Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

Oldfart1939 · 2021-12-13 10:00:37

Here's a short video explaining my title...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRKPQn6pprg

SpaceX is now designing a Nuclear Reactor! Sorry, Louis.

Void · 2021-12-13 11:00:41

Well, I am "All Aboard" on that.

One thing that it could change, is the needed desperate effort to set up a solar power plant, so that you could get propellants to go home.

A Starship Robot, as I have said elsewhere, could land, activate its reactor(s), and start processing atmosphere.
The result would be Oxygen and CO. And then when the humans came to mine ice, the CO could be converted to CH4.

However, I am at the point of saying, "Why not bring the Hydrogen"? That was in the original thinking of Dr. Zubrin at an early point, and to me it makes lots of sense, as Elon is quite loose on the number of cargo ships to send before humans.

So, then send several that can cook up O2 and CH4 for the return trip before humans arrive. And then when Humans do arrive, you have propellants for equipment, and rockets, and also several ships with an electric grid on them.

Radiation may be a problem, but if you have shielded carts, then it might work out.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-13 11:06:34)

Calliban · 2021-12-13 11:17:35

Well we knew SpaceX was likely to need a nuclear reactor eventually. It was the only power source capable of producing at least 1MWe within the payload budget of the Starship. It was only a question of who would develop it and what technology ended up being used.

A small pebble bed high-temperature reactor is a good choice. The power generation machinery can be a compact Brayton direct cycle. Heat exchangers are bulky and heavy. The high temperatures achievable with TRISO fuel also allow high efficiency and high temperature heat rejection, which allows the radiator to be compact.

Potential problems:

(1) Pebble bed fuel has been used in the past and suffered a high rate of leakage of fission products. Fission products are powerful beta gamma emitters and they will tend to plate out on the turbine casing and heat exchanger surfaces. This would make maintenance a dose intensive activity. Developing pebble bed fuel that maintains a high level of containment of volatile fission products at high temperatures, will require a lengthy and expensive experimental programme.

(2) Pebble beds are graphite moderated reactors. Because of the high mass of carbon atoms, the long slowing down length of neutrons in graphite tends to make graphite moderated cores bulky. A core small enough to fit in a cargo container would operate with epithermal neutron spectrum. For this to work, the fuel will need to be enriched, probably above low enriched uranium limits. That introduces a lot of bureaucratic head aches and a lot of additional cost. To produce a critical reaction using LEU in such a compact space, it is difficult to avoid the need for a hydrogen based moderator.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-13 11:38:41)

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-13 11:18:18

For OF1939 for this new topic!

Thanks! I'm not surprised. The logic seems (to me at least) inescapable.

The excitement of solar panels wears thin over time. Yes, solar panels harness Fusion energy safely. There is no doubt of that. But the very safety of capturing energy an Astronomic Unit (or more) from the source leads to it's inefficiency.

For Void ... I liked your post, but do feel inspired to point out that shipping water is far easier than shipping hydrogen. The hydrogen can be extracted at Mars (using Solar power or Nuclear) and the Oxygen is useful for life support.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-12-13 12:21:01

Has Elon Musk announced anywhere that SpaceX are actively pursuing a space nuclear reactor? What we appear to have at present is a startup involving two former SpaceX employees. They have an interesting, though slightly dubious idea of a compact gas cooled reactor, but as of yet, nothing has been built or tested. I see no evidence that Elon Musk is behind them, unless he has said something that I missed?

