nuclear-news

NASA wants to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon. This US scientist says it could be a very bad idea

Theoretical astrophysicist Dr Ethan Siegel weighs up the pros and cons of building a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030

Anita Chandran, Sky at Night Magazine, October 18, 2026

The concept of a lunar base seems straight out of science fiction, but after the recent success of Artemis, NASA is planning to send humans back to the Moon to establish a long-term presence there.

A lunar base would require sustainable power, which is no mean feat in such harsh conditions.

So NASA has proposed building a nuclear reactor on the lunar surface, with the ambitious aim of launching it by 2030.

But the speed of turnaround required and the difficulty of the project have left some scientists wondering about the underlying motivations for the project, as well as questions of feasibility.

We sat down with Dr Ethan R Siegel, astrophysicist and author of the award-winning blog Starts with a Bang, to discuss the practicalities of a nuclear base on the Moon, and why astronomers might be right to remain sceptical.

Why would we want to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?

On the Moon, we don’t have things like an atmosphere, and we don’t have things like combustion reactions that can easily occur with readily available resources. You need some way to generate power……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

There’s a risk of a failure on the Moon and creating a radiation hazard that would be there permanently on the lunar surface.

It’s not that you get to declare a keep-out zone – it’s that nuclear radiation tells everyone to keep out forever……………

There’s always a tension when you talk about whether the government should fund a project.

Does this project have merits? Will it benefit the nation? Will it lead to a positive return on investment? Will it further the nation’s and humanity’s interests?

On those metrics alone, you can make an argument that we should do this.

The danger is if this is used as an excuse to eliminate other programmes and put those resources towards this nuclear reactor programme instead.

I think these should be two separate issues. We should be looking at what kind of science NASA should invest in.

Then we should be looking at our ambitions for space exploration and a lunar nuclear reactor separately, on their own merits.

I think there is a danger of saying, “We’re just going to have a big buffet and this one project is going to come along and eat everybody’s lunch, like Pac-Man.”

We’ve been talking about one specific endeavour proposed by NASA.

If you look at what has happened to NASA over the past year and a half, it has lost more than 4,000 employees, almost all of them on the science side.

The latest presidential budget calls for a 47% cut to NASA science.

If you look at the full picture, you might fear that science will be cut to serve this new, ambitious project. The signs seem to point towards that being the game plan.

There is also a proposal for a new rule in the United States where scientific proposals will not be decided on the basis of peer review and merit.

They will instead be subject to political review. I think there is a very dangerous game being played – not just with NASA, but with the future of American science.

I would very much like the world to be aware of this existential problem. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/nasa-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-pros-cons

October 21, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized