Superpowers Race to Put Nuclear Reactors on the Moon

The United States, China, and Russia are all rushing to build nuclear reactors on the moon. NASA asked companies in late August to start planning a reactor that could launch by December 2030. Russia and China want their own reactor running on the moon by 2036. Scientists say these plans could reshape the future of space travel — but they also carry serious risks.

Any long-term base on the moon needs a reliable source of power. Solar panels stop working during the moon's long nights, which last about two weeks of Earth time. Temperatures near the moon's south pole swing from 130 degrees Fahrenheit all the way down to -334 degrees. Nuclear reactors don't need sunlight, can be made compact, and can run without people managing them.

Russia is building a lunar reactor called Selena, which would produce up to 10 kilowatts of electricity and run on its own for ten years. Russia has more experience with space reactors than any other country, having launched more than 30 of them during the Cold War. It also controls the largest supply of the nuclear fuel considered safest for space missions. Because of this experience, China has put Russia in charge of nuclear power for their shared lunar project.

NASA's planned reactor, called Lunar Reactor 1, would produce 20 kilowatts of electricity — about as much as 16 American homes use — and run for five years without human help. NASA sped up its schedule because officials feared a Russian-Chinese reactor could block other countries from reaching the moon's south pole. As a first step, NASA also plans to use nuclear power to propel a spacecraft to Mars in December 2028, which has never been done. The Pentagon is developing its own space reactors too.

The moon race is about more than exploration. The moon may hold frozen water and other valuable resources that future missions will need. Controlling those resources could give a country a big advantage in space. Leaders in the U.S., China, and Russia have all declared that being first in space is a national priority.

Many scientists warn that countries are moving too fast. In the past six years, rockets from all three nations have failed and exploded, and a Russian lander crashed into the moon. Space debris regularly falls back to Earth. Experts say adding nuclear reactors to this picture makes potential accidents much more serious.

One key danger comes at the moment of launch. If a reactor fell into the ocean, water could trigger a dangerous chain reaction inside it, releasing harmful radiation. Most launch sites are near water, which makes this risk real. A similar accident may have happened in Russia in 2019, when a nuclear-powered missile failed and fell into the sea, possibly killing five workers.

On the moon, reactors would not have the thick protective buildings that surround reactors on Earth. Without proper shielding, even a small accident could release a lot of radiation. Because the moon has lower gravity, debris from an explosion could fly very far. When a reactor's useful life ends on the moon, both NASA and Russia say they would simply leave the radioactive material behind rather than clean it up.

There is also a fuel problem. NASA wants to use a uranium fuel called HALEU, which is harder to turn into a weapon and is considered safer. But the U.S. doesn't produce much of it, and Russia — the biggest supplier — is now banned from selling uranium to the U.S. because of the war in Ukraine. Some experts fear this shortage could pressure NASA into using a more dangerous type of fuel instead.

Not all scientists think this has to end badly. Some believe nations achieve more through teamwork than competition. One researcher said that collaborative science has gone further than politics alone ever could. But with powerful countries competing for control of the moon's future, working together may be difficult. For now, the race — and the risks — are very real.