Louis is usually the one most up to date with the prognostications of Elon Musk. But he seems to have left the board with his tail between his legs after that bizarre argument over nothing that he had with MarsB4Moon. Hopefully, we haven't lost him permanently.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-13 12:27:01)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-13 20:18:09

Elon Musk Proposes a Controversial Plan to Speed Up Spaceflight to Mars

NASA has been exploring the concept since the 1960s, when it was working with the Atomic Energy Commission. Indeed, weeks after Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969, engineer Wernher von Braun was devising a way to use nuclear reactors to get to Mars. The idea would use three nuclear-powered boosters in Earth orbit, joining together with a capsule on top of the central core. Von Braun envisioned the mission taking place in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, in part due to a lack of public support for sending people to an empty wasteland, the Nixon administration axed almost all of von Braun’s plans.
Nuclear rockets again surged to the surface in May 2019, when the House Appropriations Committee approved $125 million in funding to explore nuclear thermal propulsion development. The funds were in addition to another $100 million provided by Congress, around 70 percent of which was aimed for a demonstration flight in 2024. The new funds did not refer to any specific deadline, instead asking for a “multi-year plan.”

Will nuclear-powered spaceships take us to the stars?

Void · 2021-12-13 22:49:43

For (th),

Quote:

For Void ... I liked your post, but do feel inspired to point out that shipping water is far easier than shipping hydrogen. The hydrogen can be extracted at Mars (using Solar power or Nuclear) and the Oxygen is useful for life support.

I believe that Oxygen is 79% of the propellants, for Starship. So when at the neighborhood of Mars you do indeed want to get the O2 from that area.

That would leave 21% for Methane Fuel. CH4.

Now I could really burn myself here, but ~12-13 for Carbon weight in a molecule of CH4, and about ~4 for the 4 Hydrogen atoms combined.

So then if I am not needing a correction then about 75% of the Methane is Carbon by weight. Not strongly sure on that but.....
Like Oxygen we would certainly want to get the Carbon from Mars.

So 21% divided by 4 = 5.25% for the entire contribution from Hydrogen.

As I have said, Dr Zubrins original idea included bringing Hydrogen from Earth, as they did not believe that water ice was present in the parts of Mars they would intend to land in.

Now, I will agree that down the road the source of Hydrogen should be ice deposits on Mars, as they are believed to exist in such a way that it should be possible. On a large storage capacity scale solar should be able to contribute, when things are scaled up.

------

However, the plan so far mentioned would have 2 cargo ships land on Mars, and then two more, with two crew occupied ships.

They would assemble a vast array of solar panels without setbacks, and just be able to manufacture enough propellants for the next Hohmann launch window back to Earth. They would have no backup if a problem showed up such as a dust storm. Upon landing they
would have no Oxygen reserves created by robots before they landed, and no Fuel created either. They will have to learn to "Mine" ice, in an environment where it has never been tried before and could not afford production lapses.

But now, send more initial ships. Put Hydrogen in them, the needed small portion. Have active cooling from nuclear fission reactors. That will also be needed for the produced Oxygen and Methane, as Raptor engines need chilled propellants.

Now you have 1 or 2 Starships which are refineries of Martian atmosphere, using up the transported Hydrogen. These propellants will have been manufactured prior to the crewed ships landing.

Therefore, although the task levels will still be harsh, they can experiment in mining ice. If they are successful, then they can input more Hydrogen from Mars to the robots, but they would have had propellants and electricity from the reactor ships immediately upon landing, provided no major mishaps had occurred. There will always be risk and uncertainty, but it does not hurt to minimize it, and to reduce the required load of work for the mission to be a success, both in delivery of return methods, and in experimentation with ice mining.

I will speak further if you need.

You need to think at least 4 dimensionally.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-12-13 23:09:10)

Calliban · 2021-12-14 06:04:17

Void wrote:

