俄罗斯公开宣布，在2035年前，要和中国在月球上建造一座昂贵而低效的核电站的理由是什么？
正文翻译
评论翻译
FluidCode
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?
俄罗斯航天局局长尤里·鲍里索夫表示，俄罗斯和中国考虑在2033年至2035年之间在月球上建造一座核电站。
问题是月球上没有大气层，水也太少了。热电厂的工作需要热流，而在月球上，它只能依靠辐射热流，这种方式很低效。这样的发电厂既昂贵又无用。
到目前为止，中国可能有一些钱可以挥霍，但对俄罗斯来说，他们还背负着战争的成本，这将是一个巨大的浪费。所以这个计划背后的理由是什么？
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?
俄罗斯航天局局长尤里·鲍里索夫表示，俄罗斯和中国考虑在2033年至2035年之间在月球上建造一座核电站。
问题是月球上没有大气层，水也太少了。热电厂的工作需要热流，而在月球上，它只能依靠辐射热流，这种方式很低效。这样的发电厂既昂贵又无用。
到目前为止，中国可能有一些钱可以挥霍，但对俄罗斯来说，他们还背负着战争的成本，这将是一个巨大的浪费。所以这个计划背后的理由是什么？
upxe:
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.
更新回复:
请注意，俄罗斯没有在月球上建立永久基地的计划，即使他们现在增加了这些计划，2033-35年的目标日期也不可行。
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.
更新回复:
请注意，俄罗斯没有在月球上建立永久基地的计划，即使他们现在增加了这些计划，2033-35年的目标日期也不可行。
upxe 2:
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.
更新回复2：
我要解释下，我并没有说这个计划行不通。我的意思是，它既昂贵又低效。人们可能因为这个前提不同意这个计划。另外，这也是一个关于政治动机的问题，以及他们在预算紧张的情况下推动这种冒险选择的原因。为什么俄罗斯要在一个昂贵的项目上投入大量资金？更令人怀疑的是，考虑到2035年肯定不会有月球基地。也许到2045年都不会有月球基地。更令人怀疑的是，考虑到这样一个项目可能会消耗大量的U-235，这也是非常罕见的核燃料，而俄罗斯的民用发电燃料却一直很紧缺。
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.
更新回复2：
我要解释下，我并没有说这个计划行不通。我的意思是，它既昂贵又低效。人们可能因为这个前提不同意这个计划。另外，这也是一个关于政治动机的问题，以及他们在预算紧张的情况下推动这种冒险选择的原因。为什么俄罗斯要在一个昂贵的项目上投入大量资金？更令人怀疑的是，考虑到2035年肯定不会有月球基地。也许到2045年都不会有月球基地。更令人怀疑的是，考虑到这样一个项目可能会消耗大量的U-235，这也是非常罕见的核燃料，而俄罗斯的民用发电燃料却一直很紧缺。
NoDataDumpNoContribution
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.
这只是个投机的计划罢了。除非等到第一枚载有建造这种工厂的建筑材料的火箭真正升空，我才会开始考虑。在此之前，我认为这纯粹是宣传或幻想。我唯一百分百确定的是，它肯定不会发生在2033-35年。
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.
这只是个投机的计划罢了。除非等到第一枚载有建造这种工厂的建筑材料的火箭真正升空，我才会开始考虑。在此之前，我认为这纯粹是宣传或幻想。我唯一百分百确定的是，它肯定不会发生在2033-35年。
Steve
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.
俄罗斯研究放射性同位素热电发电机很长时间了。我猜他们计划把这种类型的核反应堆放在月球上，而不是那些由数百万吨混凝土制成、需要水泵送海洋水冷却的核反应堆。
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.
俄罗斯研究放射性同位素热电发电机很长时间了。我猜他们计划把这种类型的核反应堆放在月球上，而不是那些由数百万吨混凝土制成、需要水泵送海洋水冷却的核反应堆。
Eike Pierstorff
@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.
