Why on Earth will NASA build a nuclear reactor on the surface of the moon?

“Duffy to announce the nuclear reactor on the moon“It is not a title that I imagined to read before last week. Certainly, as a student who studies a lot in science fiction, I can see a future in which the nuclear power played a role in the permanent moon settlements. But the idea of building NASA is based on a microgram of 100 kilowatts there in the next five years that seemed to be ridiculous.

“I have no idea why this plays a lot,” Professor Bahia Lal Tell me on the phone, with a hint of indignation in her voice. A logical response as soon as she understands her career bow; She spent a lot of her career to think about how the United States used nuclear energy to explore the space. In NASA, she held the position of Acting Senior Technicians, and she received a distinguished service medal for the agency. Among its other qualifications, she also witnessed in front of Congress on the theme of nuclear payment, and even helped rewrite the rules that govern the launch operations that involve radioactive materials.

Recently, I wrote a paper entitled The weight of the future: the strategic options for the nuclear leadership of the American space Where she and her co -author, Dr. Roger Maires, examine the previous failures of the United States policy in terms of nuclear energy in space and they argue that the country should experience a small nuclear system on the moon by 2030. Planetary Association – A non -profit organization tells her to explore and study space – Many aspects of Minister Duffy’s plan is “largely straight” of this report.

Lal is more modest and describes the guidance, which was issued as “accelerating the ongoing work” in NASA. According to her, the agency “Funding) was the power of fission for years”, adding that the only new thing here is that there is an appointment. “We have done this more than 60 years ago,” she told me, and if it ended in handing NASA in the Duffy plan, this will not be the first nuclear reactor the United States sent to space. This distinction goes to Snap-10A In 1965.

The reason for the United States has died in exploring nuclear reactors capable of space is simple. “You can get huge amounts of energy from a very small block,” explains Nick Turan, reactor physics, nuclear lawyer, and founder founder What is nuclear. To launch space, maintaining beneficial amounts is very important.

How much power we are talking about? “When the entire division is done, part of the uranium -235 provides the size of the soft ball, the largest amount of energy such as the charcoal train,” says Dr. Lal. Along with solar energy restrictions, especially the farthest spacecraft that moves away from the sun, nuclear is the game change.

Dr. Lal refers to a new prospect as an example. In 2015, the Pluto Space Vehicle last fled in the capture process Amazing pictures of the dwarf planet. If you follow the task closely, you may remember that new horizons did not stop in Pluto. The reason for this is that he had no strength to enter orbit. “We had about 200 watts on new horizons. This is mainly two of the light bulbs,” said Dr. Lal. It took 16 months new horizons to send each of 50-Gigabytes of data I seized the ground. If the probe had Microrector 20 kilowatts, Dr. Lal says he could broadcast this data in the actual time, in addition to entering the orbit and operating all its tools continuously.

When it comes to the moon, the nuclear will be transformed. On the only natural satellite, the last 14 days of the Earth, and there is drilling that you do not see any sunlight. Solar energy can operate a permanent location on the moon, but not without a “huge” number of batteries to bridge the gap for two weeks in power generation, and these batteries will need to be transferred from Earth.

“At some point, we will want to do an industrial scale on the moon. Even if we want to do 3D printing, it requires hundreds of kilos of power-if not more,” said Dr. Lal. “If you are doing any kind of commercial activity on the moon, we need more than solar energy can provide.”

In Mars, Meanwhile, the nuclear energy will be very necessary. The red planet is home to Dirt storms It can last for weeks or months, and cover the entire continents. In these circumstances, solar energy is unreliable. In fact, when NASA finally ended the opportunity Almost 15 years are important On Mars, it was a dirt storm on the planet level that left Rover unimportant to work.

As such, if the United States wants to create a permanent presence on Mars, Dr. Lal argues that it would be very logical to master the technique of the reactor needed on the moon. “We don’t want our first nuclear reactor on Mars. We want to try it on the moon first. This is what I think NASA is trying to do.”

Of course, there are many technical obstacles that NASA will need to overcome before any of this is anywhere close to reality. Surprisingly, the most obvious problem may find a microscope 100 kW. Now, there is no company in the United States that produces Microreactors. Atomics International and American Aviation, the companies that built Snap-10A decades ago.

