俄羅斯公開宣布，在2035年前，要和中國在月球上建造一座昂貴而低效的核電站的理由是什么？
What is the rationale behind building an expensive and inefficient nuclear power plant on the moon?
譯文簡介
月球核電站
正文翻譯
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 20 )
收藏
Russia's space agency chief Yuri Borisov said that Russia and China consider putting a nuclear power plant on the Moon in 2033-2035.
Trouble is that on the moon there is no atmosphere and too little water. A thermal plant to work needs a heat flow and on the moon it could rely only on radiant heat flow which is inefficient. Such a power plant would be expensive and useless.
China as of now may have some money to splurge, but for the Russian federation, burdened by the cost of the war, this would be a big waste to shoulder. What can be the rationale behind such plan?
俄羅斯航天局局長尤里·鮑里索夫表示，俄羅斯和中國考慮在2033年至2035年之間在月球上建造一座核電站。
問題是月球上沒有大氣層，水也太少了。熱電廠的工作需要熱流，而在月球上，它只能依靠輻射熱流，這種方式很低效。這樣的發(fā)電廠既昂貴又無用。
到目前為止，中國可能有一些錢可以揮霍，但對俄羅斯來說，他們還背負(fù)著戰(zhàn)爭的成本，這將是一個巨大的浪費(fèi)。所以這個計(jì)劃背后的理由是什么？
Please note the the Russians have no plan to put a permanent base on the moon and even if they added those plan now the target date of 2033-35 is infeasible.
更新回復(fù):
請注意，俄羅斯沒有在月球上建立永久基地的計(jì)劃，即使他們現(xiàn)在增加了這些計(jì)劃，2033-35年的目標(biāo)日期也不可行。
I would like to point out that I did not state that the system would not work. I stated that it is expensive and inefficient. People might disagree with this premise. However this remains a question about the political motivations and the reasons to push such a risky option for their tight budget. Why should the Russian federation put a lot of money of an expensive project? Even more doubtful (1) considering that by 2035 for sure there would be no moon base to support. Probably not even by 2045 there could be a moon base. Even more doubtful (2) considering that such a project could consume a huge amount of U-235 which is very rare and the Russians desperately need to fuel their civilian power generation.
更新回復(fù)2：
我要解釋下，我并沒有說這個計(jì)劃行不通。我的意思是，它既昂貴又低效。人們可能因?yàn)檫@個前提不同意這個計(jì)劃。另外，這也是一個關(guān)于政治動機(jī)的問題，以及他們在預(yù)算緊張的情況下推動這種冒險(xiǎn)選擇的原因。為什么俄羅斯要在一個昂貴的項(xiàng)目上投入大量資金？更令人懷疑的是，考慮到2035年肯定不會有月球基地。也許到2045年都不會有月球基地。更令人懷疑的是，考慮到這樣一個項(xiàng)目可能會消耗大量的U-235，這也是非常罕見的核燃料，而俄羅斯的民用發(fā)電燃料卻一直很緊缺。
This is too speculative. Once the first rocket with construction materials for such a plant takes lift off, I'd start thinking about. Before I would assume that is pure propaganda or illusional thinking. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that it won't happen in 2033-35.
這只是個投機(jī)的計(jì)劃罷了。除非等到第一枚載有建造這種工廠的建筑材料的火箭真正升空，我才會開始考慮。在此之前，我認(rèn)為這純粹是宣傳或幻想。我唯一百分百確定的是，它肯定不會發(fā)生在2033-35年。
Russia actually has a long history of so-called RTGs: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator. I assume it is this style of nuclear reactor they are planning to put on the moon, rather than the ones made of millions of tonnes of concrete and requiring an ocean worth of water to be pumped.
俄羅斯研究放射性同位素?zé)犭姲l(fā)電機(jī)很長時(shí)間了。我猜他們計(jì)劃把這種類型的核反應(yīng)堆放在月球上，而不是那些由數(shù)百萬噸混凝土制成、需要水泵送海洋水冷卻的核反應(yīng)堆。
@Steve there are already a couple of RTGs on the moon (for one, the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Packages where powered by RTGs), so that would not be worth a press release. Also the power output of RTGs is nothing to write home about. I don't think you can scale this up to anything that would satisfy the megalomania of the current autocratic regime - "in 2033 we will be able to power a very bright lightbulb on the moon" does not exactly strike fear in the heart of your enemies.