已经有好几个“放射性同位素热电发电机”在月球上了(例如，阿波罗月球表面实验包就是由rtg驱动的)，所以不值得发布新闻。此外，rtg的能量输出也没什么好介绍的。我不认为你可以把它扩大到可以满足当前专制政权的狂妄自大的产品——“2033年我们将能够为月球上的一个非常明亮的灯泡供电”，这并不会让你的敌人心中产生恐惧。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
@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.
已经有好几个“放射性同位素热电发电机”在月球上了(例如，阿波罗月球表面实验包就是由rtg驱动的)，所以不值得发布新闻。此外，rtg的能量输出也没什么好介绍的。我不认为你可以把它扩大到可以满足当前专制政权的狂妄自大的产品——“2033年我们将能够为月球上的一个非常明亮的灯泡供电”，这并不会让你的敌人心中产生恐惧。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Steve
@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.
从技术上讲，中俄的月球核电站计划可能与一般rtg略有不同，以我的观点看，我们谈论的应该是一个更接近手提箱大小的东西，不需要冷却水，不是传统的民用核电站。
@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.
从技术上讲，中俄的月球核电站计划可能与一般rtg略有不同，以我的观点看，我们谈论的应该是一个更接近手提箱大小的东西，不需要冷却水，不是传统的民用核电站。
ikrase
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.
虽然对辐射冷却的需求限制了太空中所有的热辐发电，但太空核反应堆并不是一个新的或不切实际的概念，如果人们想要不依赖于阳光就能获取大量的电力，它们就很有意义。甚至实际上，俄罗斯在真空环境下使用核反应堆的经验比美国还多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
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.
虽然对辐射冷却的需求限制了太空中所有的热辐发电，但太空核反应堆并不是一个新的或不切实际的概念，如果人们想要不依赖于阳光就能获取大量的电力，它们就很有意义。甚至实际上，俄罗斯在真空环境下使用核反应堆的经验比美国还多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
NoDataDumpNoContribution
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?
这不仅只是一个推测性的话题，未来可能会发生， 也可能不会发生。它也更多是技术性话题，而不是政治性话题。我们能从中学到什么政治知识？有时政府提出的建议可能没有多大的经济意义？
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?
这不仅只是一个推测性的话题，未来可能会发生， 也可能不会发生。它也更多是技术性话题，而不是政治性话题。我们能从中学到什么政治知识？有时政府提出的建议可能没有多大的经济意义？
FluidCode
@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.
这个问题是关于推动这个月球核电站计划的政治动机。请记住，考虑到核电站的重量和尺寸，只可能将一个基于高浓缩铀(接近90%)的反应堆送入太空。铀-235比铂更稀有，俄罗斯需要大量铀来维持民用发电。对他们来说，月球反应堆的成本会非常高。
@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.
这个问题是关于推动这个月球核电站计划的政治动机。请记住，考虑到核电站的重量和尺寸，只可能将一个基于高浓缩铀(接近90%)的反应堆送入太空。铀-235比铂更稀有，俄罗斯需要大量铀来维持民用发电。对他们来说，月球反应堆的成本会非常高。
Stančikas
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，你需要证明这个计划确实没有任何意义，另外在极地附近可能存在永远被阴影区，可能会有水冰存在。
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，你需要证明这个计划确实没有任何意义，另外在极地附近可能存在永远被阴影区，可能会有水冰存在。
codeMonkey
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.
夜晚是重点。
月球核电站计划与其说是政治选择，不如说是技术选择。月球上的一天大约是30个地球日，所以月球殖民地将经历2周的白昼，然后是2周的黑夜。生命和机器在夜间需要能量来维持运作，所以它们必须找到一个能持续两周黑暗的能量来源。
电力的选择可以是一个巨大的电池，或者建造悬浮于极地殖民地上方的太阳能电池板，这样它们就能一直被阳光照射，或者使用核能。
考虑到这些限制，核能是这些例子中最引人注目的一个选择。
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.
