NASA wants to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030 – choosing where is tricky
by Clive Neal, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences at the University of Notre Dame
In a bold, strategic move for the U.S., acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans on Aug. 5, 2025, to build a nuclear fission reactor for deployment on the lunar surface in 2030. Doing so would allow the United States to gain a foothold on the Moon by the time China plans to land the first taikonaut, what China calls its astronauts, there by 2030.
Apart from the geopolitical importance, there are other reasons why this move is critically important. A source of nuclear energy will be necessary for visiting Mars, because solar energy is weaker there. It could also help establish a lunar base and potentially even a permanent human presence on the Moon, as it delivers consistent power through the cold lunar night.
As humans travel out into the solar system, learning to use the local resources is critical for sustaining life off Earth, starting at the nearby Moon. NASA plans to prioritize the fission reactor as power necessary to extract and refine lunar resources.
As a geologist who studies human space exploration, I’ve been mulling over two questions since Duffy’s announcement. First, where is the best place to put an initial nuclear reactor on the Moon, to set up for future lunar bases? Second, how will NASA protect the reactor from plumes of regolith – or loosely fragmented lunar rocks – kicked up by spacecraft landing near it? These are two key questions the agency will have to answer as it develops this technology.
Where do you put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?
The nuclear reactor will likely form the power supply for the initial U.S.-led Moon base that will support humans who’ll stay for ever-increasing lengths of time. To facilitate sustainable human exploration of the Moon, using local resources such as water and oxygen for life support and hydrogen and oxygen to refuel spacecraft can dramatically reduce the amount of material that needs to be brought from Earth, which also reduces cost.
In the 1990s, spacecraft orbiting the Moon first observed dark craters called permanently shadowed regions on the lunar north and south poles. Scientists now suspect these craters hold water in the form of ice, a vital resource for countries looking to set up a long-term human presence on the surface. NASA’s Artemis campaign aims to return people to the Moon, targeting the lunar south pole to take advantage of the water ice that is present there.
Dark craters on the Moon, parts of which are indicated here in blue, never get sunlight. Scientists think some of these permanently shadowed regions could contain water ice. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
In order to be useful, the reactor must be close to accessible, extractable and refinable water ice deposits. The issue is we currently do not have the detailed information needed to define such a location.
The good news is the information can be obtained relatively quickly. Six lunar orbital missions have collected, and in some cases are still collecting, relevant data that can help scientists pinpoint which water ice deposits are worth pursuing.
These datasets give indications of where either surface or buried water ice deposits are. It is looking at these datasets in tandem that can indicate water ice “hot prospects,” which rover missions can investigate and confirm or deny the orbital observations. But this step isn’t easy.
Luckily, NASA already has its Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover mission built, and it has passed all environmental testing. It is currently in storage, awaiting a ride to the Moon. The VIPER mission can be used to investigate on the ground the hottest prospect for water ice identified from orbital data. With enough funding, NASA could probably have this data in a year or two at both the lunar north and south poles.
How do you protect the reactor?
Once NASA knows the best spots to put a reactor, it will then have to figure out how to shield the reactor from spacecraft as they land. As spacecraft approach the Moon’s surface, they stir up loose dust and rocks, called regolith. It will sandblast anything close to the landing site, unless the items are placed behind large boulders or beyond the horizon, which is more than 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) away on the Moon.
Scientists already know about the effects of landing next to a pre-positioned asset. In 1969, Apollo 12 landed 535 feet (163 meters) away from the robotic Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which showed corrosion on surfaces exposed to the landing plume. The Artemis campaign will have much bigger lunar landers, which will generate larger regolith plumes than Apollo did. So any prepositioned assets will need protection from anything landing close by, or the landing will need to occur beyond the horizon.
Until NASA can develop a custom launch and landing pad, using the lunar surface’s natural topography or placing important assets behind large boulders could be a temporary solution. However, a pad built just for launching and landing spacecraft will eventually be necessary for any site chosen for this nuclear reactor, as it will take multiple visits to build a lunar base. While the nuclear reactor can supply the power needed to build a pad, this process will require planning and investment.
Human space exploration is complicated. But carefully building up assets on the Moon means scientists will eventually be able to do the same thing a lot farther away on Mars. While the devil is in the details, the Moon will help NASA develop the abilities to use local resources and build infrastructure that could allow humans to survive and thrive off Earth in the long term.
NASA to Provide Update on Moon Base Strategy Missions
NASA will host a news conference at 2 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, May 26, to share Moon Base plans and highlight progress toward a sustained presence on the lunar surface. The media briefing will take place at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington. Leadership will discuss program progress, including new industry partners and mission plans. Subject matter […]
from NASA https://ift.tt/9v1xEUn
As you die peacefully of old age everything goes white and you find yourself strange place, vision blurry, you sense someone approach and you hear them say, "ok, you lived an entire lifetime as a human. What do you think? Are they worth keeping or should we start over?"
