Having demonstrated that it has the operational capability to transport humans safely [to the moon and back](https://www.wired.com/story/artemis-ii-returns-from-historic-flight-around-the-moon/), the United States is moving on to its next major aim: It wants nuclear reactors in orbit and on the lunar surface by 2030. For such a feat, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will have to work in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
In a post on X, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) unveiled a document with new guidelines for federal agencies to establish the space nuclear technology road map for the coming years. This, they say, will ensure “US space superiority.”
At present, space instruments use solar power to operate. However, this is considered impractical for more complex purposes. Although technically there is always sunlight, the power is intermittent and almost always requires bulky batteries to store it.
Reactors produce fairly continuous energy for years through nuclear fission. They can also be used for so-called nuclear electric propulsion. Continuous output makes them the most viable option for lunar base subsistence, but they can also allow spacecraft to undertake long or complex missions without worrying about depleting a limited supply of chemical fuel.
Nuclear technology, in short, makes it possible to go farther, with more payload, for longer, and with fewer constraints.
According to the [memorandum](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/NSTM-3-2026_04_14-corrected.pdf), the US goal is to put a medium-power reactor in orbit by 2028, with a variant designed for nuclear electric propulsion, and a first functional large reactor on the surface of the moon by 2030. To achieve this, both NASA and the Pentagon will develop energy technologies in parallel, using the current strategy of competition among contractors.
i mean yea thats a great way to have energy on the moon
Yukari_Stan on
What’s next? Armed marines to protect lunar interests? A base named after the first English settlement in the US?
Somnambulist815 on
Damn that’s what i was going to do up there
seedless0 on
I mean. The day-night cycle makes solar power difficult, to say the least. And there’s no wind…
PVT_Huds0n on
There really isn’t any other viable option, we’ve known this for a long time. And the nuclear reactor would be purpose built, meaning it wouldn’t be huge, NASA is aiming at 20kw.
Stone_leigh on
Any one want to expound about nuclear “reactors” of various types have been in space, including at east two that have left our solar system?
GarryOzzy on
A 10 kWe, metal stirling cycle reactor would have an LEU core the size of a paper towel roll. It is very viable.
Irr3l3ph4nt on
Yeah, they’ve announced this quite a while ago actually… There was this whole “Nukes on the moon” month last year where everyone and their mom had an opinion on the subject.
Time for that Sea Dragon launch off the coast off Guam.
telamenais on
We want that nuclear on the moon to split water(that we will hopefully find in the moon) into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel
MarkyMarcMcfly on
Ed Baldwin sends his regards
EmergencyTaco on
I would also like for NASA to put nuclear reactors on the moon. I am a huge proponent of green energy but the fear of nuclear is horribly misplaced.
SuchDogeHodler on
For all the shocked naysayers… this isn’t NASAs first rodeo. They have been putting nuclear reactors in space for over 50 years now.
Deep Space/Planetary Probes (RTG powered): Voyager 1 & 2, Pioneer 10 & 11, Cassini, Galileo, New Horizons, Ulysses, and the Curiosity/Perseverance Mars rovers.
Earth-Orbiting Reactors (Fission powered): The Soviet Union launched over 30 RORSAT (US-A) satellites with BES-5 reactors between 1967 and 1988, and two TOPAZ reactors in 1987.
US Experimental Fission Reactor: The U.S. launched one fission reactor, SNAP-10A, in 1965.
I remember a shuttle mission that was heavily protested. That carried one into space.
>launch of the Cassini-Huygens probe on STS-34 in October 1997 (officially launched Oct 15, 1997, on a Titan IVB/Centaur, but heavily supported by Shuttle-era technology and planning). The probe used a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) for power, creating intense public debate regarding potential risks.
Hexsisboii on
I swear people are against nuclear reactors because it has the word “nuclear” in it. This is probably the best way to generate energy on the moon.
ImYeez on
This is exactly where I am in my For All Mankind rewatch.
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeviv0 “Last usage”)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LEU](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeb20y “Last usage”)|Low-Enriched Uranium, fissile material that’s not explosively so|
|[RTG](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogel8lg “Last usage”)|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeibdj “Last usage”)|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
it uses very little fuel, doesn’t require much for batteries, and generates heat that could be captured. And we have extensive safety tech for letting it run with only occasional maintenance. and could be built so any engineer can maintain.
Coryj100 on
Wasn’t the first phase more like putting some sort of small nuclear reactor for both power requirements of small vehicles but also to create enough heat to keep electronics alive so they could be revived after the two weeks of darkness.
sfxer001 on
Adeptus Mooncanicus approves.
Strawbuddy on
The moon is also a great place for GaN solar and solid state battery storage. Ideally they’ll beef up their output goals, such that a space based lunar shipyard can also be built to colonize the solar system a bit more and haul asteroids for resources
400Volts on
The US is already very VERY good at building small reactors. A 20kw reactor like the one they’re targeting is a fraction of the size of any of the nuclear reactors we have powering subs and carriers
25 Comments
Having demonstrated that it has the operational capability to transport humans safely [to the moon and back](https://www.wired.com/story/artemis-ii-returns-from-historic-flight-around-the-moon/), the United States is moving on to its next major aim: It wants nuclear reactors in orbit and on the lunar surface by 2030. For such a feat, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will have to work in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
In a post on X, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) unveiled a document with new guidelines for federal agencies to establish the space nuclear technology road map for the coming years. This, they say, will ensure “US space superiority.”