For (th),
Quote:
For Void ... I liked your post, but do feel inspired to point out that shipping water is far easier than shipping hydrogen. The hydrogen can be extracted at Mars (using Solar power or Nuclear) and the Oxygen is useful for life support.
I believe that Oxygen is 79% of the propellants, for Starship. So when at the neighborhood of Mars you do indeed want to get the O2 from that area.
That would leave 21% for Methane Fuel. CH4.
Now I could really burn myself here, but ~12-13 for Carbon weight in a molecule of CH4, and about ~4 for the 4 Hydrogen atoms combined.
So then if I am not needing a correction then about 75% of the Methane is Carbon by weight. Not strongly sure on that but.....
Like Oxygen we would certainly want to get the Carbon from Mars.
So 21% divided by 4 = 5.25% for the entire contribution from Hydrogen.
As I have said, Dr Zubrins original idea included bringing Hydrogen from Earth, as they did not believe that water ice was present in the parts of Mars they would intend to land in.
Now, I will agree that down the road the source of Hydrogen should be ice deposits on Mars, as they are believed to exist in such a way that it should be possible. On a large storage capacity scale solar should be able to contribute, when things are scaled up.
------
However, the plan so far mentioned would have 2 cargo ships land on Mars, and then two more, with two crew occupied ships.
They would assemble a vast array of solar panels without setbacks, and just be able to manufacture enough propellants for the next Hohmann launch window back to Earth. They would have no backup if a problem showed up such as a dust storm. Upon landing they
would have no Oxygen reserves created by robots before they landed, and no Fuel created either. They will have to learn to "Mine" ice, in an environment where it has never been tried before and could not afford production lapses.
But now, send more initial ships. Put Hydrogen in them, the needed small portion. Have active cooling from nuclear fission reactors. That will also be needed for the produced Oxygen and Methane, as Raptor engines need chilled propellants.
Now you have 1 or 2 Starships which are refineries of Martian atmosphere, using up the transported Hydrogen. These propellants will have been manufactured prior to the crewed ships landing.
Therefore, although the task levels will still be harsh, they can experiment in mining ice. If they are successful, then they can input more Hydrogen from Mars to the robots, but they would have had propellants and electricity from the reactor ships immediately upon landing, provided no major mishaps had occurred. There will always be risk and uncertainty, but it does not hurt to minimize it, and to reduce the required load of work for the mission to be a success, both in delivery of return methods, and in experimentation with ice mining.
I will speak further if you need.
You need to think at least 4 dimensionally.
Done.

The best option for mining ice is to drill a well into the ice and use it as a heat sink for a nuclear reactor. After a thermal soak time of a few years, we can sink satellite wells around the initial bore hole and pump water out using a submersible pump. There has been a lot of talk recently about Aqueous Homogenous Reactors (AHRs) for use on Mars. These are relatively easy to build and have strong passive safety features. In principle, we could build these quite easily on Mars, using stainless steel from Starship propellant tanks. However, they operate at low temperatures; no more than 200°C. To get good efficiency, one must be able to reject heat at no more than about 30°C. A radiator on the surface of Mars rejecting heat at this temperature, would be huge and cumbersome. Using a water filled borehole as a heat sink therefore solves two problems at once.

There is potential for developing an AHR that operates purely as a water heater. This would be even easier to build, because the water temperature need not exceed 100°C. The unit need not be highly pressurised and corrosion control would much easier. It can make better use negative temperature coefficients for reactivity control. Such a reactor would only need control rods for shutdown. Making a heat exchanger is easy as well, as neither the primary or secondary liquid is boiling. We could in fact build a cast iron vessel with a cooling jacket and a stainless steel liner inside to contain the primary reactor solution. Heat transfer would by conduction into the vessel and then into the circulating cooling water within the jacket. The Martian surface is highly basic and oxygen deprived. The well water will be naturally corrosion resistant.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-14 06:19:02)

Void · 2021-12-14 10:27:57

Calliban,

I looked up AHR, and so have some notion.

I am also watching http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10110 1-3 posts, Roberts stuff very good.

Lots of good stuff.

As you know, I am about ice covered bodies of water, ice armor, ice tubes, and tunnel habitats in the rock, under ice and water.

What Robert has given, indicates a "Savana" or buried ice bodies, and also emergent above the ice regolith and rock.

To me this can be ideal. I agree that the ice melted, and given proper ice armor over a covering of ice, can be a great radiator, with lots of potential to expand it as a settlement(s) grow.

Ice water does not make us want to tuck in and take a nap. But in many ways it is much more habitable than the surface of Mars. Particularly if it is deep enough to offer appropriate pressurization to the human body.

