Die NASA plant, einen Kernreaktor auf dem Mond zu bauen – ein Weltraumanwalt erklärt warum und was das Gesetz zu sagen hat
https://theconversation.com/nasa-plans-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-a-space-lawyer-explains-why-and-what-the-law-has-to-say-262773
21 Kommentare
From the article
The first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, decades later, [landing on the Moon](https://theconversation.com/returning-to-the-moon-can-benefit-commercial-military-and-political-sectors-a-space-policy-expert-explains-209300) is old news. The new race is to build there, and doing so hinges on power.
In April 2025, [China reportedly](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-led-lunar-base-include-nuclear-power-plant-moons-surface-space-official-2025-04-23/) unveiled plans to build a nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2035. This plant would support its planned [international lunar research station](https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202409/07/content_WS66dbeb9dc6d0868f4e8eab63.html). The [United States countered](https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025/08/nasa-china-space-station-duffy-directives-00492172) in August, when acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy reportedly [suggested a U.S. reactor](https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/we-want-to-get-there-first-and-claim-that-for-america-nasa-chief-explains-push-for-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-video) would be operational on the Moon by 2030.
While it might feel like a sudden sprint, this isn’t exactly breaking news. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent years quietly developing [small nuclear power systems](https://www.nasa.gov/space-technology-mission-directorate/tdm/fission-surface-power/) to power lunar bases, mining operations and long-term habitats.
[As a space lawyer](https://law.olemiss.edu/faculty-directory/michelle-hanlon/) focused on long-term human advancement into space, I see this not as an arms race but as a strategic infrastructure race. And in this case, infrastructure is influence.
A lunar nuclear reactor may sound dramatic, but its neither illegal nor unprecedented. If deployed responsibly, it could allow countries to peacefully explore the Moon, fuel their economic growth and test out technologies for deeper space missions. But building a reactor also raises critical questions about access and power.
I’d be more interested in the engineering perspective. How many moon landings would be required? How much construction equipment will be needed? How will the reactor be cooled? What about the other logistics that we take for granted on Earth?
Like “the law” has anything to do with what the U.S. government does anymore
How are u going to do that when science is being defunded and in some cases outright illegal
Should be easy with those huge budget cuts they just got.
„space lawyer“
Officially what i want to be when I grow up
If it was any other administration, this would be interesting. Now we know they want us distracted.
„If deployed responsibly.“ Well, you can rule that out.
So this is not outside the realm of possible we could probably get an LFTR reactor on the moon that would be functional but it would only last for like 5 years before the corrosion destroyed it
I did not know „space lawyer“ was a choice in career day. I shouldn’t have skipped school that day.
We are blowing up essential satellites due to cost but then looking at building a reactor on the moon?
Why do we want a nuke reactor on the moon? Let’s coal power the moon since that’s Gods country fuel source. Fucking woke liberal commies want to use nuke power to ’save the lunar environment ‚. We don’t have to worry about climate change hoax on the moon so let’s roll coal
Hey, “ Space Lawyer“. How about you stfu and release those Epstein Files.
What’s your space laws say about that?
The law? What that has to do with anything this government is doing?
If people think this sounds extreme, just remember almost every modern submarine is nuclear powered. Nuclear power can be scary but is ubiquitous on Earth.
It’ll never happen. This is the stupidest possible country to attempt this.
Your honor, I’m just a simple hyper chicken from a backwoors asteroid. But I thought we did declare the moon neutral territory.
I’ll say it. The entire ISS was 450 tones the estimated weight of a nuclear actor in an Ohio class submarine is 2700 tons. They want to put a nuclear reactor on the moon. It’s gonna cost $1 trillion to lift it.
The Law? Funny, since when has this administration cared about or followed that?
At least if the nuclear reactor on the moon becomes another Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or Fukushima, there’s no life or ecosystem out there that can be killed.
What eludes me is the purpose of having a nuclear reactor on the moon WITHOUT a colony to make use of it. And I have no idea how it’s possible to build a lunar colony while SLASHING budgets. Oh, wait, the federal government is so dysfunctional that if aliens invade Earth, we should just let them take over. There’s no way they’d do a worse job than the people already in charge.
*Space lawyer* makes me think of Harvey Birdman and Space Ghost