NASA announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon on Tuesday, in an attempt to stay ahead of China and Russia in a new space race.

The goal is to have the reactor built before 2030, a timeline set during the Biden administration.

Recommended Stories

• Routine SpaceX Starship test ends in explosion in massive setback for Musk's company
• Musk says he won't decommission Dragon spacecraft after X user tells him to 'cool off'
• Northern lights spawned by solar storm could be visible over several states tonight

While nuclear reactors have been around on Earth for over 70 years, placing them on the moon would be unprecedented. NASA’s acting administrator, Sean Duffy, is aiming to do the undone: a reactor producing a minimum of 100 kilowatts of electricity — enough to power at least 50 homes.

NASA plans to award at least two nuclear companies a contract within the agency’s request for proposals. Companies that have already expressed interest include Axiom Space, Vast, and Blue Origin.

What is a nuclear reactor?

A nuclear reactor is a system that contains and controls sustained nuclear chain reactions. Its primary uses are generating electricity, moving aircraft carriers and submarines, producing medical isotopes for imaging and cancer treatment, and conducting research.

Essentially, nuclear reactors are the heart of a nuclear power plant. In the United States, there are 94 commercially operating nuclear reactors across 28 states.

While the exact cost for the moon’s nuclear reactor is not disclosed, it is estimated to be billions of dollars, according to Bloomberg. Factors contributing to the total expense include space launch trials, transporting to the moon, testing and developing a reactor that can withstand time and energy use, and adapting to the moon’s atmosphere.

The moon’s temperature swings from 250 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to negative-400 during the night, making it necessary for NASA to test how to build the reactor to last in all radical temperatures. However, NASA’s proposed design includes large radiators to dissipate heat.

A nuclear reactor on the moon would open up more doors for humans to explore and live in space.

In a NASA directive obtained by the Washington Examiner, Duffy said this objective will “advance this critical technology to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space,” stating it’s “imperative the agency move quickly.”  

In recent years, NASA has spent billions of dollars developing a new kind of nuclear reactor called small modular reactors, which produce less power than traditional ones and are significantly smaller in size. There are no SMR units in operation, according to the Energy Department.

Why is it so important?

Originally, NASA used energy and power from solar panels for space exploration and projects. However, due to the limited light, solar energy is not a viable power source for humans on the moon.

One full “day” on the moon is two weeks of light, directly followed by approximately two weeks of darkness in Earth time. Nuclear power could be provided through the lunar night and be deployed to other planets such as Mars, Duffy said.

Additionally, a nuclear reactor in space will allow for faster and more efficient propulsion systems — the mechanisms that generate thrust for rocket takeoff and landing.

If NASA can establish and develop a nuclear reactor in space, it will push efforts for its “Moon to Mars” vision. This will allow for more rapid transit to destinations from the moon to Mars, and across the outer solar system.

A nuclear reactor can also provide more power on board a spacecraft for instruments, and communication systems, which would be helpful for travels farther away from sun and U.S. solar panels. 

“To have a base on the moon, we need energy,” Duffy said at a Tuesday press conference. “And some of the key locations on the moon, we’re going to get solar power. But this vision technology is critically important, and so we’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying.”

Where did the idea come from?

The idea of putting a nuclear reactor in space dates back to the 1960s. In 1965, the U.S. tested the SNAP-10A fission nuclear reactor for 43 days. The next trial was in 2012, with the Demonstration Using Flattop Fission test of the kilopower reactor.

SNAP-10A’s objective was to produce a minimum of 500 watts of electricity for a one-year duration. The reactor weighed 950 pounds, including its instruments and shielding, according to the Energy Department.

The reactor was placed into a 500-nautical-mile orbit around Earth and successfully produced 600 watts of electrical power. However, SNAP-10A was shut down 43 days after its launch due to a high voltage failure in the electrical systems. It remains in a polar orbit today.

China and Russia have announced on three occasions since 2024 that they’ll join forces to place a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. NASA’s effort to move quickly to get a U.S. reactor on the moon before them factored into the Tuesday announcement.

“The first country to do so could potentially declare a keep-out zone, which would significantly inhibit the United States from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,” Duffy wrote in an email.

Artemis is NASA’s series of lunar missions aimed at establishing a sustainable human presence on the moon and further preparing for future missions to Mars. Russia and China’s “International Lunar Research Station” nuclear reactor project could rival NASA’s program.

The ILRS reactor is meant to be automated and likely constructed by robots to establish a continuous power source for lunar research and exploration. The two countries’ goal is to have the reactor operational by 2035, according to the American Nuclear Society.

What are the implications?

Experts are calling NASA’s proposal “perplexing” because the organization is not planning anything on the moon’s surface that would require a reactor there soon.

“It’s just a very aggressive, frankly unrealistic timeline for something that is good and should happen,” Kathryn Huff, a former nuclear energy official at the Energy Department, told the New York Times. “My understanding is that its intent was to power an outpost. So it feels a little silly to do so without an outpost.”

However, if other countries beat the U.S. to staking a claim on parts of the moon, it could limit NASA’s ability for future projects and plans on the moon.

Due to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, space exploration zones are first-come, first-served. That means that if another country establishes a zone on the moon, other countries cannot set foot on that land without permission.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CONFIRMS PLANS TO BUILD NUCLEAR REACTOR ON MOON

A nuclear plant on the moon is the easiest way to keep other countries out and stake out territory, according to the Space Foundation.

“There’s a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,” Duffy said Tuesday. “We have ice there, we have sunlight there. We want to get there first and claim that for America.”