Professor Michael Fitzpatrick, a nuclear technology expert at Coventry University, is discussing NASA’s plans to deploy a small reactor on the moon by 2030, ensuring the reliable strength of its lunar habitat and preparing for a Mars exploration.
From the Apollo era to a new push for today’s lunar exploration, American space ambitions have entered a bold new chapter.
Just three days away by spacecraft, the moon is set to serve as a proof of advanced space technology and both as a strategic launch point for future Mars missions. To create a sustainable base there, you need to overcome some of the harshest conditions in the solar system, from extreme temperature swings to two-week nights without sunlight.
Reliable 24-hour energy is needed to meet these challenges, and in the US, the development of lunar reactors is emerging as a game-changing solution.
Against the backdrop of technical ambitions and extreme moon challenges, Professor Fitzpatrick discusses the US plan to develop nuclear reactors on the moon and why it is essential to maintaining long-term human presence.
Why do you think NASA and the US are prioritizing the development of the lunar reactor?
Essentially, if you have facilities on the moon, in a sense, what is equivalent to the International Space Station (ISS) (where people can live and work for a long period of time) is a nuclear reactor really the only practical source of power.
There is no wind in the moon. You can use solar power, but the problem is that there is a very long darkness on the moon. Using solar to deal with it requires a huge amount of battery storage and quickly becomes unfeasible.
If you really need a reliable source of energy, you need a nuclear reactor. So, they prioritize it now, so the technology will be prepared and in place by the end of the decade.
So, in your expert opinion, should it be nuclear for extreme moon conditions?
Yes, that’s right. At this point, it is the only technical option available.
Looking back at the Apollo mission, they were staying very short with limited power needs and used chemical fuel cells. It’s a viable technology, but the problem is that you need to keep fueling and refilling it.
Soon, it adds a risk – if you have a problem with your cargo or you can’t access the fuel at any time, you will lose power. Nuclear power provides a more reliable source of energy. This is what you need for something that must operate safely over the long term.
Are there any existing nuclear systems or prototypes that can be adapted to the moon, or do they need a whole new technology?
No new technology is needed. We have been developing nuclear technology for over half a century, and they have been commercially deployed for a long time.
In addition to large-scale commercial reactors, small-scale reactors were similarly concepts. So this is not actually “new” technology, but rather taking existing designs and evolving them for this particular application.
From a technical standpoint, what are the biggest engineering or logistical challenges?
I think the main challenge is to design what can be built to ship monthly, and what can be assembled and connected onsite as easily and safely as possible.
On the ground, when you build a nuclear reactor, it stays in place. that’s it. On the moon, it must be built and shipped to either a single unit or a module rocket.
That’s a big difference from what we’re doing now, and that’s where a lot of design focus has to go.
How dangerous is that? Do you think the reactor will be transported separately from the crew?
It’s not particularly dangerous in practice. People think of reactors and fuel as dangerous, but the danger arises from radioactive fission products and they do not exist until the reactor starts to work.
When you ship fuel, it is still relatively benign, no matter what form of uranium form. Yes, it is slightly radioactive, but to make it seem, if you eat it (I don’t recommend), you will die of heavy metal toxicity before radiation poisoning.
If there is a launch accident and everything is destroyed, it is not a nuclear accident. It’s not a nuclear explosion, it just spreads the chemical hazardous uranium dust. From that point of view, transporting it to the moon is not a major risk.
So does it sound less dangerous than it first?
Yes, exactly. At the time of transport, it is not a working nuclear reactor. It is part of a machine with some uranium inside.
Only when it becomes “critical” means that the moderators will be placed and the chain reaction will begin – will it become a working nuclear reactor that produces fission products? Previously, it was a rather inert system with low radioactivity. You and I were able to sit across the table from there without any special danger.
We haven’t stepped on the moon since the 1970s. The goal is to get this into operation by 2030. Is that timeline ambitious, realistic, or overly optimistic?
I think it’s possible to achieve. Considering that it is now 2025, it is ambitious, but definitely possible.
The planned reactor is small, with approximately 100 kilowatts of electricity. For comparison, commercial nuclear reactors on Earth produce more than 1,000 times the power.
Its small scale does not deal with huge thermal loads or complex support systems, making it relatively easy to design and build. The design is kept simple and has a simple interface to the system that supplies power.
It needs to move quickly, but designs for small nuclear reactors of this kind have been around for some time, especially as nuclear power generation began to show new interest. There are designs ranging from this size or small to gigawatt scale plants.
So we don’t start with blank paper. The idea is already there.
You said it was a small nuclear reactor. How much mission can it be maintained and will capacity increase over time?
To provide a comparison, the UK Sizewell C or Hinkley Point C could power around 6 million homes. A 100-kilowatt reactor only supplies power to fairly large streets or small neighborhoods. All of the equivalents of almost 30 kettles are turned on at once.
It’s small. However, since it is used together with battery storage, it averages power usage to smooth out the peaks and troughs.
On the first moon base that charges dozens of people, running equipment, and perhaps a rover, one unit is fine. Over time, as the base grows, add more units. When older people reach the end of their lives, you will replace them.
No one suggests you install just one and leave it alone. One is the starting point for scalable power systems.
Other countries also look at the villages of the moon. Is this the beginning of a new space race?
I think it’s in a way. Many countries see opportunities to not only access resources we don’t currently have, but also reduce the risk of having all humanity on one planet. Each year, more asteroids are identified that can cause catastrophic damage.
Hopefully, this “space race” will become more supportive than it has been. The ISS is a great example of successful collaboration in space. Ideally, it would make sense to advance technology as long as the end result benefits everyone, and there would be a mix of healthy competitive collaborations.
If successful, could this technology be useful for future missions such as Mars?
Absolutely – in fact, this is the first step you need.
With these technologies on the moon getting much closer, you can see what works and what doesn’t in a relatively short time. This allows for quick refinement before attempting a longer mission to Mars.
It is worth remembering that nuclear power is already used in space in much smaller systems, primarily to generate heat for spacecraft equipment. The project is based on proven technology, but will expand to support permanent human existence.
Source link
