system to operate in space, launched in 1965 – Image credit: Atomics International/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Contractor
However, the scale of the reactor isn’t the only factor influencing the consequences of an explosion; the lunar environment plays a critical role.
A nuclear reactor failure on the Moon would unfold quite differently than it would on Earth.
With no atmosphere or weather and only one-sixth of Earth’s gravity, scenarios involving explosions, mushroom clouds, and seismic aftershocks (triggered by atmospheric reactions on Earth) are less likely.
Instead, overheating could lead to a glowing pool of molten metal quietly cooling and solidifying without dramatic fallout.
Yet, this does raise substantial risks for personnel nearby due to radiation exposure.
Even with localized fallout being primarily contained, intense radiation surges still pose significant dangers.
A Close Call in Nuclear Space History
Fortunately, we lack detailed answers to this question, but an American scientist proposed a solution in the 1950s.
Project A119 was a covert initiative to detonate a hydrogen bomb on the Moon amidst the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Thankfully, this concept remained in the planning stages and never materialized.
This article addresses the question posed by Worle’s David Martin: “What would a nuclear meltdown on the Moon look like?”
If you have any queries, feel free to reach out to us at:questions@sciencefocus.com or send us a messageFacebook,Twitter or InstagramPage (please include your name and location).
Explore our ultimatefun factsand discover more amazing science topics!
What role does YouTube play in the lives of Australian families with children? As the federal government considers extending bans on social media accounts for minors under 16 to include YouTube, readers of the Guardian shared insights about their kids’ engagement with the platform and their opinions on the proposed ban.
Here’s what they had to say.
“Monitoring it simply isn’t feasible.”
Many parents reported making efforts to limit their children’s usage to shared spaces, often opting for co-viewing or utilizing parental controls. Nevertheless, many expressed concerns that this approach is time-intensive and nearly unmanageable, leaving them anxious about content that may go undetected.
“We rely on YouTube Kids and always monitor what they view beforehand. YouTube doesn’t seem to trust us, so we take these precautions. The algorithm is extremely fast, and we fear they may fall into endless rabbit holes.
“The primary reason we impose restrictions is due to my own adult experiences on YouTube. I feel like I have to fight the algorithms that lead me toward content I don’t want to see. After watching one Gel Blaster video, I suddenly had 100 videos of Americans shooting guns. One gym bodybuilder video led me to a flood of fitness models. If I have to struggle this hard, YouTube does the same to my kids.” Marty, father of two under nine, Brisbane
“Prior to deleting it, our kids would spend hours on YouTube. They easily get caught in a satisfying loop, jumping from one video to the next.
“I enjoy watching some videos with my kids. Some are educational and quite humorous. However, it’s ultimately challenging to regulate and filter content sufficiently, to ensure they aren’t exposed to anything inappropriate. We have three boys, and many videos have explicit messages that could negatively affect young boys’ perceptions of women.” Adelaide, parents of three children, ages 13, 11, and 6.
“YouTube is a bane in our lives. Ideally, it wouldn’t exist. Our son isolated himself in his room for nearly two weeks, immersing himself in YouTube and games during his recent school holidays. Dan, parents of 15 and 12-year-olds, Melbourne
“YouTube offers some degree of parental control over content, but certain aspects of their systems seem ineffective. [Our son’s] interests narrow down his feed, leading us to worry he might stumble upon something entirely inappropriate.” Gerald, father of a 13-year-old in Canberra
“We struggle to control what they’re watching. Even in the most secure settings on YouTube Kids, my children have inadvertently accessed frightening content disguised as children’s television. Peter, father of three children aged 2, 4, and 6, Sydney.
“It’s virtually impossible to monitor what they watch. Even a cursory glance at the feed reveals that my daughter is exposed to an abundance of material propagating beauty and body image stereotypes. Richard, parent from Hobart, ages 10 and 13.
“My kids are young, and their definitions can easily be swayed by repeated reward programming that triggers dopamine release from vibrant visuals. My issue with YouTube is that it operates much like a poker machine, monetizing the thirst for dopamine; we’re all drawn in. The bright lights and high-energy tropes are at the core of this massive platform.” Monique, parent of an 8-year-old and an 11-year-old in Bellpost Hill.
‘They can watch it non-stop for hours.”
From fleeting attention spans and wasted time to concerns about potentially harmful content slipping through, many parents feel YouTube’s algorithms promote excessive viewing and present harmful material.