已經(jīng)有好幾個“放射性同位素?zé)犭姲l(fā)電機(jī)”在月球上了(例如，阿波羅月球表面實(shí)驗(yàn)包就是由rtg驅(qū)動的)，所以不值得發(fā)布新聞。此外，rtg的能量輸出也沒什么好介紹的。我不認(rèn)為你可以把它擴(kuò)大到可以滿足當(dāng)前專制政權(quán)的狂妄自大的產(chǎn)品——“2033年我們將能夠?yàn)樵虑蛏系囊粋€非常明亮的燈泡供電”，這并不會讓你的敵人心中產(chǎn)生恐懼。
@EikePierstorff, it may be technically slightly different from the RTGs, but my point is that we're almost certainly talking about something closer in size to a suitcase and which requires no cooling water, than to a traditional civil nuclear power station.
從技術(shù)上講，中俄的月球核電站計(jì)劃可能與一般rtg略有不同，以我的觀點(diǎn)看，我們談?wù)摰膽?yīng)該是一個更接近手提箱大小的東西，不需要冷卻水，不是傳統(tǒng)的民用核電站。
While the need for radiative cooling imposes a limit on all thermal power generation in space, space nuclear reactors are not a new or impractical concept, and they make a lot of sense if one wants lots of power without being reliant on sunlight. Russia has more experience with actually using nuclear reactors in vacuum environments than the USA.
雖然對輻射冷卻的需求限制了太空中所有的熱輻發(fā)電，但太空核反應(yīng)堆并不是一個新的或不切實(shí)際的概念，如果人們想要不依賴于陽光就能獲取大量的電力，它們就很有意義。甚至實(shí)際上，俄羅斯在真空環(huán)境下使用核反應(yīng)堆的經(jīng)驗(yàn)比美國還多。
Not only is it a speculative, might or might not happen in the future topic. It also is more technical than political. What can one learn about politics from it? That sometimes governments make proposals that may not make a lot of economic sense?
這不僅只是一個推測性的話題，未來可能會發(fā)生， 也可能不會發(fā)生。它也更多是技術(shù)性話題，而不是政治性話題。我們能從中學(xué)到什么政治知識？有時(shí)政府提出的建議可能沒有多大的經(jīng)濟(jì)意義？
@NoDataDumpNoContribution This question is about the political motivations to push forward such a plan. Keep in mind that given weight and size it is possible to send in space only a reactor based on higlhy (close to 90%) enriched uranium. U-235 is more rare than platinum and Russia need a lot of uranium to maintain their civilian power generation. That reactor would be a very high cost for them.
這個問題是關(guān)于推動這個月球核電站計(jì)劃的政治動機(jī)。請記住，考慮到核電站的重量和尺寸，只可能將一個基于高濃縮鈾(接近90%)的反應(yīng)堆送入太空。鈾-235比鉑更稀有，俄羅斯需要大量鈾來維持民用發(fā)電。對他們來說，月球反應(yīng)堆的成本會非常高。
First you need to show it really does not make any sense,Places where water ice can be found near the poles may be permanently shadowed
首先，你需要證明這個計(jì)劃確實(shí)沒有任何意義，另外在極地附近可能存在永遠(yuǎn)被陰影區(qū)，可能會有水冰存在。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Night
Nuclear is more a technical choice than a political one. The lunar day is ~30 Earth days long, so a Lunar colony will experience 2 weeks of daylight followed by 2 weeks of night. Since a colony will require power through the night for life support and operations, they must find a power source to last through 2 weeks of darkness.
The options for power are effectively a massive battery, or building the colony at the poles and elevating the solar panels so they are always sunlit, or using nuclear power.
Given those constraints, nuclear is a compelling option for this use case.
