Commentary: Yes, the U.S. Should Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon

by Iulia Lupse

The new space race isn’t about who gets to the moon first. It’s about who stays once they get there – and the key to staying is energy.

This month, Sean Duffy, interim NASA administrator (and U.S. transportation secretary), announced that the U.S. plans to place a 100-kilowatt fission reactor at the moon’s South Pole by 2030, a move touted as securing a long-term presence before China and Russia can stake their own claims. Some knee-jerk reaction sought to cast the idea as one more nutty Trump administration pipedream, but that is a category error. While still in early stages, the plan shows that the administration understands the stakes of this cosmic contest.

Control of lunar power is not just about bragging rights. The first mover gets a head start in a competition for resources and strategic advantage. China and Russia have announced plans to deploy their own nuclear-powered International Lunar Research Station in the same region by the mid-2030s. If America’s adversaries win this race, they will be able to shape how lunar resources are accessed and how “safety zones” are defined.

In space politics, being first means setting the rules.

Why the South Pole? Far from mere barren rock, there is abundant water ice present within its permanently shadowed craters, convertible into drinking water, oxygen, and rocket fuel. The pole also offers ridges with near-constant sunlight and helium-3, a potential fusion energy source. Its regolith surface material harbors metals such as iron, aluminum, and titanium, useful for construction, along with silicon for manufacturing and energy systems. These resources would allow for the construction and maintenance of without relying on costly resupply from Earth, making a permanent presence both practical and defensible.

Why be first? Svetla Ben-Itzhak, deputy director of the West Space Scholars Program at Johns Hopkins University, told me that China and Russia could seek to establish “keep-out zones” around bases, reactors, or mining sites in an effort to keep latecomers at bay. Such zones could become de facto barriers, even without violating the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which forbids nations from claiming parts of the moon as their own but does allow operations to be carried out with “due regard” for the safety of others. In practice, that clause can be used to justify exclusion zones. We have seen a similar tactic employed in the South China Sea, where China built artificial islands, installed runways and military facilities, and then declared surrounding waters off-limits for “security” reasons. Why nuclear? A fission reactor would ensure steady power for habitats, mining, and science. Without it, the U.S. risks being limited to short-term missions.

Notably, the U.N.’s Principles for Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space permit reactors when non-nuclear options aren’t viable, and the South Pole’s 14-day lunar nights make solar arrays impractical without costly batteries. A fission reactor ensures steady power for habitats, mining, and science. There are serious safety challenges with nuclear, certainly, but they can be overcome. The 1978 crash of the nuclear-powered reconnaissance Soviet satellite Kosmos 954, which scattered radioactive debris over Canada, serves as a warning. Although transporting uranium to the moon would not be not easy, safety measures such as specialized packaging can mitigate the danger. The cost will also be high. Estimates run to $3 billion over five years, and that does not include possible delays or technical overruns. Yet the Apollo program, worth over $264 billion in today’s dollars, was an even bigger gamble, and it paid off in technological advances, national prestige, and strategic advantage.

Most important, a powered moon can be a launchpad for a stronger human future. Space exploration yields significant benefits for people on Earth. Advances in technology developed for lunar missions, such as improved energy systems and materials science, often find applications in terrestrial contexts, enhancing our ability to address global challenges like climate change and energy sustainability. The placement of reactors would undoubtedly spark innovations for Earth.

And prestige still matters. If America hesitates, potential lunar partners may align with whoever builds infrastructure first. Right now, China is signaling it is ready to play that role. Beijing’s Chang’e-8 mission in 2028 will scout potential sites, putting it in a position to move quickly. The Trump administration’s plan should be treated as a mission directive. Congress should fund it. NASA should lock in timelines and partnerships. Private industry, from aerospace giants to space nuclear startups, should be brought in now.

Building a lunar nuclear reactor is not some Trumpian folly, nor is it about militarizing the moon. It’s about ensuring that the U.S. and its allies can operate freely, sustainably, and safely in space. The next decade will decide whether America shapes the rules of the moon’s nuclear age or adapts to rules written elsewhere.

 – – –

Iulia Lupse is the founder of I&A Communications Solutions and a contributor with Young Voices. Born in Romania, she is now based in New York. Follow her on X at @IuliaL27 

The post Commentary: Yes, the U.S. Should Put a Nuclear Reactor on the Moon first appeared on The Georgia Star News.