I would put the reactors on the bottom of the ice body when a sufficient body of water was created. Put them in an enclosure, where you could bring the water temperatures to that comfortable to humans. Perhaps 3 chambers.
1) Reactor chamber, temperatures above what humans like/can endure.
2) Warm chambers, temperatures satisfactory for humans to swim in.
3) Ice water, which would be contained by the permafrost ground, and the ice above.

1 and 2 would have non ice roofs. So, for #2, you could have air on top of the water. It would require some special materials, but it could be done.

In all of this perhaps "Cast Iron" could be one of the special materials.

I am considering "Foam Rock".

Aerogel, is quite insulating, but not compatible with water.

Pumice can float on water as rafts, as it apparently has natural air pockets inside.
https://www.livescience.com/22337-float … mages.html

So, actually I am thinking of Vacuum Deposition on the surface of Mars in large Vacuum Chambers/3D printing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_deposition

And interesting thing is if you could do it with cast iron and produce foam cast Iron?

But whatever the base material, it is easy to suppose that you could build very large vacuum chambers on the surface of Mars, much easier than for Earth, provided you had the materials and methods suitable to a hostile environment.

So, for a start, can we get a foam solid that will not soak up water but maintain its air pockets?

So, then to manipulate the "Specific Gravity" of the "Bricks???".

So, perhaps "Rock Foam". Insulating thermally, and having a controlled Buoyancy? Obviously you can guess what I want.

Just a bit more floaty than water, just a little less floaty than ice.

Then, perhaps to line the underside of an ice body with it, the floaty rock, as thermal insulation, and air pocket holder. That is if you made these large and in a genral form like an inverted cup, then the "Cup" could hold an air pocket. So your #2 water could have air pockets above it.

And I have to travel today, so later......

I do intend that such under sea hab methods will include solar methods, and also tunnels that can access "Chambers" in rock that sometimes will be in the areas not under ice.

Anyway, I sort of defined one certain thing, but I do intend many other related things that we could consider.

And really thanks for that wonderful material(s) Robert and Calliban.

Question: "Does Hellas have any of the ice bodies that Robert reported in the two bands of yellow in that one picture. Seems like it might.
Of course I believe in having the developing option to migrate between the North and South Yellow bands. Mars being smaller than Earh, and having a year almost twice as long, it makes a fair amount of sense for large parts of the population eventually to be able to migrate seasonally.

Done

Last edited by Void (2021-12-14 10:55:51)

GW Johnson · 2021-12-14 12:56:01

When I looked at the video linked in post 1, what I saw was a new startup doing the nuclear reactor. The guys who started this were ex-SpaceX engineers. Musk/SpaceX is not doing the reactor, some of his exes are doing it.

To the best of my knowledge, there have been no production reactors yet that are helium-cooled. There were some early experimental reactors. But the vast bulk of commercially-produced reactors have been pressurized-water reactors. That technology, given USN's prioritization of safety over money, has been the most successful and accident-free reactor technology ever fielded, as embodied by the USN reactor program.

What that really goes to prove is that nuclear reactor technology really can be made safe and accident-free. USN has had no problems with pressurized water reactors, not even with two submarines lost into the deep sea. The only reactor problem they ever had was with the sodium-cooled reactor that SSN-585 Seawolf was launched with, which caused radioactive sodium fires inside a pressure hull. They tore that out, and replaced it with a pressurized water reactor like SSN-571 Nautilus had, and Seawolf served many years without a problem.

The problem with nuclear reactors not on Earth is disposal of waste heat (not just the reactor coolant problem). You can extract a lot of heat quickly with water, because a small volume of it has an enormous heat capacity, unlike all gases, including helium. You must do something with that heat to generate either shaft power or electrical power. Those conversion processes have an efficiency that cannot exceed the thermodynamic Carnot efficiency, and usually run quite a bit less than Carnot. That is simply inherent.