夜晚是重點(diǎn)。
月球核電站計(jì)劃與其說是政治選擇，不如說是技術(shù)選擇。月球上的一天大約是30個地球日，所以月球殖民地將經(jīng)歷2周的白晝，然后是2周的黑夜。生命和機(jī)器在夜間需要能量來維持運(yùn)作，所以它們必須找到一個能持續(xù)兩周黑暗的能量來源。
電力的選擇可以是一個巨大的電池，或者建造懸浮于極地殖民地上方的太陽能電池板，這樣它們就能一直被陽光照射，或者使用核能。
考慮到這些限制，核能是這些例子中最引人注目的一個選擇。
The US is looking into fission in space as well through a project called Kilopower.
美國也在通過一個名為Kilopower的項(xiàng)目研究太空中的核裂變技術(shù)。
Since OP raises the issue of having a heat sink, the moon itself can be used. Just run some water pipes and then cover them with regolith. Heat conduction from the water to the pipes to the ground will dissipate the heat far more effectively than trying to radiate it to space.
Once you've decided to build a moon base, the technical constraints make Nuclear a good choice.
既然有人提出了關(guān)于核電站散熱的問題，月球本身就可以用來散熱，放幾根水管，然后埋進(jìn)土里。水從管道再到地面的熱傳導(dǎo)，將比試圖將熱輻射到太空有效得多。
當(dāng)你真的決定建立一個月球基地，核能在技術(shù)方面是一個不錯的選擇。
t1) 2035 is too early to build a moon base. The reactor would be supporting something else. 2) The question already mentioned that there is not enough water on the moon, bringing enough water and enough pipes from the Earth would add to the cost.
1、2035年建立月球基地的時(shí)間太早了。反應(yīng)堆還需要其他技術(shù)支持。2、前面已經(jīng)提到，月球上沒有足夠的水，從地球上帶大量水和管道上去會增加成本。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
"The US is looking into fission in space as well through ..." The US had already conducted a lot of gigantic wasteful projects. That would be typical for them, but it is quite strange for Russia that in the past watched the costs way much better.
“美國也在研究太空裂變……”美國確實(shí)實(shí)施了許多巨大而浪費(fèi)的項(xiàng)目。對美國來說這是很典型的事情，但對俄羅斯來說卻相當(dāng)奇怪，因?yàn)樵谶^去，俄羅斯會對一個項(xiàng)目的成本進(jìn)行多重審查。
@FluidCode I am not entirely convinced that there is evidence that the USA makes more "wasteful" projects than Russia, or that there is any reason for this other than Russia usually having a more constrained budget. In any case, space nuclear power plants do not require water (and Russia's past space nuclear reactors often use liquid metal as coolant). So I think a nuclear reactor makes sense if there is a desire for numerous kilowatts of power on the Moon.
我不相信會有證據(jù)表明美國比俄羅斯做了更多的“浪費(fèi)”項(xiàng)目，或者你除了俄羅斯通常有更多的預(yù)算限制之外，應(yīng)該還有其他原因。無論如何，太空核電站不需要水(俄羅斯過去的太空核反應(yīng)堆經(jīng)常使用液態(tài)金屬作為冷卻劑)。所以我認(rèn)為，如果月球上需要大量電力的話，核反應(yīng)堆是十分有意義的項(xiàng)目。
There are suggestions of manufacturing water on the moon although I can't say how easy it would be to get the amount you'd need for a reactor. But certainly the answer to "why build an expensive and inefficient reactor?" is "because we can't build a cheap and efficient one".
有人建議在月球上獲取水，但要得到一個反應(yīng)堆所需的水十分不容易。而對于“為什么要建造一個昂貴而低效的反應(yīng)堆？”的答案肯定是“因?yàn)槲覀儾荒芙ㄔ煲粋€廉價(jià)而高效的反應(yīng)堆”。
@FluidCode - There's no real chance of Russia actually doing a manned Moon landing in the next 20 years. This announcement is all about Russia wanting to pretend it's still a superpower. But Nuke power on the Moon is pretty reasonable. If you don't believe me, ask about it on the space exploration SE.
俄羅斯在未來20年內(nèi)不可能真正實(shí)現(xiàn)載人登月。這個聲明完全是俄羅斯想要假裝自己仍然是超級大國。不過要是他們在月球上使用核武器倒是相當(dāng)合理。如果你不相信我，可以在太空探索版塊上再問一下。
Some kind of power source is required to supply life support for the scientists living on the base and to power experiments. There are limited technical options.
