New NASA head needs to construct a nuclear reactor on the moon – however why?

NASA goes to construct a nuclear reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. That’s the plan outlined in a brand new directive from the US house company’s appearing administrator, Sean Duffy. It isn’t a brand new concept – NASA awarded contracts in 2022 to a few corporations engaged on designs for comparatively small reactors – however this directive seeks to go larger and far sooner.

Duffy specified that the lunar nuclear reactor should generate a minimum of 100 kilowatts {of electrical} energy – small in contrast with those on Earth, as this quantity of electrical energy would solely be sufficient to energy round 80 US houses – however what isn’t but clear is precisely what that energy can be used for. The principle use case for such a reactor can be a long-term human settlement on the moon. Nonetheless, such a factor is a long time off even when all the present plans for US lunar exploration programme Artemis hit their timelines completely – one thing that’s removed from doubtless, given how lots of the elements of the deliberate 2027 moon touchdown mission have but to be examined.

It turns into even much less doubtless when you think about the cutbacks made at NASA over the previous few months. About 20 per cent of NASA’s workforce has opted to depart the company as a part of President Donald Trump’s deferred resignation programme. NASA’s funds is going through doable cuts of as a lot as 24 per cent. The company’s science actions can be almost halved below Trump’s proposed funds, together with the cancellation of many deliberate missions and the decommissioning of a number of spacecraft which are already in flight.

In fact, it’s unimaginable to assert that there’s a straight line between the funds that the Trump administration plans to take from NASA and the funds that will probably be essential to place a nuclear reactor on the moon. However each of these issues taking place on the identical time actually raises questions. As an example, are we actually incapacitating a number of the most astonishing scientific machines the nation has ever had in favour of a generator with nothing to energy? Will NASA even have the funds to make this undertaking occur? And what’s the level of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, anyway?

In keeping with Duffy, it’s a minimum of partially about beating China and Russia to the punch. “Since March 2024, China and Russia have introduced on a minimum of three events a joint effort to put a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s,” he mentioned within the directive. “The primary nation to take action might probably declare a keep-out zone which might considerably inhibit america from establishing a deliberate Artemis presence if not there first.”

No worldwide regulation says something about “keep-out zones” on the moon. The Outer House Treaty emphasises “due regard” between states working in house and discourages meddling with different states’ operations, nevertheless it additionally explicitly prohibits claims of sovereignty over any land in house. The more moderen Artemis Accords are extra particular about “security zones”, though neither China nor Russia is a signatory. Any official “keep-out zone” can be a major take a look at of whether or not the precepts of the Outer House Treaty are enforceable, nevertheless it isn’t a on condition that such a zone might ever be legally declared on the moon.

However, the Trump administration is clearly eager to place its stamp on the moon. “There’s a sure a part of the moon that everybody is aware of is the perfect,” Duffy mentioned throughout a press convention on 5 August, referring to the south pole region. “We’ve ice there, now we have daylight there. We wish to get there first and declare that for America.” Legally, claiming something on the moon for the US can be questionable. So the query stays: except for geopolitical posturing, what’s the level of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon proper now? It’s unclear whether or not anybody has a coherent reply.