At present, space instruments use solar power to operate. However, this is considered impractical for more complex purposes. Although technically there is always sunlight, the power is intermittent and almost always requires bulky batteries to store it.
Reactors produce fairly continuous energy for years through nuclear fission. They can also be used for so-called nuclear electric propulsion. Continuous output makes them the most viable option for lunar base subsistence, but they can also allow spacecraft to undertake long or complex missions without worrying about depleting a limited supply of chemical fuel.
Nuclear technology, in short, makes it possible to go farther, with more payload, for longer, and with fewer constraints.
According to the [memorandum](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/NSTM-3-2026_04_14-corrected.pdf), the US goal is to put a medium-power reactor in orbit by 2028, with a variant designed for nuclear electric propulsion, and a first functional large reactor on the surface of the moon by 2030. To achieve this, both NASA and the Pentagon will develop energy technologies in parallel, using the current strategy of competition among contractors.
Read the full story: [https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-wants-to-put-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon/](https://www.wired.com/story/nasa-wants-to-put-nuclear-reactors-on-the-moon/)
i mean yea thats a great way to have energy on the moon
What’s next? Armed marines to protect lunar interests? A base named after the first English settlement in the US?
Damn that’s what i was going to do up there
I mean. The day-night cycle makes solar power difficult, to say the least. And there’s no wind…
There really isn’t any other viable option, we’ve known this for a long time. And the nuclear reactor would be purpose built, meaning it wouldn’t be huge, NASA is aiming at 20kw.
Any one want to expound about nuclear “reactors” of various types have been in space, including at east two that have left our solar system?
A 10 kWe, metal stirling cycle reactor would have an LEU core the size of a paper towel roll. It is very viable.
Yeah, they’ve announced this quite a while ago actually… There was this whole “Nukes on the moon” month last year where everyone and their mom had an opinion on the subject.
[Space 1999](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999)
Wouldnt cooling be an issue?
Time for that Sea Dragon launch off the coast off Guam.
We want that nuclear on the moon to split water(that we will hopefully find in the moon) into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel
Ed Baldwin sends his regards
I would also like for NASA to put nuclear reactors on the moon. I am a huge proponent of green energy but the fear of nuclear is horribly misplaced.
For all the shocked naysayers… this isn’t NASAs first rodeo. They have been putting nuclear reactors in space for over 50 years now.
Deep Space/Planetary Probes (RTG powered): Voyager 1 & 2, Pioneer 10 & 11, Cassini, Galileo, New Horizons, Ulysses, and the Curiosity/Perseverance Mars rovers.
Earth-Orbiting Reactors (Fission powered): The Soviet Union launched over 30 RORSAT (US-A) satellites with BES-5 reactors between 1967 and 1988, and two TOPAZ reactors in 1987.
US Experimental Fission Reactor: The U.S. launched one fission reactor, SNAP-10A, in 1965.
I remember a shuttle mission that was heavily protested. That carried one into space.
>launch of the Cassini-Huygens probe on STS-34 in October 1997 (officially launched Oct 15, 1997, on a Titan IVB/Centaur, but heavily supported by Shuttle-era technology and planning). The probe used a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) for power, creating intense public debate regarding potential risks.
I swear people are against nuclear reactors because it has the word “nuclear” in it. This is probably the best way to generate energy on the moon.
This is exactly where I am in my For All Mankind rewatch.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[LEO](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeviv0 “Last usage”)|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|[LEU](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeb20y “Last usage”)|Low-Enriched Uranium, fissile material that’s not explosively so|
|[RTG](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogel8lg “Last usage”)|Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator|
|[STS](/r/Space/comments/1smh18x/stub/ogeibdj “Last usage”)|Space Transportation System (*Shuttle*)|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1slgvuo)^( has 24 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12339 for this sub, first seen 15th Apr 2026, 21:12])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I mean it’s already uninhabitable
it uses very little fuel, doesn’t require much for batteries, and generates heat that could be captured. And we have extensive safety tech for letting it run with only occasional maintenance. and could be built so any engineer can maintain.
Wasn’t the first phase more like putting some sort of small nuclear reactor for both power requirements of small vehicles but also to create enough heat to keep electronics alive so they could be revived after the two weeks of darkness.
Adeptus Mooncanicus approves.
The moon is also a great place for GaN solar and solid state battery storage. Ideally they’ll beef up their output goals, such that a space based lunar shipyard can also be built to colonize the solar system a bit more and haul asteroids for resources
The US is already very VERY good at building small reactors. A 20kw reactor like the one they’re targeting is a fraction of the size of any of the nuclear reactors we have powering subs and carriers