COVER STORY | LUNAR POWER


Right:


NASA has set out an ambitious time frame for development of nuclear power system on the surface of the moon Source: Lockheed Martin


partially burying the reactor or building barriers known


as berms but notes that a shielded area will eventually face complications during the decommissioning and disposal process with potentially larger volumes of contaminated material. The reactor will need to endure difficult conditions


from its deployment. The DoE spokesperson says that “astronauts in space suits are not going to be able to do the same kind of maintenance, nor as frequently. Components, particularly electronic components like sensors and controls, will therefore need to be designed to last many years without the need to be replaced.”


The race is on: which country is poised to win? Both the US’ 2030 ambition and Russia and China’s 2035 plan are striving to reach the same end goal: to power a base on the moon. Aside from the need for electricity and heating to sustain human life, nuclear power will also be used to recharge lunar terrain vehicles for exploration, resource utilisation and infrastructure maintenance and development. “2030 is an ambitious but achievable goal,” says the DoE spokesperson. “A nuclear reactor on the moon will enable discovery and economic opportunities by providing robust power for research and industrial operations in a harsh environment. DoE is excited to continue working with federal partners, advanced reactor developers and the burgeoning commercial US space industry to enable US scientific, exploration and national security objectives.” The race against Russia and China adds a particular


emphasis to the US’ national security objectives, but with advancements by internationally leading companies including aerospace company SpaceX, the US could maintain its edge.


Guven points out that the components and


manufacturing techniques of the 1960s Apollo missions – “the more classical, proven method of going to the moon” – no longer exist. Instead, SpaceX’s Starship rocket system (due to be used as the Human Landing System in Nasa’s Artemis III) is vastly more complex, requiring several refuelling ships.


24 | November 2025 | www.neimagazine.com


However, “if they can make it happen, it is far beyond


the Russian or Chinese technology right now, in terms of manned missions,” he says. This optimism could be misplaced though, he warns,


because it requires continued financial backing. While the DoE and Lockheed Martin have both expressed optimism about the US’ lead in the race, Guven warns that “if the current spending and political backing of Nasa projects doesn’t change, there is a good chance that China is going to outpace the US in putting a nuclear reactor on the moon”.


Indeed, there have already been delays to Artemis III,


which was due to put two astronauts on the moon by 2026 but now expects to do so in 2027, following issues with the Orion capsule’s heat shield. In comparison, China has seen success in its Chang’e


missions, and Russia maintains much of its old-school technology, which hit many milestones in the early space race including the first person in space (Yuri Gagarin, 1961), the first woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, 1963) and the first spacewalk (Alexei Leonov, 1965). Ziauddin notes that: “Russia contributes TOPAZ


legacy expertise, and the project will involve global nuclear power giants from both countries such as Rosatom, OKBM Afrikantov, CNSA and CNNC,” with the Chang’e seven and eight missions set to provide precursor tests in 2026–2028. China also has the advantage of a complete Atlas of the moon, offering insight into the minerals and resources available. “They have mapped all the resources for helium 3, which is a very important material if you want to create nuclear fusion energy for Earth,” says Guven. He summarises: “Russia uses older but reliable


technology, while China uses newer but untested technology; I think this combination can be successful, but the US can still outpace them with the right attitude and, more importantly, with the right budget.” ■


This article was first published in NEI sister publication Power Technology


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45