there are several papers about going to moon and making a working habitat system a moon base, but we need power and i am confuse with which is best source for generating power for moon mission.
we can use nuclear reactor, solar panel or WPS from space.
.
Solar. Permanent energy source, you should not transport there, and the efficiency is higher than in the Earth (lower mechanical requirements and way higher energy density).
Considering that the first steps need Earth-Moon transportation, and the highest cost is the transportation I suggest to use lifetime produced energy / mass of technology and feed-stock comparing alternatives. Later, these initial assumptions can be changed, for example, the local Moon mining and construction industry will be developed.
thank you for your solution ............ and expert advise ..
but i prefer to get conclusion by knowledge . as we can use two main source of energy on moon.
1 nuclear energy- in nuclear energy we can take plutonium and start producing electricity for this i think by today's technology i suggest to be TOPAZ-2 ..... it uses a high-temperature moderator containing hydrogen and highly enriched fuel and produces electricity using a thermionic converter. but it is heavy 1100 kg and per unit produce 5 Kw.
or more preferable Advanced Stirling radioisotope generator (ASRG) it is a radioisotope power system It uses a Stirling power conversion technology to convert radioactive-decay heat into electricity. and it cheaper and long duration one .
2 solar energy - it is simple and easy to use but for dark night or in far side of moon we can not produce electricity but in that time we can use wireless power transmission using space based power station and JAXA is working on it....... and we can use solar panel as a roof of moon base too.
..........
also as @Hamit Can sir introduce
fuel cell it is by nasa which is also good option it is fascinating one.
..................................
please correct me or give me some more advice on my research or i will get to know more things
Aditya,
Both nuclear and solar sources have been used as sources of heat and power in past missions.
With respect to nuclear sources: Direct thermionic conversion is an attractive approach (RTG) as is the use of a Stirling cycle. There are no reasons why a fluid-loop might not be miniaturized too - submarine reactors are quite small - but needlessly complex.
Solar sources (note, dark side != far side) can be permanently useful at the highlands of the poles. One might well want a base at the polar craters anyway to access sequestered water.
Beamed power? Sure. Why not.
Or multiple PV farms and some in-situ fabricated *long* cables!
I'd favour nuclear for bare-bones base load, with PV (and perhaps molten salt stores for power/heat) in the day.
- Badges
- Science topic