Nuclear Reactors on the Moon by 2030
NASA, under acting administrator Sean Duffy, has issued a bold directive to deploy a nuclear fission reactor on the moon by 2030. The ambitious project aims to supply at least 100 kilowatts of power, enough to light up about 80 American homes to support future lunar outposts. This move signifies a major shift from the limited power of solar panels or the small, battery-like plutonium power sources used on probes like Voyager.
A nuclear reactor on the moon would be a game changer for space exploration. While solar panels work for the International Space Station, they’re not a viable solution for human settlements on the moon, which experiences two weeks of cold, dark night. Similarly, solar power is less effective on Mars, where the sun is more distant.
Nuclear fission, which involves a controlled chain reaction breakdown of atoms like uranium, offers vastly more energy. A single kilogram of uranium and a reactor could produce as much energy as a traincar full of coal, as noted by former NASA official Bhavya Lal. This abundant power would not only support scientific equipment and habitats but also enable more efficient and faster propulsion systems for space travel.
A lunar reactor would operate similarly to one on Earth but with some key differences. It would need to be compact and lightweight enough to fit into a rocket and would not be activated until it safely reached the moon.
The moon’s extreme environment with temperatures ranging from 250°F during the day to -400°F at night poses a significant challenge for temperature control. Since there is no air or water to help cool the reactor, a lunar reactor would rely on large radiators to dissipate heat. A critical challenge, according to Kevin Au of Lockheed Martin, is developing materials that can withstand these extreme temperatures to efficiently convert heat into electricity.
Despite these hurdles, experts like Sebastian Corbisiero from Idaho National Laboratory believe the plan is “very doable,” calling it “not science fiction.”
While the concept is considered technically feasible, the timeline is drawing skepticism. Kathryn Huff, a former Department of Energy official, calls the five year deadline “unrealistic,” especially since NASA doesn’t currently have a planned lunar outpost that would require a reactor so soon. She also points out that regulatory approvals alone could take years.
The urgency, however, is a deliberate strategy. A high ranking NASA official, speaking anonymously, said the deadline is meant to provide motivation and guidance, emphasizing, “Urgency is the name of the game.” The push also comes amid similar proposals by China and Russia to build nuclear reactors at a lunar base, which could potentially limit U.S. activities on the moon.
NASA has previously contracted Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, and a joint venture between X energy and Intuitive Machines to conduct early design studies for a 40 kilowatt lunar reactor. However, none of the designs met the weight target of six metric tons. Vincent Bilardo of Intuitive Machines noted that a 40 kilowatt system is more likely to weigh nine to ten metric tons, and a 100 kilowatt system would be even heavier.
Duffy’s order specifies a payload capacity of 15 metric tons, a capability currently not available but expected from cargo variants of SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon landers. Both Lockheed Martin and Intuitive Machines have indicated they plan to bid on the new contracts, eager to take on the challenge.