The Next Frontier: US, Russia, and China Race for a Nuclear Reactor on Moon

The U.S. and a Russian-Chinese partnership are competing to deploy nuclear reactors on the Moon, turning reliable electricity into a strategic prize in the race to establish permanent lunar bases.

NASA wants its reactor ready for launch by December 2030. Russia is targeting 2036 for an operating unit that would supply China-led lunar stations, according to The New York Times.

The American agency has brought forward its schedule amid concern that its rivals could use a reactor installation to establish an effective exclusion zone.

The competition extends beyond exploration to access to lunar resources and the infrastructure needed for missions farther into the solar system.

Power for Permanent Bases

Nuclear electricity would allow equipment to operate through lunar darkness, when solar generation becomes unavailable.

Lunar nights last more than two Earth weeks, while installations near the south pole must withstand extreme temperature changes.

Solar panels and systems powered by radioactive decay could support early equipment and rovers. Larger bases would require substantially more electricity.

NASA’s proposed Lunar Reactor 1 would supply 20 kilowatts and operate for five years without intervention.

Russia’s Selena design would deliver up to 10 kilowatts and function autonomously for a decade.

Moscow has assigned state agencies to develop Selena for the lunar project with China. Nuclear power appears to be the principal responsibility Beijing has handed to its Russian partner.

Russia brings experience from more than 30 reactors launched into orbit, mainly during the Cold War.

The U.S. deployed one in 1965 but has launched no subsequent reactor, despite spending more than $20 billion on space nuclear programs.

Deadlines Ahead of Demonstrated Capability

The competing schedules depend on technology that has yet to be demonstrated.

Neither side has a proven lander that can safely deliver a heavy reactor onto uneven lunar ground.

Installing and operating such equipment in low gravity also remains untested.

The bases themselves have yet to be constructed, leaving their eventual electricity requirements uncertain.

Reactor specifications could change as those plans develop.

“Nothing is for certain right now,” Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin, a nuclear scientist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, told the NYT.

Launch and Radiation Risks

Both the U.S. and Russia say their reactors would remain inactive until reaching the moon.

Keeping the fuel unirradiated would limit the radioactive consequences of a launch failure.

Engineers must nevertheless prevent an accident from triggering an unintended nuclear reaction.

NASA requires protection against scenarios such as a reactor falling into water, which can increase the likelihood of a chain reaction.

The consequences of an operating reactor returning to Earth are already documented.

In 1978, the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 spread radioactive material over nearly 48,000 square miles of northern Canada.

On the moon, shielding and containment present further difficulties. Structures used around terrestrial reactors would be costly and technically demanding to reproduce there.

Experts expect restricted areas around lunar reactors to protect astronauts and equipment.

An accident could spread radioactive debris, while both programs envisage leaving spent material on the surface after operations end.

Fuel Becomes a Strategic Constraint

NASA specifies high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU, for its reactor.

American supplies are limited, while Russia is the largest producer.

The U.S. banned Russian uranium imports in 2024 over the war in Ukraine. NASA expects the Department of Energy to provide fuel, but domestic production has struggled to meet demand.

The Russian-Chinese project has not disclosed its fuel choice. Earlier Russian space reactors used highly enriched uranium, which raises concerns about potential weapons use.

Suppliers see opportunities in lunar and military contracts, but compact reactors still face unresolved questions over cooling, shielding and structural durability in space.

“It is entirely feasible to put a reactor on the moon,” said Katy Huff, who heads nuclear engineering and engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.