“I’m concerned about how the short content affects my children’s attention spans. I have to offer warnings before turning it off to help them transition away from the screen. Sydney parents, ages 3 and 5
“The time wastage, actively encouraged through algorithms without forewarning on upcoming content, makes things stranger and more extreme. I lack trust in tech companies regarding the happiness of our children. Alicia, parents from Colonel Light Garden, aged 8 and 12
“When left unsupervised, they end up watching a bizarre mashup of short content, which includes both rubbish and terrifying videos like the horror game Poppy Playtime. Our youngest suffered from nightmares for months after watching this at a friend’s house for three hours a few years ago.
I genuinely support YouTube’s educational efforts, but kids seem more inclined to watch junk instead of that. ” Damian, father of ages 9 and 12 in Sydney.
“It’s frustrating because YouTube often exposes children to inappropriate content. The shorts are particularly troublesome. Mat, father of 16 and 11-year-olds in Ballarat.
Sign up: AU Breaking News Email
“I teach ethics at my local public school, and half my students express a desire to become gaming YouTubers.
“It’s all about content that lacks value. I’m not overly concerned about “inappropriate content” since it’s ultimately about completely worthless material, and children struggle to differentiate between what’s appropriate and what isn’t.” Parents of ages 15, 13, and 10
“It’s a real addiction, leading to severe tantrums when restrictions are applied.” A parent of a 16-year-old in Brisbane, Queensland.
“They can easily watch for hours without any breaks. Our current rule is limiting them to an hour a day, especially because when we turn it off, they quickly melt down and cry.
“My 12-year-old has better regulation but I’m still worried about videos that appear kid-friendly yet end up being problematic… We really dislike YouTube and wish it didn’t exist.” Harrisdale, parent of three children, aged 7, 10, and 12.
“He could choose what he wanted, but he primarily views the shorts. We’ve noticed that these shorts affect his mood. We’ve tried to stabilize his YouTube experience by steering him towards more educational content.” Kevin, father of a 13-year-old in Brua.
“He learned to crochet through YouTube.”
Many parents acknowledged the educational advantages YouTube offers, from supporting niche hobbies to serving as a platform for children to express themselves creatively as content creators.
“I worry about the vast amount of unfiltered content he could easily come across if not monitored, but my greater concern is losing access altogether. He learned how to crochet from YouTube. Single parent of a teenage son, ACT.
“We utilize YouTube for educational purposes (e.g., MS Rachel, Mads Made, Volcanoes, David Attenborough content) as well as for entertainment (e.g., Teeny Tiny Stevies for videos, Music Videos, etc.). YouTube is the best educational platform in history!!!” Melbourne parents of ages 2 and 5.
“My sons, 11 and 14, frequently use YouTube for information and gaming content. My oldest even has an account where he posts videos about Ali’s colony. [I support the ban]. Many kids share knowledge and enthusiasm in healthy ways.” Sydney parents, ages 11 and 14.
“Our son uses YouTube daily for his passion, creating stop-motion films using Lego. He dedicates hours to producing, editing, and uploading beautiful video clips to his channel, gaining followers. Dan Arno, father of an 11-year-old in Munich.
“If these companies refuse to regulate themselves, action must be taken.”
Parents expressed varied opinions on whether a ban on YouTube accounts for those under 16 would be beneficial or effective.
“I am wholly opposed to the current laws. We need to push for tech companies to alter their content policies. It’s essential to require personal identification for age verification when uploading content online.” Parents of 12 and 15-year-olds in Brisbane.
“Now, I have to restrict my child’s YouTube access and either provide oversight or create a fictitious account. This isn’t something I want to do. [Gen X] intervenes in areas they shouldn’t. Parent of two children in West Sydney.
“Digital platforms and high-tech corporations have generated a proliferation of violent and antisocial material from content creators, which is viewed countless times by impressionable children. Parents find it challenging to monitor this content, with only the content creators and technology giants benefitting.” Parents of a 16-year-old in Windsor.
“Their accounts give us access to their viewing history. However, a ban is impractical. Age registration infringes on my privacy.” Tim, parent of two children in Blackburn.
“I am fully in support of the ban. Tech companies have repeatedly demonstrated their lack of interest in fostering a safe environment for children.” Gerald, father of a 13-year-old in Canberra.
“I feel torn about this. I’m convinced the ban will be easily bypassed by those under 16. But I see it as a proactive attempt to curb children’s access to inappropriate content.” Parents of a 5-year-old in Adelaide.
In 2012, when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg cut a billion-dollar check to buy the photo sharing app Instagram, most people thought he had lost his marble.
