The United States aims to have a reactor on the Moon by 2030. A Russian-Chinese alliance is working on a similar project, targeting the year 2036. However, some renowned scientists warn that the risks are very high.
At the end of August, NASA asked contractors to prepare for building a nuclear reactor capable of withstanding a space journey and operating without maintenance near the Moon’s south pole. Although it may seem like a scenario taken out of science fiction, the American space agency wants it ready for launch by December 2030.
There is a reason for this rush. Russia aims to have an operational lunar reactor by 2036, as part of a secret partnership with China. NASA has already accelerated its schedule to outpace its rivals, writes The New York Times.
However, some renowned scientists warn that governments are acting too hastily in an era of space exploration marked by several notable disasters. In the past six years, numerous Chinese, American, and Russian rockets have malfunctioned and exploded, and a Russian lunar landing module crashed on the Moon. Space debris falls on Earth periodically.
Why the US, Russia, and China Entered This Competition
The stakes of this race are the very future of space exploration. The United States and China want to be the first to establish a lunar base, search for resources like frozen water, and launch missions farther into the Solar System. Control over access to lunar resources is essential for this mission. Both superpowers see a nuclear reactor as the central element of this ambition.
The race for a lunar reactor is equally a show of strength and an exploration issue. President Trump has stated that space supremacy is part of his "America First" agenda. Xi and Putin have made similar statements.
The mentioned countries plan to activate their reactors only after their first space crews land on the Moon.
How China Collaborates with Russia
Nuclear energy seems to be the major component that China has delegated to its partner, Russia, in the lunar project.
No other country has more experience than Russia in this field. It launched over 30 reactors into orbit – especially in the '70s and '80s, aboard satellites during the Cold War period – and is a leader in the civilian nuclear energy sector.
Russia holds the largest reserves of what is considered the safest nuclear fuel for space missions. This fuel – weakly enriched uranium – is found in insufficient quantities in the United States.
Any permanent lunar base requires a reliable energy source. Nuclear reactors do not need sunlight to function and can be built in compact sizes. With proper design, they require minimal human intervention, according to NASA and the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.
Russia and US Projects
- Russia has tasked its state agencies with delivering a lunar reactor named Selena by 2036, designed to power Chinese-led lunar stations. Selena is expected to generate up to 10 kilowatts of electricity and operate autonomously for a decade. It would incorporate features of a previous reactor designed to operate in the Arctic region.
- NASA has accelerated its schedule, fearing that a Russian-Chinese reactor could create a de facto exclusion zone on the Moon. Its lunar reactor Lunar Reactor 1 is estimated to generate 20 kilowatts of electricity (approximately the consumption of 16 American households) and operate for five years without any intervention.
As a first step, NASA intends to use nuclear energy to propel a spacecraft to Mars in December 2028. Such an operation has never been done before.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon plans to develop its own space reactors for placement in orbit and on the Moon, according to the White House.
However, there are several significant challenges:
- The set deadlines have been repeatedly postponed, and few experts believe these countries will meet the deadlines.
- No one has a proven lunar landing module capable of descending heavy – and potentially radioactive – materials on rough lunar terrain.
- No one has ever installed a reactor in low gravity conditions.
- Moreover, lunar bases have not yet been built, and their electricity needs remain a matter of speculation. For this reason, experts state that reactor projects may undergo partial or even total modifications.
The Risks Are High
The United States and Russia claim that their reactors would remain inactive — a state scientists call "unirradiated" — until reaching the Moon. This would reduce risks. Nuclear engineers state that the uranium used as fuel, in a "cold" state, poses minimal radiological risk, even in the event of its crash on Earth.
However, problems may arise:
- Firstly, a reactor could crash into the ocean during launch. Water slows down neutrons, increasing the likelihood of them splitting atoms. Such a situation could have severe consequences, causing the reactor to reach criticality; in other words, it would enter into a chain reaction of nuclear fission, releasing radiation. The risk is real, as most launch pads are located near bodies of water. NASA specifications are working on a design capable of preventing such an outcome.
- Another risk is a malfunction that could bring the reactor back to Earth after the mission ends. In 1978, the uncontrolled re-entry of a Russian satellite with nuclear propulsion, Cosmos 954, led to the spread of radioactive materials over an area of nearly 125,000 square kilometers in northern Canada. After about a year of cleanup operations, only 0.1% of the satellite's energy source was recovered.
However, accidents are more likely on the Moon, stated R. Scott Kemp, associate professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
On Earth, reactors are encapsulated in isolation structures, the construction of which on the Moon would be extremely costly and technically challenging. NASA stated that its reactor would be shielded, although it is not clear how. According to experts, lunar reactors would likely be surrounded by restricted access zones to reduce the radiation risk to astronauts and equipment.
Retiring a reactor on Earth is a complex and meticulous process that takes years. In contrast, both NASA and Russian agencies state that on the Moon, they would simply leave the radioactive material behind.
What Fuel Can a Lunar Reactor Use
In all its technical and procurement documents, NASA specifies that it intends to use nuclear fuel that is weakly enriched and considered the safest option for advanced reactors.
NASA aims to use a fuel known as High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU), which is limited in availability in the United States. Russia is the largest producer, but the US has banned Russian uranium imports starting in 2024 due to the conflict in Ukraine.
NASA documents consulted by the NYT indicate that the agency expects the Department of Energy to allocate weakly enriched fuel for space reactors. However, the US government has struggled to produce a sufficient quantity of this fuel.
The Russian-Chinese alliance has not revealed what type of fuel it plans to use.
Pentagon Wants a Microreactor
Last month, the Pentagon selected a company, Antares, to develop and demonstrate a microreactor for space use. Antares was among the five companies that successfully tested reactors this summer as part of a program run by the Department of Energy.
Microreactors could eventually reach the Moon, but none of them is fully tested and ready for use yet. Fundamental safety issues — such as heat dissipation, reactor shielding, and structural integrity maintenance — have not been fully resolved for space reactors, which need to be compact and lightweight.
T.D.