“There will always be a space race going on, and if you enter nuclear power into that mix, then it could take a potentially more dangerous turn,” Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear safety director Edwin Lyman told NYT.
From space rockets exploding on the launch pad or overhead, to meteorite strikes and a harsh lunar climate (no atmosphere, no water, severe temperature swings and highly abrasive, electrostatically charged Moon dust), an accident involving even a small reactor threatens to produce much more radioactive fallout than on Earth, and turn entire swathes of the Moon into an exclusion zone.
🛰 Then there’s the matter of experience. NYT surprisingly admitted that “no country has more experience than Russia” when it comes to space-based reactor technology, citing 30+ deployments aboard Soviet-era satellites. Russia also “controls the largest supply of what is considered the safest nuclear fuel for space missions”: HALEU – a low-enriched fuel the US doesn’t have the ability to produce at scale.
The US also hasn’t built a space-grade reactor since the 1960s, and despite spending $20B+ in this area since then, has yet to field a new, working design with adequate heat dissipation, shielding and structural integrity characteristics.
That makes US plans to put a reactor on the Moon as soon as 2030 – a full six years before China and Russia hope to do so, fraught with risk.
👍 Substack | Chat | @geopolitics_prime