Image: Rolls Royce
By Jo Nova
The Space Race is back
Australia couldn’t build a nuclear plant “til 2045”, but NASA is going to put one on the moon in five years time.
The new NASA chief, Sean Duffy, is set to announce urgent plans to get a very small nuclear reactor on the moon. What was going to be a 40MW microreactor in the “early 2030s” is now said to be a 100MW one launched in 2029. The reason for the rush is because three months ago China and Russia announced plans to cooperate and build their own nuclear plant on the moon in the early 2030s. They want the power to set up what they call an international lunar base. According to Politico, the fear is that the first nation to colonize the moon could declare a “keep out zone” — a quasi form of ownership that would stop another nation setting up in the same area.
Space race: US aims to beat out China and Russia with nuclear reactor on the Moon
Sébastian SEIBT , France 24
NASA’s interim chief Sean Duffy has made deploying a nuclear reactor on the Moon his top priority, framing the effort as a “second space race”.
Solar power isn’t much use on the moon where each night lasts two weeks. The back-up battery payload would be enormous (and who wants to be in a moon colony when a big battery catches fire?) Nuclear power is the only thing that makes sense.
“We need a lot of energy for future missions to the Moon,” said Simon Middleburgh of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University in Wales. “To establish permanent Moon bases, we would need to be generating our own water and oxygen.”
Nuclear power, by contrast, offers an advantage in energy density. “It’s very dense, which means that a reactor the size of a small car could theoretically power a lunar base for around six years without refuelling,” Middleburgh said.
Transporting a scaled-down reactor is not the same as launching a nuclear power plant into orbit, but it is still likely to be an expensive operation. For one, it’s unclear how many microreactors will be needed. While a single unit might suffice, backup reactors would be essential in case of failure. Experts told FRANCE 24 said it was impossible to imagine a lunar base without an alternative power source if the lights were to go out. All in all, launching and installing the reactors could cost several billion dollars, factoring in both manufacturing and delivery.
Meanwhile in Australia our “most advanced” science bureau, the CSIRO, says nuclear power will take years to build and cost too much to use in Australia even though we have the largest uranium reserves in the world. Apparently, NASA can put a reactor on the moon, but CSIRO says small modular reactors are “too immature” for us. While the CSIRO waits for the rest of the world to master nuclear power and sell it back to us, it keeps us firmly locked in an era of windmills.
Australia has more space for launchpads close to the equator than any first-world nation. That makes us ideal as a launch pad for satellites. It’s an industry we could have had. Thankfully, given the spectacular government failure, one small company in Australia is trying to catch us up. The first rocket launch in fifty years in Australia was a week ago. It only lasted 14 seconds, but Gilmour Space are ambitious and serious. For some reason the ABC didn’t mention this on the nightly news, preferring to repeat the same stories on foreign wars and e-scooter accidents it ran the day before instead. Presumably they didn’t want to show a small private company being innovative and scientific because it makes the billion dollar Blob agencies look bad. And there’s always the horrible risk that if they turn a bunch of engineers into stars, they might say things like Elon Musk.
David Maddison comments about how Australia has been missing opportunities for 50 years:
Of course, all Australian efforts to get into space are reminiscent of when Australia first launched its own satellite in 1967 on a surplus US Army Redstone first stage which the US donated after they had done testing in Australia.
The Americans were prepared to donate more of the rockets as they didn’t want to return them to America but the Minister for Education and Science and also later PM Gorton at the time, could see no future in Australia being involved in space and rejected a proposal for a low cost space program along the lines of WRESAT. The cluelessness was staggering. Australia’s fledgling space program more or less languished after that.
Australia was the third country to design and launch a satellite from its own soil and one of only six other countries to have launched a satellite at the time along with USSR (1957), United States (1958), United Kingdom (1962). Canada (1962), Italy (1964) and France (1965).
I wrote an article about WRESAT.
Yet another lost opportunity by Australia due to second or lower rate politicians and the senior public serpents who tell them what to think.
Instead of being the worlds launchpad in the space race, or leaders in nuclear energy, the Labor Government plans to spend $22 billion dollars on a Future Made in Australia that no one wants to buy anymore.
