Just last week, the US Secretary of Transportation and NASA’s acting administrator, Sean Duffy, issued a directive to accelerate US plans to deploy a nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The aim is to provide a continuous and reliable energy source for future operations.
Having nuclear power on the moon would expand humanity’s outlook on the solar system and completely rewrite our limited movements in space. Currently, robotic spacecraft operate at low energy levels, limiting the scientific instruments they can carry and, as a result, hindering scientists’ ability to carry out quality and efficient research.
Nuclear energy is a fresh, optimistic alternative to the technology we have used in the past. The International Space Station gets its energy from solar panels, but applying this on the moon is not practical due to the perpetual darkness.
Other energy sources we have used in the past are the ones featured in the Voyager missions. Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 operate on plutonium, but the amount of energy generated has dwindled from 470 watts to 225 watts since 1977, which is minuscule compared to the consistent 100 kilowatts that a reactor would be able to produce. This is the goal of Mr. Duffy’s order.
As a senior NASA official puts it, “The Secretary has made it very clear in his new role as acting administrator that we need to go bigger and bolder than what we did with Apollo,” and “bigger and bolder” is exactly what nuclear does.
A reactor and a kilogram of uranium would be able to produce “as much energy as a freight train full of coal,” says Bhavya Lal, a former associate administrator for technology, policy, and strategy at NASA.
However, despite the many benefits of nuclear power, there are obstacles that must be tackled. First, the reactor must be small and light enough to fit on a rocket. Next, since the moon also has no atmosphere, the temperature ranges from 250 degrees Fahrenheit to -400 degrees, making it difficult to manage the reactor temperature to keep it running smoothly. The main solution for this so far is to include large radiators with the reactor to dissipate heat.
Even with these challenges, the idea of a lunar reactor seems to be within reach for many experts. “It’s not science fiction,” said Sebastian Corbisiero, a senior program manager at Idaho National Laboratory. “This is very doable.”
Meanwhile, other experts have voiced their skepticism. “It’s just a very aggressive, frankly unrealistic timeline for something that is good and should happen,” says Kathryn Huff, professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “My understanding is that its intent was to power an outpost. So it [putting a reactor on the moon] feels a little silly to do so without an outpost.”
Nevertheless, people seem to agree on one thing: that a lunar reactor is a positive advancement for both science and humanity as a whole.