“There are many people who are being development, but there is nothing in the initial model stage,” Turan said. As he explains, these are important details; Most nuclear reactors do not work at all when they are operated for the first time. “It takes some repetitions to obtain a reactor that reaches a level in which it is operational, reliable and effective,” he said.

The good news is that Turan believes that there is more than enough time for people or a private company to build a project reactor for the project. “I think we are in a great place to take a good swing on this by 2030,” Turan said. In 2018, NASA and the Ministry of Energy Crossi experimentalLightweight fission system, 10 kilowatts. “That was one of the only new reactors that we have operated several decades ago, and this was done with a limited budget,” he said.

In the end, spreading a reactor on the moon may be more difficult than one building. According to some of the coarse mathematics by Dr. Mayer, the reactor of 100 kilowatts weighs between 10 to 15 metric tons, which means that the current commercial missile cannot carry to space. NASA will also need to find a way to fit the coolant in the reactor inside a missile. The open, the component of the basketball field will be.

According to Dr. Lal, the 2030 timetable for the project is likely to depend on the assumption, the vehicle will be ready to fly by that time. But the heavy heavy Illon Musk missile was badly in 2025. Among the three test trips, SpaceX tried this year, two ended in the spacecraft. One of those who saw fire in the fire during what should have been Routine land test.

If Starship is not ready by 2030, NASA may be able to fly the reactor separately from all other ingredients needed to make a working power system, but according to Lal, “comes with its set of challenges.” In the first place, the agency does not have a great way to collect such a complex system independently. In any case, the spacecraft is at least tangible work in progress. The same cannot be said to the landing that will be necessary to bring the reactor to the moon. In 2021, NASA Spacex contract To build a land for ARTEMIS tasks, but the last update between the two joint two on the spacecraft was A pair of 3D offers. Likewise, blue origin Blue Moon Lander has not yet fly, despite the promises that could make its first journey to the moon Early this spring or summer.

Another question mark hanging on the entire project. As of the end of July, NASA is going on the right track to lose almost 4000 employees Those who agreed to leave the agency through early retirement, voluntary separation or postponed resignation – all of this as part of the broader Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the number of workers throughout the entire federal government. Finally, NASA is going on the right path to inspect about five working power, and the moral spirit of the agency in Low. Even with the provision of the Ministry of Energy and Special Industry, there is a good reason to believe that the discounts will affect NASA’s ability to submit the project on time.

“The inherent contradiction in this proposal is that the White House directs NASA to undertake the most ambitious and difficult projects that any space program can do, which is to send people to the moon and Mars, but doing so with the level of resources and workforce equivalent to what the agency was before the first people went to space in 1961.”

A NASA spokesman refused to share details about the discounts – including the number of employees who were appointed to leave Glenn Research CenterThe attachment that built the Krusty reactor, and where a lot of the agency’s nuclear engineering talent is concentrated. “With more official information, we expect to answer more of your questions,” the spokesman said.

Dr. Lal said: “I wish there were some stocks of 4000 people who left. What are the remaining gaps? We have no idea if the departure was a methodology.” Drier added: “It was not an open or transparent people about the types of employees taken by the deferred resignation program, as these skills are and where you left.” “Nuclear engineering is not a common field for most people. (Discounts) Certainly cannot help.” However, both Lal and Touran believes that the Ministry of Energy is likely to swing things for NASA.

In a statement in which NASA participated with Engadget, Minister Duffy reduced the workforce concerns. He said: “NASA is still committed to our mission, even when we work within the limits of a more important budget and changes with our working strength. NASA maintains a strong seat of talents. I am sure that our exceptional team is still able to implement on me safely, and at the right time and will continue to move our work forward.” “We will continue to ensure that America continues to explore space, and make progress in the main goals, including giving Americans to the moon, cultivating stars and lines on Mars, and we enter the golden age of American innovation.”

In their report, Lal and Myers estimate that it will cost about $ 800 million annually for a period of five years to build and spread a nuclear reactor on the moon. Even if the support of the Ministry of Energy can prevent NASA discounts from the knee in the project, its feasibility will depend on whether the Trump administration raises the funds to implement its bold claims.

Do you have advice to Igor? You can reach it Emailon Blouse Or send a message to @Kodachrome.72 to chat with the signal.