PS: Some interesting details in this video about what the Gilmour launch did well, and theories of what might have gone wrong:
h/t James Murphy on Gilmour Space
There is a certain crater at the south pole of the moon called the Shackleton Crayer which is fairly large and has some areas in permanent shade which likely accumulate ice for a water supply. In addition the high parts of the crater rim facing the equator have high levels of illumination for solar panels if desired. There is a large area at the base of the crater for settlements. This would be an ideal location for a moon base and reactor.
241
One peak at Peary Crater at the Lunar North Pole possibly has sunlight for 89% of a lunar year (354-ish earth days).
2 points on a ridge near Shackleton crater have roughly similar sunshine time.
Almost perpetual sun sounds good in theory, but that’d need many many kilometres of cables unless they plan to live at such locations (radiation problems compared to crater living).
Even if they find mineral resources, they still must design, build and take all the hardware from Earth to refine it i.e., whatever they do, they are 100% reliant on Earth. Even water ice is not guaranteed to be there in useful quantities, though it very likely does exist.
I have nothing against colonising the moon (slightly disappointed it hasn’t already happened actually), I just think it will be a monumental effort like no other ever attempted. It’s got to be orders of magnitude more complex than building and maintaining Antarctic stations, and that’s not simple.
230
I would assume that any colony on the moon would prefer to locate its power source reasonably close to the colony, same as we prefer to do here. I doubt that they would want to install unreliable solar at a location a long way away from where they want to build their accommodation.
181
How about relocating Canberra ACT?
180
I was just about to say: “there is absolutely no good reason to populate the moon” … and then I saw your excellent suggestion.
40
Clever folks those Yanks. Our Bonehead would advise they rather use windmills. Yanks are too clever for our Boneheaded moron that identifies as an energy minister…..he doesn’t even know that without an atmosphere there can’t be any wind.
291
With Bowen, there will always be wind.
Just ask him.
I just can’t believe that the rest of the government looks to him as a shining light. Surely they must be laughing/crying too.
250
He is amusing to watch performing, and I mean performing
40
Wind turbines on the Moon. Now that’s an idea that might appeal to some “Greens”!
30
The Chicomms will colonise the moon and exclude others just as they are colonising Africa, the South China Sea and have their eyes on Tawain and Antarctica.
And the woke Leftist West will give their full approval.
China intends to land the Chang’e-7 spacecraft at the Shackleton Crater which I mentioned above, in 2026.
190
The Chicoms won’t be colonizing anyone in 100 years unless they do something about their fertility rate and demographic imbalance between men and women. The era of fearing an army of a billion screaming Chinamen is coming to an end, as their population is projected to be halved in the next century. This is particularly true about any fears of China colonizing Africa.
Africa is going to colonize the rest of the world in the coming centuries, as the developed east and the west depopulate and scramble to find ways to prop up their crumbling social safety nets and Africa becomes the only net exporter of human capital. While the rest of the world dips well below the 2.1 babies/woman replacement fertility rate, Africa continues to crank out babies at twice that rate (and sub-Saharan Africa is at thrice that rate). Meanwhile, extremely low fertility rate countries like South Korea and Japan may cease to exist entirely without African immigration.
210
Half a billion angry incels is still somewhat intimidating
40
Failure is the first step to success. Every major rocket program in history has been littered with failures in it’s early days, and used those failures to learn what NOT to do. The only thing Australia did wrong was to stop trying.
200
Apparently, the hardest thing about getting a rocket launched from the Australian land mass is getting authorisation from the Authorities.
Typical of any Australian Guv’ment Agency to to use red tape/green tape/any tape.
290
I live in line of sight of the launching pad at Abbot Point, although I didn’t witness the launch I did feel a shudder and boom at my home – not making the connection relating to the launch. Great expectations and many delays with a lot of CASA and other bureaucratic hurdles to overcome. Wind is an issue here so it limits launch windows. Good on Gilmour and brickbats for our government
90
Yes, there are huge issues even for amateur rocket builders. Also for amateur balloon launches whereby people launch latex weather balloons with radio transmitters to 100,000ft plus. I was involved in such a launch and it took an extremely long time for “authorities” to give permission. It’s much easier in the United States despite their much higher population density and more congested airspace. There are also bans for “environmental” reasons on pico balloons. These are repurposed Mylar party balloons filled with helium using tiny transmitters powered by tiny solar panels with GPS using extreme low power radio modes like WSPR. You can get them to circle the world several times. Total package weight about 20g and not considered a hazard to aircraft.
