The race to establish a permanent human foothold on the Moon is heating up, and the latest contest isn’t over flag-planting or first steps—it’s about who will power the next era of lunar exploration. In recent months, China and the United States have unveiled bold plans to build nuclear reactors on the Moon, aiming to secure both scientific and geopolitical influence in a region rich with resources and strategic value.
Back in April 2025, according to The Conversation, China announced its intention to construct a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2035, a move designed to support its planned international lunar research station. The United States quickly countered. Acting NASA Administrator and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy suggested in August that a U.S. reactor would be operational on the Moon by 2030, signaling a new phase in the so-called lunar infrastructure race. The U.S. isn’t starting from scratch—NASA and the Department of Energy have quietly spent years developing small nuclear power systems for lunar bases and habitats, with the aim of supporting long-term human activity far beyond what solar panels can offer.
“As Secretary Duffy so eloquently said, we do need to go back to the moon,” former NASA astronaut Winston Scott told Newsmax on August 8, 2025. “We need to occupy the moon with a permanent human presence, and to do so requires power. The best option would be nuclear power.” Scott, a retired U.S. Navy captain and director at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, emphasized that nuclear power has been used safely for decades—not just on Earth, but in space as well. He cited the U.S. Navy’s long history of nuclear propulsion and the use of radioactive thermoelectric generators (RTGs) on satellites and deep space probes.
But why nuclear? The answer lies in the Moon’s harsh environment. As explained by NPR, the lunar surface experiences 14-day stretches of darkness, and some craters near the south pole—prime real estate for future bases due to their ice deposits—never see sunlight at all. Solar power, reliable on Earth, simply can’t provide continuous energy in these conditions. “The sun sets on the moon for two weeks,” noted space power expert Roger Myers. “You have to have another source of energy: The sun and batteries do not work. We’re going to have to have nuclear power.”
The technical challenge is significant. Nuclear reactors on the Moon will need to be compact, robust, and able to dissipate heat directly into space, since there’s no atmosphere or water to help cool them as on Earth. Bhavya Lal, former associate administrator for technology, policy and strategy at NASA, explained that these reactors will operate at higher temperatures and require large radiators to shed excess heat. The proposed U.S. lunar reactor would generate at least 100 kilowatts of electricity—enough to power 70 to 80 homes, far less than the gigawatt-scale reactors common in the U.S. but sufficient for early lunar habitats and research stations.
Building such a reactor on Earth can take longer than five years, but Scott argued that smaller, more portable units could be built here, shipped to the Moon, and assembled on-site. “Five years is ambitious, but we do need to get on with this endeavor. It’s important that we do so,” he said. The urgency is fueled by competition: both China and Russia have their own plans for lunar reactors, and there’s a growing sense in Washington that being first could shape the legal and operational norms of lunar exploration for decades to come.
The legal landscape is complex but surprisingly permissive. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major spacefaring nations, governs activity beyond Earth. It forbids territorial claims on the Moon and requires states to act with “due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.” However, as The Conversation notes, nothing in international law prohibits the peaceful use of nuclear power on the Moon. The United Nations’ 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space also recognize that nuclear energy is essential for missions where solar power falls short, setting guidelines for safety, transparency, and international consultation.
Still, the first nation to deploy a lunar reactor could gain significant influence. A reactor isn’t a flag, but it’s infrastructure—an anchor for bases, research stations, and potentially exclusive access to resources like lunar ice. “If one country places a nuclear reactor on the Moon, others must navigate around it, legally and physically,” wrote a space law expert for The Conversation. “If the reactor anchors a larger, long-term facility, it could quietly shape what countries do and how their moves are interpreted legally, on the Moon and beyond.”
That prospect has some observers worried about a new era of great-power rivalry in space. Duffy, in a directive obtained by NPR, warned that if China or Russia were to reach the Moon first, they could “potentially declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit” the U.S. from establishing its own presence. Kathryn Huff, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois and former assistant secretary for Nuclear Energy, cautioned that the U.S. should prioritize science and international collaboration over simply being first. “You have to center a lot of this work, especially in space, in the scientific and technological community rather than in a community of the military and defense,” she said. “I do hope to see that NASA’s leadership in this space will imbue the project with a sense of international collaboration with our friends and allies.”
Of course, nuclear energy brings its own risks. Launching radioactive materials into space is inherently dangerous, as accidents like the 1978 Kosmos 954 incident have shown. But as Scott pointed out, the U.S. has decades of experience launching RTG-powered spacecraft safely. “We’ve launched them over and over and over again and we’ve done so successfully and safely,” he said. The main challenge, experts agree, is ensuring that reactors are not activated until they reach a “nuclear safe orbit” well above Earth, and that end-of-life disposal plans are robust to prevent any repeat of past mishaps.
Financial and political realities may yet slow the race. Developing a lunar reactor could cost around $3 billion over five years, according to estimates cited by NPR. And while the U.S. Congress recently allocated nearly $10 billion in new funding for NASA, the agency faces budgetary uncertainty and the loss of experienced staff through early retirement programs. Meeting the ambitious 2030 target will require not just engineering prowess, but sustained political will and international cooperation.
As the world watches, the next few years will determine not just who returns to the Moon, but how humanity will live—and who will lead—on its surface. Nuclear power, once a symbol of terrestrial rivalry, may soon light the way for the next great leap in space exploration.