夜晚是重点。
月球核电站计划与其说是政治选择，不如说是技术选择。月球上的一天大约是30个地球日，所以月球殖民地将经历2周的白昼，然后是2周的黑夜。生命和机器在夜间需要能量来维持运作，所以它们必须找到一个能持续两周黑暗的能量来源。
电力的选择可以是一个巨大的电池，或者建造悬浮于极地殖民地上方的太阳能电池板，这样它们就能一直被阳光照射，或者使用核能。
考虑到这些限制，核能是这些例子中最引人注目的一个选择。
Kilopower
The US is looking into fission in space as well through a project called Kilopower.
美国也在通过一个名为Kilopower的项目研究太空中的核裂变技术。
The US is looking into fission in space as well through a project called Kilopower.
美国也在通过一个名为Kilopower的项目研究太空中的核裂变技术。
Heat Sink
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.
既然有人提出了关于核电站散热的问题，月球本身就可以用来散热，放几根水管，然后埋进土里。水从管道再到地面的热传导，将比试图将热辐射到太空有效得多。
当你真的决定建立一个月球基地，核能在技术方面是一个不错的选择。
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.
既然有人提出了关于核电站散热的问题，月球本身就可以用来散热，放几根水管，然后埋进土里。水从管道再到地面的热传导，将比试图将热辐射到太空有效得多。
当你真的决定建立一个月球基地，核能在技术方面是一个不错的选择。
FluidCode
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年建立月球基地的时间太早了。反应堆还需要其他技术支持。2、前面已经提到，月球上没有足够的水，从地球上带大量水和管道上去会增加成本。
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年建立月球基地的时间太早了。反应堆还需要其他技术支持。2、前面已经提到，月球上没有足够的水，从地球上带大量水和管道上去会增加成本。
FluidCode
"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.
“美国也在研究太空裂变……”美国确实实施了许多巨大而浪费的项目。对美国来说这是很典型的事情，但对俄罗斯来说却相当奇怪，因为在过去，俄罗斯会对一个项目的成本进行多重审查。
"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.
“美国也在研究太空裂变……”美国确实实施了许多巨大而浪费的项目。对美国来说这是很典型的事情，但对俄罗斯来说却相当奇怪，因为在过去，俄罗斯会对一个项目的成本进行多重审查。
ikrase
@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.
我不相信会有证据表明美国比俄罗斯做了更多的“浪费”项目，或者你除了俄罗斯通常有更多的预算限制之外，应该还有其他原因。无论如何，太空核电站不需要水(俄罗斯过去的太空核反应堆经常使用液态金属作为冷却剂)。所以我认为，如果月球上需要大量电力的话，核反应堆是十分有意义的项目。
@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.
我不相信会有证据表明美国比俄罗斯做了更多的“浪费”项目，或者你除了俄罗斯通常有更多的预算限制之外，应该还有其他原因。无论如何，太空核电站不需要水(俄罗斯过去的太空核反应堆经常使用液态金属作为冷却剂)。所以我认为，如果月球上需要大量电力的话，核反应堆是十分有意义的项目。
Stuart F
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".
有人建议在月球上获取水，但要得到一个反应堆所需的水十分不容易。而对于“为什么要建造一个昂贵而低效的反应堆？”的答案肯定是“因为我们不能建造一个廉价而高效的反应堆”。
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".
有人建议在月球上获取水，但要得到一个反应堆所需的水十分不容易。而对于“为什么要建造一个昂贵而低效的反应堆？”的答案肯定是“因为我们不能建造一个廉价而高效的反应堆”。
codeMonkey
@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.
俄罗斯在未来20年内不可能真正实现载人登月。这个声明完全是俄罗斯想要假装自己仍然是超级大国。不过要是他们在月球上使用核武器倒是相当合理。如果你不相信我，可以在太空探索版块上再问一下。
@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.
俄罗斯在未来20年内不可能真正实现载人登月。这个声明完全是俄罗斯想要假装自己仍然是超级大国。不过要是他们在月球上使用核武器倒是相当合理。如果你不相信我，可以在太空探索版块上再问一下。
Spehro Pefhany
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.
