u/stepover9

• Russia aims to have a lunar reactor running by 2036 as part of a secretive partnership with China. NASA has already sped up its schedule to beat its rivals.
• Failures could cause a chain reaction with dire consequences. Falling reactor debris could scatter radioactive material, as happened in Canada in the late 1970s. An explosion or a meltdown on the moon’s surface would risk turning entire regions into no-go zones.
• Nuclear power appears to be the only core task that China has delegated to its partner in the lunar project. No country has more experience than Russia in this area. It launched more than 30 reactors into orbit, mostly in the 1970s and 1980s, aboard Cold War-era satellites, and it is a leader in civilian nuclear power. Russia controls the largest supply of what is considered the safest nuclear fuel for space missions. That fuel, uranium that is not highly enriched, is in short supply in the United States.
• NASA has accelerated its timeline, fearing that a Russian-Chinese reactor could establish a de facto exclusion zone on the moon. NASA’s Lunar Reactor 1 is expected to produce 20 kilowatts of electricity (roughly the power use of 16 American homes) and work for five years with no intervention.
• “This is the moment when there is a lot of risk,” said Leopold Summerer, who leads a United Nations working group on nuclear power in outer space. “We had many launch failures, so we have a lot of data on what can go wrong.” Take, for example, a reactor splashing into an ocean. Water slows down neutrons, making them more likely to split atoms. This could cause havoc by making a reactor go critical, meaning it would enter a chain reaction of splitting atoms that releases radiation. Nuclear experts say this probably happened in Russia in 2019, when a reactor-powered cruise missile failed and plunged into the White Sea. When researchers tried to recover it, a nuclear reaction occurred, according to the U.S. Department of State. At least five workers died. (Russia denied these claims and said the missile was not powered by a reactor.)

I had a lot of questions so i decided to dig into the past and found this very important document published by the club in 2012 about Stamford Bridge redevelopment.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120303093448/https://www.chelseafc.com/page/DocumentsFull/0,,10268~2629432,00.html

I recommend everyone to read it but some important points -

• Stamford Bridge sits on 11.9 acres in central London. While this is large enough for the current capacity of 41,837, it is generally accepted by stadium architects and construction companies that a new 60,000 stadium would require approximately 18-20 acres of land in a largely square or rectangular shape.
• any significant change to the stadium's design or capacity will require that the club will need to find one third more egress width (an additional 16 metres) around the ground.
• for certain Champions League matches up to 10% of the capacity is taken out to accommodate TV outside broadcasting equipment (contained in large trucks).
• Over the years, several managers and players have suggested that our pitch is too small, particularly in width.
• The council has indicated to us that a 60,000 new-build stadium has little chance of acceptability due to planning impact.
• two stands suitable for expansion are the Matthew Harding and Shed End.
• Extending both stands would be very expensive. The club estimates that the cost of decking and new access routes, the acquisition of land and properties and of course the disruption for closure of the two stands for two seasons, demolition, design and building costs would come to around £177 million for the Matthew Harding Stand and £98 million for the Shed End. The cost per seat would average more than £20,000. Based on estimated incremental revenues, the club has calculated that the payback would be around 25 years. Assuming the stands had a 50-year life and 100% occupancy, this means an internal rate of return of only 2.8%.
• Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges. The cost per seat of expanding the stands is very high. The incremental revenues provide an unsatisfactory level of return

In response to the above document a rebuttal of sort was published by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) after discussion with Board of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/further-statement-on-cpo-board-s-recent-meeting-with-lbhf

Essentially LBHF argued that a expansion was feasible.

After sometime in 2017 Chelsea got the planning permission from LBHF to build a new 60,000 stadium from the ground up - https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/-chelsea-pitch-owners-board-welcomes-stadium-approval

The documents including some drawings can seen on official lbhf website - https://property.lbhf.gov.uk/NECSWS/ES/Presentation/Planning/OnlinePlanning/OnlinePlanningOverview?applicationNumber=2015%2F05050%2FFUL&guid=7788f7d5-a7d6-48da-9a7e-b794c9d9f913#

https://preview.redd.it/ozdun9jnf9th1.png?width=2370&format=png&auto=webp&s=f44350d37cbd625496c932ff6c15d49617b48b30

However the geo-political environment turned against Abramovich - Roman Abramovich shelves £1bn Chelsea stadium after visa delays

Since that time there has no further progress on the stadium except that - BlueCo completes acquisition of Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions site which could help expand the stadium further.

The documentary showcases the multinational effort to douse the fire lit up in Kuwait oil wells. They had to save the oil resources, as well as reduce air pollution. The different teams developed different techniques of extinguishing the fires. From TNT-shockwaves blowing out the flames to Tank-mounted twin MIG-jet-engines (from Hungary) blasting away the flames (and nearly lifting the tank into the air).