Scientists

United States and China are measuring their spatial capabilities In a race to build the first lunar base. Although NASA was victorious from the previous race to the moon against the Soviet Union, It is not so clear that it takes the lead On this occasion. For now, Chinese scientists They have found failures In a crucial element of NASA’s lunar program: its energy source. NASA’s lunar reactor. NASA leads US efforts to inhabit the moon with its partners of Artemisa agreements. The Chinese Space Agency CNSA and the Russian Roscosmos advancetogether with a small group of allies, in the development of the International Lunar Research Station (Ilrs), which It will start working in 2036 and Wait to house thousands of scientists. On the moon, one night lasts 14 terrestrial days, so more than solar panels will be needed to maintain the energy supply of the facilities. NASA He has been developing for years A small nuclear energy plant specially designed to function on the surface of the moon. This little fission reactor is called Fission Surface Power (FSP) and can generate 40 kW of power. China has found a failure. The researchers of the National Nuclear Corporation of China (CNNC) examined NASA’s proposal and discovered improveable aspects in their design. A study published by the Chinese scientific journal Atomic Energy Science and Technology Review these weaknesses focusing on the composition of nuclear fuel, the cooling system and the security control of the US reactor. Chinese scientists highlight the FSP reactor compact designbut they see a clear mistake in the choice of fuel. According to his study, the use of very enriched uranium cylindrical bars will require thick beryl layers as a armor to control intense radiation. In addition, it will limit the useful life of the reactor to about eight years due to the “fuel swelling” (fuel expansion), a phenomenon that makes the material increase in volume gradually due to radiation. To this we must add that the reactor has a simple control mechanism, less safe in critical situations. Remove, NASA, we do it. In addition to pointing out US design problems, CNNC scientists presented an improved version of the lunar nuclear reactor taking as reference both NASA design and an old Soviet space reactor called Topaz-II. The main improvements introduced by the Chinese lunar reactor are: Ring -shaped fuel bars: instead of solid cylinders, the bars have an annular shape, such as a hollow ring. Inside they have small uranium dioxide pills covered by stainless steel, allowing the heat generated by the nuclear reaction to dissipate better, using the interior and exterior of the refrigeration ring Double cooling system: The Chinese reactor has a cooling system based on a liquid metal (NAK-78) that flows through internal and external channels of annular fuel bars. This design allows the reactor temperature to be maintained below 600 ° C, which improves the safety and stability of the reactor Most efficient neutron moderator: Chinese design uses a material called ititrio hydride (YH1.8) as a moderator, the material responsible for slowing down neutrons, improving nuclear reaction and making it more efficient. Ititrium hydride is more stable than traditional nuclear moderators (such as zirconium hydride), which avoids dangerous hydrogen leaks and increases the safety and life of the reactor Less nuclear fuel necessary: ​​Thanks to its design and the use of Ititrium hydride as a moderator, the Chinese reactor needs only 18.5 kg of Uranium-235 in front of the NASA FSP reactor, which requires approximately 70 kg of U-235, almost four times more. Weight reduction is essential in space missions, not only due to cost savings, but because nuclear materials are being launched through the Earth’s atmosphere Your turn, United States. The Chinese reactor is up to 75% more efficient than that of NASA, and promises a useful life of 10 years, compared to the eight of the American reactor. This advance would potentially position China ahead of the United States in the objective of establishing a sustained and self -sufficient presence on the moon, since the constant energy that a nuclear reactor allows will be essential to be able to hold inhabited bases in the long term. But NASA design is not monolithic or closed. The expected thing is that, as China has done, the agency takes advantage of its opponent’s investigations to improve its own technology. What could also end up with companies that develop small modular reactors (SMR) for the supply of electricity on Earth. If something has space careers, they improve, based on research, technologies that end up moving to other industries. Images | POT In Xataka | We are building nuclear spacecraft again. NASA believes we will need them