I like the idea of using the waste heat to melt subsurface ice on Mars. But you CANNOT use all of it for that purpose, because the "load" on the process (actually melting the ice in-situ) will be more variable over time than you can tolerate out of your generator, and which you cannot match real-time in controlling your reactor core. You don't have cooling ponds available on Mars (or the moon, or out in space), and I did notice there are no air-cooled heat rejection schemes ever commercialized.

So, that leaves you with enormous radiators on Mars, the moon, or out in space, whose capacity inevitably MUST be large enough to accept all the waste heat produced. They can run at less-than-capacity while you re-direct some of the heat to melting subsurface ice. But you CANNOT count on ALWAYS using 100% of your waste heat rejected for that purpose! What happens when you hit the end of an ice deposit, before you can set up to extract from another? Provided you have even located that other one?

Those are things you have to think about!

I tend to think Robert is right, the ice is likely there. Although I trust subsurface radar indications a whole lot less than he does. Personally, I only trust ground truth, and so far we have none. We just have some really good places to visit to get real ground truth.

What I'd like to see done is drill down into the buried ice, line the bore hole, and inject steam down the well. Inject enough to raise the well pressure. Then switch over to let the meltwater come back up out of the well, as you bleed down the injection pressure. This takes a valve at the bottom of the lined well. We already know how to drill wells. Steam injection for meltwater is a lot like fracking. There's very little difference, and we could prove out the technology on Devon Island. It's easier to get the water back up the well on Mars because the gravity is weaker (less gravity head for a given depth).

And don't kid yourself about only needing to do shallow drilling. The ice is there precisely (and only) because it is buried under significant depth of regolith. And on an awful lot of Mars that regolith takes the form of moving dunes. You WILL need to line the bore holes as you drill them! And you need to drill down 1-100 meters to reach the ice, then several meters more down into it.

You aren't going to mine the ice out from a shallow pit with backhoes. It will sublimate away before you can do much with it. And underground mining inside a pressurized mine (to stop the sublimation) is going to be both extremely labor-intensive, and very dangerous for the miners (because this is aeolian-deposited regolith). How many miners do you want to kill digging underneath soft fine sand?

Drilling is the right way to do this.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-12-14 13:07:28)

Calliban · 2021-12-14 15:04:55

You can in fact dump all of the waste heat into the ice. What you cannot do is use all of the liberated water. To maintain an adequate heat sink, a lot of it must remain in the ground to transfer heat into surrounding ice by convection and conduction. Eventually, it will be necessary to move the reactor to a fresh spot on the ice field. That is why it is a good idea to put small modular reactors on a trailer. When you are done in one spot, move on to the next.

High silicon cast iron would be a corrosion resistant well lining. The drill needs to be constructed from something of equal hardness but greater toughness.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-12-14 15:21:02)

Void · 2021-12-14 15:50:48

Callibans purpose if just fine, I think it may be towards more initial habitations of Mars.

Oldfart1939 did not request my response, but dialog here has been useful for my thinking.

I will retire with my thoughts to http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=9946&p=4

That works for me.

Done.

Grypd · 2021-12-14 17:10:29

I think you are missing the point of using nuclear reactors on Mars

It is all to do with electricity, Unlike the Moon and Earth orbit Mars is so far from the sun that daylight at full noon is similar to twilight here on the Earth. Wind pressure on turbines is too low and so the only realistic power sourde for a manned colony at the beginning is nuclear.

I can hope we fing Thermal hotspots and underground Aquifers under pressure but for sustained power nuclear we have to go. Biodiesel is ok but any initial colony needs a regular supply of power.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-14 18:42:04

Any reactors sent to mars will utilize as many parts or pieces from the starship that its sent within to save on mass.

GW Johnson · 2021-12-14 20:02:42

Re: startup helium-cooled reactor. I was just pointing out that liquid water provides just about the highest practical heat capacity from just about the minimum volume flow of coolant. That is very important to the coolant vs fuel cross section in the core. If you don't believe me, ask Zubrin. He was a nuclear engineer. I was not, although I have looked at stuff like that. Be that as it may, I do hope the helium-cooled design works, and that it proves robust and safe, in both testing, and in operation. Something you can ship in a standard shipping container, then just pull out and hook up, is very attractive indeed. We'll see.