Khan emotionally neglected his daughter for most of her childhood, as well as leaving her for dead (even if it was kind of a “sacrifice one for the sake of many” type deal).
Nori, despite working towards finding a patch for the Solver for many years, never once made an attempt to reconnect with Khan or Uzi, or even so much as let them know that she was still alive, all out of a guilt she felt towards what her daughter inherited from her.
What I’m trying to say is, as much as Khori is cute, and as much as I do think they’ll stay together post-canon, someone is going to come to the realisation of what the other did, sooner or later.
And no matter who realises first, somebody’s gonna be sleeping on the couch for a while…
The problem with Tumblr politics being centric around myopic ideologues that are probably being sponsored by Qatar is… well. A lot of things. But my current problem is that no one will meme the Falkland Islands War 2 with me. No one on tumblr even knows about the Malvinas
There’s no way Argentina will actually try to invade The Falklands again right? I mean it is not a good idea objectively. And the people on the islands don’t even want to be Argentinian
The problem with Tumblr politics being centric around myopic ideologues that are probably being sponsored by Qatar is… well. A lot of things. But my current problem is that no one will meme the Falkland Islands War 2 with me. No one on tumblr even knows about the Malvinas
He kills a random member of twitch chat every time they go against him and off rail him… this quickly leads to him being railed way more because twitch chat is blood thirsty f for even it’s or even its own members
“If I had time travel I’d kill Hitler” “If I had time travel I’d stop my favourite politician getting assassinated” you’re all thinking way too small. If I had time travel I’d stop Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin from dying on the moon due to Soviet sabotage, kicking off the Great Nuclear War and devastating half of the planet.
This is such a classic trainwreck post that has the vibes of a 2014 screenshot posted to Pinterest and then the last addition is just last Tuesday I can’t even
“If I had time travel I’d kill Hitler” “If I had time travel I’d stop my favourite politician getting assassinated” you’re all thinking way too small. If I had time travel I’d stop Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin from dying on the moon due to Soviet sabotage, kicking off the Great Nuclear War and devastating half of the planet.
This is such a classic trainwreck post that has the vibes of a 2014 screenshot posted to Pinterest and then the last addition is just last Tuesday I can’t even
Since one of the people who reblogged this on to my timeline yesterday is clearly online (due to liking one of my posts):
I can't believe I have to say this, but it is 100000% possible to both "despise the Iranian regime and support movements for Iranian democracy" and to "oppose the current U.S. and Israel bombing campaign/possible future ground war in Iran." Of course it is. It is amazing that this has to be said, with a war that is so deeply unpopular in the U.S. and increasingly in Israel, and where you can find press outlets across the political spectrum denouncing it. It is amazing this has to be said given that the conflict could very likely soon lead to young American soldiers being forced to fight on the ground there when the U.S. president hasn't even given us any kind of justification for it. It is amazing that this has to be said when this "if you're not with us, you're against us" and "the only reason to oppose a war is because you secretly love the regime we're fighting" is something that, first of all, every millennial should recognize for the propaganda it is because this was the same shit used to delegitimize opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and goes back even further; the main "argument" against Vietnam War opposition was also that they were all secret commies who loved Ho Chi Minh. The numerous arguments against those conflicts that, in fact, had nothing to do with love for either regime, are fundamentally the same as the against this one.
If you are not seeing any commentary against this war that doesn't involve Iran regime apologetics - or you're being told that that's all that exists, that everyone who opposes this war thinks that, and that there's a realistic chance of this resulting in Iranian democracy (lol. lmao, even) and so that's why you must support it - you are living a very thick social media bubble. You need to get your news from sources other than Tumblr, because I promise you don't even need to get that far to find this. The person I'm aiming this primarily at is not even in the US, is in the UK, so I have no idea how you're not seeing this. I get that your media has been taken over by insane transphobes, but that is not an excuse for only listening to Tumblr users either, especially when it's clear that the corners you're in are being steeped in deliberate propaganda and your lack of scope is making you unable to parse that.
I would like to see the Iranian regime fall. I also don't think foreign countries bombing Iran is likely to accomplish that, per the analysis of the numerous anti-Iran-regime foreign policy and military experts you can find saying this throughout the press right now. I think it's clear that this war is not going the way the U.S. and Israel want and if anything is so far handing the Iranian government a propaganda victory over their people. I also think that one can both hate their government and not want their cities and schools bombed by a foreign power. I also don't want young people in my country dying for a cause our president has failed to even explain to us, that seems to be entirely about satisfying his massive ego and attempting to stem his inevitable midterm loss (and instead likely making it even bigger).
See? It's that simple! You can find those reasons and many more in the numerous press outlets that are in fact being critical of this.
Here's a good essay for you to read about why some of us oppose wars and oppose sending young people to die in them on principle.
My Rp Account @robco-reblogs - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
