‘Fly Me to the Moon’ (With Nukes)

The dawn of the world’s next big space race may be near, according to some reports. “NASA declared its intent to put a nuclear reactor on the moon by the first quarter of fiscal year 2030 to support lunar exploration, provide power generation on Mars, and strengthen national security in space,” reads a NASA statement.

This urgency stems from the desire to do it before the Russians or Chinese can. Fierce competition drove the last space race to amazing heights and could do the same today. However, the United States’ recent history with space travel and nuclear reactor construction here in Georgia makes me dubious about our chances of success within that time frame. This exposes the reality that government officials need to be more realistic with the American people.

The plan to place a reactor on the moon seems like one of those big, bold projections that turns out to be nothing more than a hollow promise. President George H.W. Bush announced a plan to land humans on Mars by 2019. That never happened, and then President George W. Bush outlined plans to send humans back to the moon by 2020. President Barack Obama subsequently canceled the program.

Humans haven’t set foot on the moon since 1972—some 53 years ago—and figuring out the logistics and technology to do so again, while also building a nuclear reactor, seems daunting. In fact, it’s hard enough to do on Earth. In 2016, a conglomerate of power companies decided to build two new nuclear reactors at Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, and the project was beset with problems.

“Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported. “Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) and in 2017 (Vogtle 4), the project ran into significant construction delays and cost overruns. Georgia Power now estimates the total cost of the project to be more than $30 billion.” The public will be paying this off for decades.

Meanwhile, an effort to build two new nuclear reactors in South Carolina went so poorly that the project was abandoned. These are cautionary tales, not just for moon construction, but for building them here. Nuclear plants hold great promise, but are difficult to finish thanks to their complex nature and burdensome government regulations, although regulations—or the lack thereof—aren’t much of an impediment in space.

This aside, building a reactor on the moon will surely be much more challenging, even though the planned lunar reactor is far different than those hulking ones at Vogtle. “[NASA] wants a 100-kilowatt system, about enough to power a small neighborhood—modest for Earth but unprecedented for space,” the Wall Street Journal noted.

There is also the problem of cooling the reactor, which is generally done with large volumes of water here on Earth. A lunar reactor will not have the luxury of sitting next to a lake, but there’s a possible answer. “Large radiator panels must be built to shed heat,” the Journal added. This sounds like an easy solution, but creates further difficulties. This material, like the rest, would have to be flown to the moon, pieced together and maintained.

All of this would be massively expensive, but there’s no guarantee that NASA would receive the necessary taxpayer funds to accomplish this mission. Historically, NASA’s funding levels have been uncertain, and earmarking the cash for this endeavor might be difficult for a country buried in debt. Around 13% of the federal budget is dedicated to national debt repayment—a stinging indictment on our nation’s leadership over the years.

Despite all of this, I suppose Americans should be somewhat pleased with what kind of nuclear material NASA wants to send to space. In the late 1950s, the U.S. Air Force considered a proposal called Project A119, which would have detonated a hydrogen bomb on the moon simply to make a statement to the Soviets. Thankfully, military brass thought turning the moon into a nuclear wasteland might not be the smartest idea.

This aside, as exciting as a renewed space race sounds, if we struggled mightily to build nuclear reactors in Georgia, I’d imagine that doing so on the moon is fraught with pitfalls. Will we achieve this mission by the end of the decade? With steadfast dedication and ample competition, it is certainly possible, but it seems unlikely. It’s a shame that government officials aren’t more forthcoming about these realities.