The new space race? NASA accelerates plan to put nuclear reactor on the moon

Published

3 days ago

August 6, 2025

admin

NASA is accelerating plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon, and they claim it could happen by 2030.

In a directive – a written or oral instruction issued by the US government – to NASA staff earlier this month, Sean Duffy, US transport secretary and the new interim administrator of the space agency, said it should be ready to launch a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor in five years.

Plans to get a reactor on the lunar surface are not new. The NASA website states the space agency is working on the Fission Surface Power Project to create a system capable of generating at least 40 kilowatts of power – but that is less than half of what Mr Duffy has now proposed.

He also stressed the importance of America’s space agency deploying the technology before China and Russia.

“To properly advance this critical technology, to be able to support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space, it is imperative the agency move quickly,” the directive, which was first reported on by Politico, states.

A nuclear reactor on the moon would be considered a key step towards building a permanent base for humans to live on the lunar surface.

But Mr Duffy warned that the first country to deploy a reactor “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” which he said could significantly inhibit NASA’s Artemis mission – the lunar exploration programme which aims to land astronauts back on the moon in 2027.

When quizzed about the plan on 5 August, he told reporters: “We’re in a race to the moon, in a race with China to the moon. And to have a base on the moon, we need energy.”

Why use a nuclear reactor?

Unlike solar power, which is used on the International Space Station, a small nuclear reactor can operate continuously, Dr Sungwoo Lim, a senior lecturer in space applications, exploration and instrumentation at the University of Surrey told Sky News.

This is critical for infrastructure on the moon, which spends two weeks in complete darkness as it slowly orbits the Earth.

Nuclear reactors therefore diminish the need for sunlight, and can be used to power life support, communications and other critical science instruments, even in darkness.

“In practice, this means astronauts could use a reactor to establish sustainable bases and extend exploration to places where solar energy is impractical,” Dr Lim adds, including in the moon’s permanently shadowed region, where scientists believe ice water exists.

Professor Mike Fitzpatrick, an expert in nuclear technology at Coventry University, adds that the proposal of a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor, is relatively small compared to most that are built on Earth.

To put it in real terms, it takes around three kilowatts to power the kettle in your home.

But Prof Fitzpatrick says a smaller reactor could pose as “demonstrator technology”, something small and compact that makes it easier to transport it to the moon.

“Then you can have a whole array of them,” he says.

So, what’s the catch?

While scientists agree that nuclear energy seems like the necessary way to make progress on the moon, Prof Fitzpatrick says questions still remain about safety.

“Shipping the fuel to the moon is relatively safe, because at that point it is not particularly toxic, it is the highly reactive fission products that become the issue,” he says.

“What’s going to be the strategy for long-term storage and disposal on the moon after these plants have operated for certain periods of time? The sooner those conversations are had, and you have international consensus, the less likely it is you’ll get future friction.”

Dr Lim also questioned Mr Duffy’s timescale of 2030, saying meeting the target depends heavily on the space agency’s budget.

NASA’s future funding is currently unknown after Donald Trump’s 2026 budget request sought a cut of $6bn (£4.5bn) and the termination of dozens of science programs and missions.

Over 2,000 agency employees are also set to voluntarily leave NASA in the coming months under the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” programme.

Is this the new space race?

Last year, Russia’s space agency Roscosmos said it was planning to build a lunar nuclear reactor alongside China’s National Space Administration by 2035, in order to power the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).

The collaboration was never formally announced by China but the joint plan was included in a presentation by Chinese officials in April this year, which outlined the 2028 Chang’e-8 lunar mission which aims to lay the groundwork for the ILRS.

“Duffy explicitly described it as a competition,” says Dr Lim, adding that the move towards lunar exploration signals a renewed moon or space race among major parties like China, Russia, India and the US to claim strategic lunar territory and technology.

However, Rossana Deplano a professor of international space law at the University of Leicester, says there is a lot of misunderstanding around “keep out” or safety zones, which Mr Duffy’s directive mentions.

“Safety zones are explicitly recognised in the Artemis Accords,” she says.

“They are a notification and consultation zone to be declared in advance in order to avoid harmful interference.

“They must be temporary in nature and do not establish state jurisdiction, e.g. they cannot be enforced.”

World

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

Published

8 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

Lifting sanctions on Putin for Trump meeting is a massive victory for Moscow

The location of Alaska is unexpected.

Although close to Russia geographically – less than three miles away at the narrowest point – it’s a very long way from neutral ground.

The expectation was they would meet somewhere in the middle. Saudi Arabia perhaps, or the United Arab Emirates. But no, Vladimir Putin will be travelling to Donald Trump’s backyard.

Follow latest: Zelenskyy says Ukraine will not give up land

It’ll be the first time the Russian president has visited the US since September 2015, when he spoke at the UN General Assembly. Barack Obama was in the White House. How times have changed a decade on.

The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court, so there’s no threat of arrest for Vladimir Putin.

But to allow his visit to happen, the US Treasury Department will presumably have to lift sanctions on the Kremlin leader, as it did when his investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev flew to Washington in April.

And I think that points to one reason why Putin would agree to a summit in Alaska.

Instead of imposing sanctions on Russia, as Trump had threatened in recent days, the US would be removing one. Even if only temporary, it would be hugely symbolic and a massive victory for Moscow.

The American leader might think he owns the optics – the peace-making president ordering a belligerent aggressor to travel to his home turf – but the visuals more than work for Putin too.

