{"id":4654,"date":"2025-08-17T10:15:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-17T10:15:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/4654\/"},"modified":"2025-08-17T10:15:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-17T10:15:14","slug":"experts-say-us-plans-for-lunar-nuclear-reactor-are-cock-eyed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/4654\/","title":{"rendered":"Experts say US plans for lunar nuclear reactor are \u2018cock-eyed\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nNasa aims to have the reactor ready for launch by the early 2030s, but little progress has been made\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThe whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space programme that is now being starved of money,\u201d American national-security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told the Independent.<\/p>\n

Nuclear has been used in space since the 1960s. The US launched its first test reactor into orbit in 1965, and the former Soviet Union has sent up dozens.<\/p>\n

Nasa says that a new 100-kilowatt reactor could be used to power a future base at the lunar South Pole, and fuel prospective missions to Mars and beyond. Nuclear would help to fill gaps in solar energy that occur when that side of the moon is in darkness.<\/p>\n

The majority of space experts have said that placing a reactor on the moon is possible, so why is Nasa\u2019s current plan \u201ccock-eyed\u201d? The problem is the proposed timeline.<\/p>\n

Interim Nasa administrator Sean Duffy \u2013 who also serves as US president Donald Trump\u2019s transportation secretary \u2013 pushed to expedite the project detailed in a memo this week.<\/p>\n

Mr Duffy said the administration wanted to have a nuclear reactor ready to launch by 2030. Earlier this year, China and Russia announced a plan to build a nuclear reactor for a lunar base by 2035.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe first country to do so could potentially declare a \u2018keep-out\u2019 zone, which would significantly inhibit the US from establishing a planned Artemis presence if not there first,\u201d Mr Duffy said.<\/p>\n

Nasa first announced in 2021 that it would put a reactor on the moon \u201cwithin a decade\u201d. In 2024, the agency said that their target date for delivery of a reactor to the launchpad was the early 2030s. But Mr Cirincione \u2013 who is vice-chair of the Centre for International Policy, a non-profit that advocates for a peaceful approach to foreign policy \u2013 says essentially no progress has been made.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was in the last Trump administration that Nasa had put out a press release … about how they\u2019re going to develop these small, modular nuclear reactors for use on the moon, and it was going to be ready by 2026,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cOh, really? So where is it?\u201d<\/p>\n

He believes it could take up to 20 years for a nuclear reactor on the moon to become a reality. Nasa would need a working launch vehicle, a small and adaptable reactor, and the ability to land on the moon. Right now, the SpaceX Starship is the only option \u2013 but it has exploded during several of its test flights.<\/p>\n

\n

Accelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of \u2026 core elements of Nasa\u2019s public-serving mission<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The agency has been working with Boeing on a space launch system \u2013 the main competitor to SpaceX\u2019s Starship \u2013 but that programme would be cancelled under the Trump administration\u2019s proposed cuts, which slash 24pc from Nasa\u2019s overall budget.<\/p>\n

There are also the scientific and technological advances needed for the nuclear reactors.<\/p>\n

They must be able to withstand harsh conditions on the moon, including temperature swings from 121C during the day to -246C at night.<\/p>\n

Many scientists and nuclear energy experts have shared in Mr Cirincione\u2019s scepticism.<\/p>\n

Kathryn Huff \u2013 a former nuclear energy official at the US department of energy, and a professor at the University of Illinois \u2013 wrote in a Bluesky social media post that she\u2019s not \u201cbullish\u201d on \u201cunrealistic timelines\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"Elon<\/p>\n

Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starship is the best candidate for launching the lunar reactor. Photo: Getty<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 2030 target does not align well with recent budgetary trends,\u201d Dr Huff said in a statement shared by the university. \u201cAccelerating the [Fission Surface Power] programme could come at the expense of other critical priorities, including earth science, climate observation and space-based weather forecasting \u2013 all core elements of Nasa\u2019s public-serving mission.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alfredo Carpineti, an Italian astrophysicist, wrote in IFLScience this week that the proposal is unfeasible: \u201cEven if we allow landing the nuclear reactor on December 31, 2030, the timing is really too short for something that must not have any faults if you want to operate it safely.\u201d<\/p>\n

Others were more optimistic about Nasa\u2019s accelerated timeline.<\/p>\n

Sebastian Corbisiero \u2013 a senior technical adviser at Idaho National Laboratory who leads the US energy department\u2019s space reactor programme \u2013 told the Independent that a nuclear reactor on the moon is \u201cdoable\u201d by 2030.<\/p>\n

\u201cNuclear reactor technology has been around for decades, so its well known,\u201d he said. \u201cSome key differences with a space reactor is that it needs to fit on a rocket \u2013 so there are mass and volume requirements \u2013 and that the system needs to operate in vacuum, so components will need to be built to survive that environment.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Nasa aims to have the reactor ready for launch by the early 2030s, but little progress has been…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4655,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[270],"tags":[356,18,19,17,1024,133,451,1543],"class_list":{"0":"post-4654","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-space","8":"tag-donald-trump","9":"tag-eire","10":"tag-ie","11":"tag-ireland","12":"tag-nasa","13":"tag-science","14":"tag-space","15":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4654\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4655"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}