Everything the public serpents do here is designed to hinder us. Often they are dullards who have never achieved anything worthwhile in life or made anything with their own hands using their own ideas and enjoy making life miserable for others. Same applies to many politicians.
240
No, no! Accounting and pen-pushing are rewarding and exciting careers. After all, what else could they do? Lion taming maybe?
110
If at first you don’t succeed, then lion taming is probably not for you.
For some, ‘not succeeding’ is a lifetime goal. Well it appears that way from the outside.
60
Johnny, it’s remarkable that during the pandemic government agencies pocketed all the various colours of regulatory tape. Rocket projects bad, novel gene-based therapies good.
30
Were there – might there have been – incentives for that … ?
Auto – askin’ because I can.
20
Is CO2 a problem on the moon too? The UN should get involved. Moon boiling.
The moon should be declared an International Park. Then they will have to erect windmills.
And who is going to pay for the transmission cable? So a central socialist UN government can control the grid?
What about sending illegal aliens to do the work? They are qualified.
201
Cheech & Chong’s (in)famous 1970s film, Up In Smoke, had the bumbling undercover agent use a certain phrase as a code word, delivered whilst standing at a urinal next to one of the freaks:
“SHOOT … THE … MOON”.
Similar to Australia, he was way off target (as was the bewildered freak standing next to him).
100
I assume that since the Murricans got there first and planted their flag, the whole lot belongs to them.
20
All your base are belong to us
00
Not the First Nations’?
Auto
00
Yes and water for cooling will be the big problem. Is there enough ice on the Moon?
70
Not all nuclear plants, especially SMRs and micro reactors, require continuous water cooling.
60
20
I presume that’s for existing nuclear. The Chinese are installing reactors in desert regions, including the Shidaowan pebble bed reactor, which is helium cooled. Reactor cooling systems can be closed cycle.
10
Dennis, it’s NOT the steam cycle that consumes water, it’s the cooling cycle where the steam is condensed back to water.
For example, the secondary water system in the process you just described, not the primary side.
Item 13 in the attached. The cooling towers for the pondage are not shown, or the pond is very large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor#/media/File:Boiling_water_reactor_no_text.svg
10
If using a steam cycle, then water could be a problem.
If using thermocouples, then the water is not a problem, it’s just that a thermopile design is not very efficient.
It will be interesting to see what process they propose to use and just how much power it will deliver. To be useful, it will have to have a range in the hundreds of kW, at least then you could run a furnace to make bricks, a useful commodity when building to keep out cosmic rays.
Of course, the next problem after the reactor is completed is the union demands for a beach and a 4 day week, (Earth day of course).
90
I’m thankful Oz’s CFMEU union are not involved otherwise nothing would get done on time or on budget.
140
The Australian Workers Union was quick out of the blocks demanding a 30% over 3 year wage rise at the South Australian shipyard to be in line with the workers at the Henderson Austal facility in WA. A sensible government would tell the union that that sort of demand would mean the Japanese build all eleven Mograni frigates in Japan rather than the proposed eight here. Besides, with South Australia’s wonderful electricity grid, I doubt any ship building could be done there.
210
The only ship that SA could build is ‘The Ship of Fools’.
90
More likely to use ( ironicaly !) a Supercritical CO2, “Brayden Cycle” turbine, rather than steam.
??..how do you get CO2 on the moon. ??
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573315001606
10
Is there CO2 on the moon ?…..
10
Chad,
No water in the reactor, correct. A look at the diagram, (copy below), still highlights the need for a cooling cycle. You just can’t avoid this with a heat engine.
On Earth is likely to be water evaporation because it is cheap and functions well. Not going to happen on the moon though.