When the US was considering building a manned military base on the moon (project Horizon) the power source was to be two nuclear reactors buried in pits. So it was considered to be the most effective option at that time, and probably still is a very viable option, perhaps still the best. Technical considerations are OT here, but your logic is clearly faulty, perhaps deliberately so. Thermal radiation is obviously not the only way to sink heat on the surface of a moon, for example, but I'm not going to get into an Engineering discussion on a politics SE.
In fact if we fast-forward to the 2030s and beyond, NASA's Artemis base camp would likely include a 10kW fission reactor power source even for a polar base. I doubt there has ever been any serious plan for a continuously-habitable moon base that did not include consideration of some form of fission power source.
月球基地需要某種電源來為生活在基地的科學(xué)家提供生命支持，并為實(shí)驗(yàn)提供動力，所以技術(shù)上的選擇有限。
美國曾經(jīng)考慮在月球上建立一個載人軍事基地(地平線計(jì)劃)，動力源是埋在坑里的兩個核反應(yīng)堆。所以這種設(shè)計(jì)在當(dāng)時(shí)被認(rèn)為是最有效的選擇，也許現(xiàn)在仍然是一個非?？尚械倪x擇，甚至仍然還是最好的選擇。所以技術(shù)上的考慮不存在，因?yàn)槟愕倪壿嬶@然是錯誤的，也許你是故意的。例如，熱輻射顯然不是在月球表面吸收熱量的唯一方式，但我不會在政治版塊上進(jìn)行工程學(xué)的討論。
事實(shí)上，如果我們快進(jìn)到21世紀(jì)30年代及以后，即使是極地基地，美國宇航局的阿爾忒彌斯基地也可能包括一個10千瓦的裂變反應(yīng)堆電源。我懷疑，如果不考慮某種形式的裂變能源，任何一個關(guān)于持續(xù)可居住的月球基地的嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)計(jì)劃都可能不存在。
Since we are on the Politics site, the political answer to this announcement is to induce fear in the west. It's part of the nuclear rhetorics that Russia has been using to scare the west out of helping Ukraine. The rhetorics with nuking Europe worked up to a point, so this is just an escalation of that.
Building a nuclear power plant takes 10 years on Earth. Attempting one on the moon is probably somewhere in the 50-100 years time frx with the current technology for space travel. So the western public will assume Russia has a technology edge if they make such a bold statement. This will also mean Russia has an edge in nuclear weapons. That will strike fear into western society.
It is a rehash of the cold war rhetorics.
既然這個問題出現(xiàn)在了政治版塊上，對這個聲明的政治回答毫無疑問是為了引起西方的恐懼。這是俄羅斯一直在使用的核言論的一部分，目的是嚇唬西方不要幫助烏克蘭。尤其是關(guān)于在歐洲使用核武器的言論甚囂塵上，所以月球核電站計(jì)劃也只是一種升級。
另外，在地球上建造一座核電站也需要10年的時(shí)間。以目前的太空旅行技術(shù)，在月球上嘗試一次，可能需要50-100年的時(shí)間。因此，如果西方公眾知道俄羅斯做出了如此大膽的聲明，他們會認(rèn)為俄羅斯擁有技術(shù)優(yōu)勢。這也意味著俄羅斯在核武器方面具有優(yōu)勢。這將給西方社會帶來恐懼。
這是冷戰(zhàn)言辭的翻版。
It's a fair point that there's probably a large "fear Russian tech superiority" aspect to the annoucement, but the kind of reactor they'd likely send would be more similar to a military/naval one, not a large civilian reactor. The former kind is typically assembled almost entirely in a factory before being dropped in a sub. Russia also has some experience with using such reactors for civilian purposes popularmechanics.
公正的觀點(diǎn)，可以肯定的是，可能有很大一部分是“害怕俄羅斯的技術(shù)優(yōu)勢”的原因，但他們發(fā)射的反應(yīng)堆也可能會更類似于海軍使用的軍用反應(yīng)堆，而不是一個大型民用反應(yīng)堆。前一種通常幾乎完全在工廠組裝，然后整體放入潛艇。俄羅斯也有一些將此類反應(yīng)堆用于民用目的的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。