Shunned by the West since his invasion, this would signal an emphatic end to his international isolation.

Donald Trump has said a ceasefire deal is close. The details are still unclear but there are reports it could involve Ukraine surrendering territory, something Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always adamantly opposed.

Either way, Putin will have what he wants – the chance to carve up his neighbour without Kyiv being at the table.

And that’s another reason why Putin would agree to a summit, regardless of location. Because it represents a real possibility of achieving his goals.

It’s not just about territory for Russia. It also wants permanent neutrality for Ukraine and limits to its armed forces – part of a geopolitical strategy to prevent NATO expansion.

In recent months, despite building US pressure, Moscow has shown no intention of stopping the war until those demands are met.

It may be that Vladimir Putin thinks a summit with Donald Trump offers the best chance of securing them.

World

It’s been four years since a US president met Putin – and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Published

11 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

It's been four years since a US president met Putin - and Trump will have a lot of ice to break

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet where their countries brush shoulders.

But why Alaska and why now?

A US-Russia summit in Alaska is geography as metaphor and message.

Alaska physically bridges both countries across the polar expanse.

Follow latest: Ukraine war live updates

Choosing this location signals strategic parity – the US and Russian leaders face to face in a place where their interests literally meet.

Alaska has surged in geopolitical importance due to its untapped fossil fuels.

Trump has aggressively pushed for more control in the Arctic, plans for Greenland and oil access.

Holding talks there centres the conversation where global energy and territorial stakes are high, and the US president thrives on spectacle.

A dramatic summit in the rugged frontier of Alaska plays into his flair for the theatrical.

It is brand Trump – a stage that frames him as bold, unorthodox and in command.

It was 2021 when a US president last came face-to-face with a Russian president.

The leaders of the two countries haven’t met since Russia invaded Ukraine.

But Trump is in touch with all sides – Russia, Ukraine and European leaders – and says they all, including Putin, want “to see peace”.

He’s even talking up the potential shape of any deal and how it might involve the “swapping of territory”.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly insisted he will not concede territory annexed by Russia.

Moscow has sent the White House a list of demands in return for a ceasefire.

Trump is attempting to secure buy-in from Zelenskyy and other European leaders.

He styles himself as “peacemaker-in-chief” and claims credit for ending six wars since he returned to office 200 days ago.

There’s much ice to break if he’s to secure a coveted seventh one in Alaska.

World

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel’s plan for new operation in Gaza

Published

11 hours ago

August 9, 2025

admin

UK joins four countries in condemning Israel's plan for new operation in Gaza

The UK and four allies have criticised Israel’s decision to launch a new large-scale military operation in Gaza – warning it will “aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in the territory.

The foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, Germany, Italy and New Zealand said in a joint statement that the offensive will “endanger the lives of hostages” and “risk violating international humanitarian law”.

It comes a day after Israel’s security cabinet approved an operation to take military control of Gaza City – and concluded a full takeover of the enclave is required to end the conflict.

It marks another escalation in the war in Gaza, sparked by the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.

In their joint statement, the UK and its allies said they “strongly reject” the decision, adding: “It will endanger the lives of the hostages and further risk the mass displacement of civilians.

“The plans that the government of Israel has announced risk violating international humanitarian law. Any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law.”

The countries also called for a permanent ceasefire as “the worst-case scenario of famine is unfolding in Gaza”.

It comes as Sky News analysis has found that airdrops of aid are making little difference to Gaza’s hunger crisis, and pose serious risks to the population – with a father-of-two killed by a falling package.

Meanwhile, France, Canada, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and the United Nations all criticised Israel’s plan for a full occupation of Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “expressed his disappointment” with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s in phone call on Friday after Berlin decided it would stop selling arms to Israel.

In a post on X, the Israeli prime minister’s office added: “Instead of supporting Israel’s just war against Hamas, which carried out the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Germany is rewarding Hamas terrorism by embargoing arms to Israel.”

US ambassador hits out at Starmer

Earlier on Friday, the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, criticised Sir Keir Starmer after he said Israel’s decision to “escalate its offensive” in Gaza is “wrong”.

Mr Huckabee wrote on X: “So Israel is expected to surrender to Hamas & feed them even though Israeli hostages are being starved? Did UK surrender to Nazis and drop food to them? Ever heard of Dresden, PM Starmer? That wasn’t food you dropped. If you had been PM then UK would be speaking German!”

In another post around an hour later Mr Huckabee wrote: “How much food has Starmer and the UK sent to Gaza?

“@IsraeliPM has already sent 2 MILLION TONS into Gaza & none of it even getting to hostages.”

Sir Keir has pledged to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless the Israeli government meets a series of conditions towards ending the war in Gaza.

The UK and its allies criticised Israel as US President JD Vance and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy met at Chevening House in Kent on Friday.

Mr Vance described a “disagreement” about how the US and UK could achieve their “common objectives” in the Middle East, and said the Trump administration had “no plans to recognise a Palestinian state”.

He said: “I don’t know what it would mean to really recognise a Palestinian state given the lack of functional government there.”

Mr Vance added: “There’s a lot of common objectives here. There is some, I think, disagreement about how exactly to accomplish those common objectives, but look, it’s a tough situation.”

The UN Security Council will meet on Saturday to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

Ambassador Riyad Mansour, permanent observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations, said earlier on Friday that a number of countries would be requesting a meeting of the UN Security Council on Israel’s plans.