For every useful watt of energy made a heat engine will typically dump at least one watt as heat. They are rarely better than 50% efficient.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1738573315001606-gr2.jpg
30
?.and no water in the turbine cycle either.
Sure a “cooler” is required for the CO2, But that could be any form of heat exchanger/medium for a thermal “sink” ….Water is not essential.
Its cold on the moon, so why not just bury pipes like a reverse heat pump ?
Also, heat will be required for any colony establishment and many other processes.
How long before some do gooder objects to the potential anthropogenic “Moon climate Warming”.. ?
10
America hasn’t put boots on the moon since 1972.
.
Maybe, just maybe … they should plan to put a human payload back onto the moon, before they put a human payload + mission specialists + a nuclear reactor on the moon?
110
America hasn’t put boots on the moon.
Fixed.
Don’t forget the stars…..on the Broadwalk for all the actors.
106
That’s because the lizard people on the dark side said not to return.
A flat Earther told me.
30
The moon gets a nuclear plant,
But Australia unfortunately can’t,
As the powers that be,
By their bureaucracy,
View science and innovation askant.
270
A nuclear reactor atop one of Musk’s iffy rockets, what could possibly go wrong!
80
That would cause a struggle as so many would designate their preferred target.
Perhaps a few suggestions – not in the UK as they already have a huge disaster in No.10
80
The US Military could utilise NZ’s Space Agency and/or Rocket Lab which has been launching retrievable space projectiles for the past 10 years from sleepy rural out-of-the-way Mahia Peninsula on the east coast of the North Island.
[NB. Rocket Lab recently won a contract to commence installing the Space Dome (SkyNet?) for its new partners/owners].
Or Uncle Sam could call on the Royal NZ Air Force to save the day as they often do when caught out in the most inhospitable predicaments:
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-evacuates-three-us-antarctic-base-high-risk-winter-rescue-2025-08-06/
Total darkness, -24*C, McMurdo Station, 3 staff needing medical attention back in Christchurch, NZ – send in the Kiwis in one of their Hercules clunkers and God Save The King… oh right, War of Independence and all that jazz.
Forward… to the Sea of Tranquility!
110
That was a non trivial mission down to McMurdo, well done them. Good to see things can still work with our US cousins despite the flailing’s of politicians.
20
Fusion power would be a safer bet, it runs on Helium-3.
‘Helium-3 is thought to be more abundant on the Moon than on Earth, having been deposited in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years.’ (wiki)
73
too easy
30
Fusion ‘may’ be safer but we need the reactor now, not in twenty years. /s
And of course, you probably forgot the neutron contamination of the shell material. Like most people do.
Unless of course you intend to let neutrons stream out of the containment vessel instead of having them caught by the vessel, thus losing all their thermal energy, (the bit that, if caught, makes the steam to run the turbines). And of course, if you catch the neutrons, the elements in the shell gain a neutron and become a heavier isotope and in most cases, radioactive.
eg. Iron transmute to cobalt via beta emission, (and don’t forget the gamma ray). Not something you’d want to be next to when running (just like all reactors).
40
‘Astronauts could make ‘moonglass’ solar panels from lunar dust.’ (BBC)
31
Iffy? how so? what more reliable launch vehicle exists?
We already routinely put nuclear weapons in planes (that crash) and submarines (that sink) and have nuclear material in seaside reactors in earthquake zones.
21
Have you not noticed the number of ‘learning experiences’?
Also, it’s a completely different ballpark to your examples, which have suffered serious accidents, but with far greater forces involved which will obviously have far wider consequences.
00
Let’s hope the US can achieve their plans to start to colonize the moon and a small Nuclear reactor is a no brainer.
Of course baseload Nuclear could be used here for Australia as well or Coal or Gas, but Labor, Greens and Teals would rather use toxic, unreliable, super expensive W & S and useless batteries.
Anyway who cares about our national security and future prosperity? SARC.
120
As long as Oz continues to elected Leftist governments, nuclear plants will never be built. Nuclear provides cheap plentiful power which is the lifeblood of capitalism. The socialists can’t abide by it, so no nuclear for you!