月球基地需要某种电源来为生活在基地的科学家提供生命支持，并为实验提供动力，所以技术上的选择有限。
美国曾经考虑在月球上建立一个载人军事基地(地平线计划)，动力源是埋在坑里的两个核反应堆。所以这种设计在当时被认为是最有效的选择，也许现在仍然是一个非常可行的选择，甚至仍然还是最好的选择。所以技术上的考虑不存在，因为你的逻辑显然是错误的，也许你是故意的。例如，热辐射显然不是在月球表面吸收热量的唯一方式，但我不会在政治版块上进行工程学的讨论。
事实上，如果我们快进到21世纪30年代及以后，即使是极地基地，美国宇航局的阿尔忒弥斯基地也可能包括一个10千瓦的裂变反应堆电源。我怀疑，如果不考虑某种形式的裂变能源，任何一个关于持续可居住的月球基地的严谨计划都可能不存在。
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.
月球基地需要某种电源来为生活在基地的科学家提供生命支持，并为实验提供动力，所以技术上的选择有限。
美国曾经考虑在月球上建立一个载人军事基地(地平线计划)，动力源是埋在坑里的两个核反应堆。所以这种设计在当时被认为是最有效的选择，也许现在仍然是一个非常可行的选择，甚至仍然还是最好的选择。所以技术上的考虑不存在，因为你的逻辑显然是错误的，也许你是故意的。例如，热辐射显然不是在月球表面吸收热量的唯一方式，但我不会在政治版块上进行工程学的讨论。
事实上，如果我们快进到21世纪30年代及以后，即使是极地基地，美国宇航局的阿尔忒弥斯基地也可能包括一个10千瓦的裂变反应堆电源。我怀疑，如果不考虑某种形式的裂变能源，任何一个关于持续可居住的月球基地的严谨计划都可能不存在。
user42328
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.
既然这个问题出现在了政治版块上，对这个声明的政治回答毫无疑问是为了引起西方的恐惧。这是俄罗斯一直在使用的核言论的一部分，目的是吓唬西方不要帮助乌克兰。尤其是关于在欧洲使用核武器的言论甚嚣尘上，所以月球核电站计划也只是一种升级。
另外，在地球上建造一座核电站也需要10年的时间。以目前的太空旅行技术，在月球上尝试一次，可能需要50-100年的时间。因此，如果西方公众知道俄罗斯做出了如此大胆的声明，他们会认为俄罗斯拥有技术优势。这也意味着俄罗斯在核武器方面具有优势。这将给西方社会带来恐惧。
这是冷战言辞的翻版。
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.
既然这个问题出现在了政治版块上，对这个声明的政治回答毫无疑问是为了引起西方的恐惧。这是俄罗斯一直在使用的核言论的一部分，目的是吓唬西方不要帮助乌克兰。尤其是关于在欧洲使用核武器的言论甚嚣尘上，所以月球核电站计划也只是一种升级。
另外，在地球上建造一座核电站也需要10年的时间。以目前的太空旅行技术，在月球上尝试一次，可能需要50-100年的时间。因此，如果西方公众知道俄罗斯做出了如此大胆的声明，他们会认为俄罗斯拥有技术优势。这也意味着俄罗斯在核武器方面具有优势。这将给西方社会带来恐惧。
这是冷战言辞的翻版。
got trolled too much this week
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.
公正的观点，可以肯定的是，可能有很大一部分是“害怕俄罗斯的技术优势”的原因，但他们发射的反应堆也可能会更类似于海军使用的军用反应堆，而不是一个大型民用反应堆。前一种通常几乎完全在工厂组装，然后整体放入潜艇。俄罗斯也有一些将此类反应堆用于民用目的的经验。
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.
公正的观点，可以肯定的是，可能有很大一部分是“害怕俄罗斯的技术优势”的原因，但他们发射的反应堆也可能会更类似于海军使用的军用反应堆，而不是一个大型民用反应堆。前一种通常几乎完全在工厂组装，然后整体放入潜艇。俄罗斯也有一些将此类反应堆用于民用目的的经验。
很赞 19
收藏