Re: drilling for water. Calliban is right to say that you have to move from one location to another. As the ice melts, it creates a cavern filled with liquid and vapor. That cavern cannot exceed the dimension of the vein of ice, without risking a cave-in or a pressure-induced blowout. When your cavern reaches that size, you had better have already drilled another well elsewhere on the buried glacier. What that really means is that each site requires a series of wells. The steam extraction well needs to be of significant size. But your sensor wells can be of small dimension. My point was that the steam draw down these wells is going to vary with circumstances, when the waste heat to be rejected from the reactor, and its criticality setting, cannot be so quickly changed. That means you had better have the waste heat radiator available, and at a variable load setting, to take up the differences.

Re: Grypd's point about power sources. He's right. Several of us have made the same argument. You use nuclear for your 24/7 base load, and you use solar for daytime surge need over base load. Very little storage is needed that way. You oversize your 24/7 base load nuclear just enough to get through the dust storms at reduced overall power demand, occasionally. It's a natural fit. Your 24/7 base load requirement is larger on Mars due to the cold and the life support requirements. It's not that comparable to the day/night cycle of power demand here. More similar to Antarctica, but even that has no power demand 24/7 for creation of oxygen or for growing food.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-12-14 20:05:29)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-12-15 13:43:17

"Re: Grypd's point about power sources. He's right. Several of us have made the same argument. You use nuclear for your 24/7 base load, and you use solar for daytime surge need over base load. Very little storage is needed that way. You oversize your 24/7 base load nuclear just enough to get through the dust storms at reduced overall power demand, occasionally. It's a natural fit. Your 24/7 base load requirement is larger on Mars due to the cold and the life support requirements. It's not that comparable to the day/night cycle of power demand here. More similar to Antarctica, but even that has no power demand 24/7 for creation of oxygen or for growing food.

GW"

I am in absolute agreement with the use of Nuclear for 24/7 power requirements, and Solar as an augmenting source during maximum use times (actually 25/7 !! ). Always refer to my previous thread about Air, Shelter, Water, and Food. As much as I admire Louis for his Green outlook, it just is too risky, given the Probable conditions.

Grypd · 2021-12-15 19:17:11

Thankyou Guys
Im still hopeful for the development of Thorium fuelled micro reactors

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-03-03 13:01:26

IAEA says nuclear is vital for space missions
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsia … ns-9503585
The future of national security will be determined by our dependence on fossil fuels
https://www.epcsr.students.jh.edu/post/ … ate-change

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-13 10:23:08

Poland receives U.S. offer to build nuclear power plants
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po … 022-09-12/

Chinese megawatt-level space nuclear reactor passes review
https://spacenews.com/chinese-megawatt- … es-review/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-11 06:29:38

Europe is divided on nuclear power: Which countries are for and against it?
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/ … against-it

Musk shares an incredible video of SpaceX's £2.4 billion, 395ft-tall Starship
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech … light.html

Elon Musk predicts a crewed mission to Mars in 2029
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087167893

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2021-12-13 10:00:37

Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#2 2021-12-13 11:00:41

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#3 2021-12-13 11:17:35

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#4 2021-12-13 11:18:18

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#5 2021-12-13 12:21:01

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#6 2021-12-13 20:18:09

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#7 2021-12-13 22:49:43

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#8 2021-12-14 06:04:17

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#9 2021-12-14 10:27:57

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#10 2021-12-14 12:56:01

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#11 2021-12-14 15:04:55

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#12 2021-12-14 15:50:48

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#13 2021-12-14 17:10:29

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#14 2021-12-14 18:42:04

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#15 2021-12-14 20:02:42

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#16 2021-12-15 13:43:17

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#17 2021-12-15 19:17:11

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#18 2022-03-03 13:01:26

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#19 2022-09-13 10:23:08

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

#20 2023-04-11 06:29:38

Re: Musk is now turning to Nuclear powerplants for Mars?

Board footer