30
I would say who cares if China or Russia colonises the moon – go for it. Seems like a big waste of money to me. Maybe after the new US administration rationalisation and DOGE effects, NASA are trying to make themselves relevant. But it is funny (if in fact this story is real), a nuclear reactor on the moon and all the ALP (Australian Labor Party) can provide is alarmist social media posts about 2 headed fish.
100
Are there fish on the Moon?
61
The Aliens living there already have three eyes.
70
BTW here’s a 25 minute interview from the WSJ and US Energy Sec Chris Wright provides an update on the progress since he launched the enquiry into their so called endangerment finding into co2 etc.
The intelligent young woman interviewing Chris Wright is very impressive and Wright always makes sense to me and we’re very lucky that Trump nominated him and then cut him loose to do his job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r–BO8VXgnU
90
For All Mankind becomes a documentary…
30
Planet Earth has a surplus of energy problems to address without bothering about the Moon.
Nuclear powered electricity is old hat, established art, simple, effective and cheap. It is also a great platform for sad people to complain and give it a bad reputation.
Through these related discussions, we need more than ever to stick to what is known. Unhappily science is being sidetracked by sad people who have low scientific prowess, so the Moon here is being discussed in terms of competition among nations and symbolisation of strength and nuclear is getting the usual bashing by the usual ignorant innocents, most of whom might have never even seen a reactor. I used to own one, a tiny one, in my lab, so I feel qualified to write a little about real life and experiences. Geoff S
110
No doubt this will enrage the Greens who will insist on using wind turbines up there
90
Which will ask about moon wind turbines first?
The Oz Greens or the USA Democrats?
60
LOL, It’s difficult to pick a winner there, but Kamala could add moon turbines to her next faked celestial discussion with child actors and push for offshore turbines in the sea of tranquility for improved efficiency.
70
Under the current Socialist political regime there’s a strong probability Australia will become fully dystopic by 2029. Our energy generating capabilities will in ruin whilst resources such as uranium, coal, and gas will have to be sold off at bargain prices to keep the parasitic ruling class in position. For the rest of us it will be some form of serfdom. Those in the rural sector possibly having their land and assets collectivised and forced to become the next iteration of the kulak class.
Sadly the silent majority composed of decent people seem willing to listen to the comforting lies of inept politicians intent on destroying the Australian way of life. Evidently we’re being ruined by our own complacency.
71
Im not so sure about anyone getting to the moon in the near future and being able to develop any resources.
The project will,and is already taking up a lot of resurces that could be used to greater benifit here on earth.
And for what benefit, politcal prestige perhaps ? ..
40
More on the Nuclear Moon – Only 4 minutes or so –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnRmT4KGC4U
40
Whoops, more like 25 minutes……….
30
Too much red wine at lunch. Only 4 minutes or so.
It’s a very ambitious project to get done any time soon.
40
I understand that Mini Modular Reactor is not used often now and Small Modular Reactor covers a range of capacities from very small to small power plants of, for example, Rolls-Royce UK design 470 MW designed and utilising Siemens Germany steam turbine generator technology.
Recently I read that a much smaller output SMR was certified and started in Scotland UK but details are commercial in confidence for the present time.
The left in Australia’s many examples of misinformation attempting to create a false impression that nuclear is too expensive, would take too long to build (consider that Labor’s RET is far behind schedule 2025 after maybe 25 years) and presents nuclear waste and leakage health and safety issues, and many other nonsensical claims, is relentless negativity based purely on politics and related climate change and net zero emissions.
Fact remains that nuclear is zero emissions, waste is contained in spent fuel rods of depleted uranium now recyclable and considered to be an asset.
And in volume nuclear waste is not much as I will post.
80
Nuclear Waste – the biggest nuclear myth
https://www.nuclearasia.com/feature/millions-of-tons-of-nuclear-waste-the-biggest-myth-of-nuclear-power/3939/
90
The Shidaowan reactor is only 200MW, and has been supplying commercial power since December 2023. Strange that’s it’s not termed an SMR, but I’m presuming that’s because it’s not modular..
30
Research Helium-3 and mining Moon soil to extract it and convert into liquified gas for transport and handling.
