I wasn't sure from reading the article: Is this planned to be a large RTG, or something more fancy?
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
19 points (100.0% liked)
Space
1656 readers
393 users here now
A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics
Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instanceโs local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.
Related Communities
๐ญ Science
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
๐ Engineering
๐ Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The call is for a 100kW reactor, which is way more than an RTG. This will be more like a submarine/carrier pressurized fission reactor thatโs fitted out for use in space.
oh, definitely. I just meant it's going to be something much closer to a "conventional" compact fission reactor (the only examples of which I could think of being for naval uses) than an RTG. I have to imagine that bleeding off all of that heat is going to be an interesting challenge in a hard vacuum.
The question is, is it bigger, or does it last longer, than 100 kW worth of solar panels? There are a number of places on the moon that are remarkably suitable for solar power.