“Billion dollars?” I was kidding John Stewart and then The Daily Show host. “For something that would ruin your photos?”
Stewart called the decision “really unfree.” His audience, and much of the world, agreed that Zuckerberg overpaid for an app that highlighted a lot of photo filters.
Two years later, Zuckerberg opened his wallet again. Facebook has agreed to buy WhatsApp for $19 billion. Many Americans had never heard of messaging apps that were popular internationally but less well-known in the US.
No one knew what would happen with these transactions. However, hindsight seems to be 20/20.
The government on Monday in a landmark antitrust trial that both acquisitions are now considered the greatest in Silicon Valley history – is the action of a lawn-protected monopoly. Zuckerberg was set up to argue that his company, renamed Meta, is merely an afterthought in the social media situation, not for these transactions.
However, this incident could lead to the division of one of the most powerful companies in technology, dealing primarily with hypotheses. Neither the government nor Zuckerberg could predict how technology would advance from Instagram’s $1 billion checks or what would happen if regulators didn’t approve the purchase. This makes Meta’s antitrust case one of the slipperyest things in the tech industry, which has long been defined by unpredictability.
“It was a very different time in Silicon Valley,” said Margaret O’Mara, a technical historian at the University of Washington, about the Facebook acquisition. “There was a vibe like, ‘Oh, wow, Facebook is a bunch of kids who really spend their luxury!” “
I happened to have a front row seat for Facebook deals, especially on Instagram. As a reporter for Wired Magazine, my office in San Francisco was next to my Instagram headquarters. We frequently visited the Kimchi Burrito location (a green slice of city) across the street near South Park Commons and ate it on a bench outside our Instagram office.
Kevin Systrom, the 6-foot-5-foot co-founder of Instagram, was 28 years old. He often roamed around the wood and iron swings of South Park Commons, calling employees and speaking about product ideas. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, who identified as an arts child rather than a technician, played in the same South Park playground and meditated to a friend about the idea that eventually became his social media app.
This was a time when social apps were dismissed as play, in order to post art for lattes and to tell people what they had for breakfast. WhatsApp, which was growing rapidly internationally, was a text messaging app with no business model. And clones of these apps were abundant, including photo sharing colors, Flickr, VSCO, Message Kik, Skype, Viber, and more.
Even Facebook faced questions about whether it was a viable business. Two months after the Silicon Valley Company announced it was buying Instagram, it held one of the most Disastrous early technology revealed Since the late 1990s, it has been on the .com era.
By the time Systrom testified three months later to the California Corporation Bureau of Corporations, a condition that would close its Facebook deal, Facebook’s shares had fallen almost half the price.
However, in Silicon Valley, fortunes rise quickly. Companies move from frivolous fantasies to juggernauts in just a few years. And what might seem like a wise business move by one moment of executives can be ridiculed immediately as a mistake in the next moment. (Half of the aforementioned apps are dead, dying or have been sold as parts for a long time. Also, my favorite Kimchi Burrito locations. It’s not around anymore. )
At the time, Systrom made a positive spin on Instagram trading as the future looked increasingly tough for Facebook.
“I have been taught throughout my life that all open markets have opposites and shortcomings,” he attended the August 2012 Department of California hearing on the sixth floor of the downtown San Francisco division. “I still firmly believe in the long-term value of Facebook.”
He turns out to be right. Today, Instagram and WhatsApp are two of the most important parts of the meta business. Postings, videos and communications on the platform regularly drive global conversations for sports, news, politics and culture. The app has billions of users.
In some respects, antitrust testing is about competitive versions that may have had a history of technology. For example, what would have happened if Zuckerberg lost his Instagram bid? I’m also about to buy a photo sharing app for Twitter? What happens if WhatsApp is sold to Google? I’ll defend a little How to add a messaging app to your own portfolio?
What if other competitors create a great photo sharing app that could thrive if Facebook didn’t use Instagram to crush them? What happens if Facebook has ruined both deals or can’t keep up with competing apps and still fall behind after purchasing Instagram and WhatsApp?
These are unknown and can only be answered by those who have a time machine. Each side claims a version of what would have happened if Meta’s acquisition was not approved.
In the same Daily Show segment in 2012, senior youth correspondent Jessica Williams said that Facebook’s Instagram purchases made perfect sense.
“If you wanted a photo before Instagram that looks like it was taken in the ’60s, you’d have to invent a time machine and go back to 50 years ago,” she said. “Do you know how much it costs to build a time machine?”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