There is not much Helium-3 on Earth but because of the lack of atmosphere blocking solar radiation the Moon soil is rich with Helium-3 and all or most of the nations with space technology are working to establish mining and processing ventures on the Moon. Used in place of uranium or thorium in reactors Helium-3 is called the perfect fuel by China.
60
Helium-3 is not a substitute for thorium or uranium. Its use is for fusion reactors plus other uses such as:
-dilution refrigerators for ultra low temperatures.
-sensitive neutron detectors.
-lung imaging.
It is a rare substance, a by-product of tritium decay in nuclear reactors on earth and on the moon it comes directly from the sun. It is extremely valuable.
100
40
Liquify the He3.
How are you going to do that on the moon? To chill something you need a media to take away the heat. On Earth, a cryogenic plant uses the air as a dump for the process heat.
You should see the cooling fans at an LNG facility. Look on the roof of the main plant, nothing but massive fans and cooling tubes.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Karratha+Gas+Plant/@-20.6154622,116.7656031,253m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x2bf63d47a2e09b63:0xc305d2e020102f86!8m2!3d-20.5997069!4d116.775657!16s%2Fg%2F12hkmws69?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
40
Wind turbines of not substantial installed capacity each and therefore many are installed at each location, each location with transmission line to main transmission lines, farm land requisitioned or public land and forests, earthmoving for access roads, foundations and transmission corridors, firming back up including now “transition fuel gas” turbine generators approved recently, are a waste of land area and money, they are not cost effective and when everything is accounted for the transition RET now 82% would be an enormous burden for taxpayers and for electricity customers.
Consider now shut down NSW Liddell coal fired power station, it has/had 4 generator units of 500 MW installed capacity so combined installed capacity 2,000 MW and using AEMO performance data Capacity Factor is 95% with downtime only for repairs and maintenance.
NSW Capital Hill wind farm has 67 wind turbines and combined installed capacity of 140 MW. AEMO performance data Capacity Factor is 30-35%.
Having hundreds of wind turbines in clusters spread all over the countryside and hills makes no engineering or accounting sense, and is environmental vandalism considering the far more compact power station area needs and existing transmission lines at existing locations and all with water supply.
120
Say, didn’t some guy have a beach house on the moon?
Surely that would have had power connected to it.
Well, enough to make ice for a Margarita anyway!
Tony.
40
He used to be called a Man
20
All that cheese and the cow jumped over the Moon.
Wallace and Gromit got there once –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0qagA4_eVQ
20
Nuclear in space …
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space
20
By 2029 they say. So despite the fact that in the back half of 2025 we aren’t reliably and routinely landing manned or unmanned missions to the moon, in four years we will ramp that up, establish a moon base and fire up a reactor based power plant. Are they mad? Do they think this is the 1960s or something?
40
Maybe we can get a long extension cord!
20
Well, solar power may not be much use, perhaps they could try solar wind power. Oh …. wait!
20
If I were Trump I’d shut Nasa down, but if I were Trump I’d stop supporting genocide in Palestine and stop sending US troops to war … so I guess Nasa and its Manmade warming scam are safe.
33
If I were Trump, I’d get a different barber.
00
There is a lot of serious discussion here.
To lighten things up, my contribution is this.
Colonising space is a bad move.
It is known that when a species establishes a viable colony off their home world that the aliens who have been monitoring us will do one of two things depending on how intelligent, dangerous or stupid we are.
1. Initiate first contact and uplift us to be a member of the galactic community, or
2. Invade and subjugate us to take our resources.
I think point 2 is the most likely option; you can’t argue this because:
It is known.
Too much sci-fi?
Hope I made you smile.
30
Re Point 2, the Three Body Problem..Shshsh!
10
All it takes will be a small modular reactor (SMR) designed to be built in a factory, shipped to operational sites for installation. Heaps better than several acres of solar panel that would only function for a few hours of the limited moon day and wind mills would be totally useless. First up best dressed! #2 will get even less sunlight
00
I’m waiting for the greens to suggest their windmills on the moon.
20
The moon is not something which may be “landed upon”. There is no evidence of it being any kind of object.
As for “nuclear” things, there are NO nuclear anythings.
You have all been fooled.
It is easier to fool someone than convince them (that) they have been fooled.
00