Hacker News Reader

Comment by pm90 | Hacker News Reader

Nuclear fallout is pretty dangerous on earth, what about the Moon? Would the risk be lower, since there is no life on the lunar surface? So, for the ultra long range missions that are being considered, could fissile material be transported first as cargo to a lunar base with chemical rockets, assembled there and then used to launch longer range missions?

I will admit I’m not sure what the timelines are; at this point of time even a lunar base seems beyond my lifetime.

View on HN

While there is no life on the surface, when we get to the "colonize the moon", the fallout becomes a problem.

Consider the problem that the astronauts had when on the moon and the "prevent dust from getting in the lander". Not only do you have the worry of sharp, pointy dust now - but also radioactive dust.

While it isn't a science book... Seveneves has to deal with the problem of nuclear trust and dust and does so in a realistic way. Its a good book to read/listen to (if you acknowledge/expect the "Stephenson where did the ending go?!" problem)

It's not a dirty bomb! The nuclear thermal rocket has not operated yet which means the fuel is not radioactive and contains no fission products. The surface to space chemical rocket could explore and there would be no fall out.

Transporting fissile material with chemical rockets is dangerous, it's making a dirty bomb and hoping it explodes in one direction. That hasn't always worked for transporting people.

If we say there's no life on the Moon, we still plan to be there. The fallout could affect the use of the Moon, which is far more important.

Sure, it’s question of relative risk. It’s likely that people living on the moon would be wearing protective suits/inside lunar facilities anyways.

I guess the question is if it’s riskier to transport fissile material as cargo vs in an engine. I am not sure what the relative risk would be.

Why not assemble in a higher earth orbit and launch from there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com