The US, Russia and China are racing to put nuclear reactors on the Moon

The next race to the Moon will not be won by whoever plants a flag first. It will be won by whoever switches on a power station first. The United States, Russia and China are all working on small nuclear reactors designed to sit on the lunar surface, and their timetables are only a few years apart.

In January 2026, NASA and the United States Department of Energy announced plans to develop a nuclear reactor on the Moon by the end of 2030. Russia, working with China, aims to do the same by about 2036, to power a joint lunar research station. The prize is not the reactor itself. It is the frozen water buried in the permanently dark craters near the Moon’s south pole.

At a glance

What happened: NASA announced in January 2026 that it would develop a lunar surface nuclear reactor ready for launch by 2030, and in late August it began seeking contractors to build the first unit, Lunar Reactor-1. Russia and China are developing their own reactor, called Selena, to power their planned International Lunar Research Station by about 2036.

Why it matters: A permanent Moon base cannot run on sunlight alone, because the lunar night lasts about two weeks. Nuclear power is the only proven way to keep a base running through the dark. Whoever powers the south pole first will also shape the rules for everyone who comes after.

What happens next: Work continues on designs, fuel and safety approvals for the American reactor, while Russia and China press on with Selena. The hardest tests will not be the nuclear physics, experts say, but the launch, the landing and setting the system up safely on the lunar surface.

Why the Moon needs nuclear power

Every plan for a lasting human presence on the Moon runs into the same problem: the night. The Sun shines on any one spot for about two weeks, then disappears for about two weeks, so solar panels go dark for half of every month. Batteries big enough to bridge that gap would be enormously heavy to launch from Earth.

That matters most at the south pole, because that is where the water is. The permanently shadowed craters near the pole have not seen sunlight for millions of years, and they are thought to hold large amounts of water ice. Melted, it could give astronauts drinking water; split into oxygen and hydrogen, it could give them air to breathe and rocket fuel.

The south pole is also one of the harshest places in the solar system, with days above 120 degrees Celsius, nights below minus 170 degrees, and shadowed craters colder than minus 240 degrees.

A small fission reactor splits uranium atoms to release heat, turns that heat into electricity, and keeps doing it day and night for years. Simon Middleburgh, director of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University, told Al Jazeera that solar power is too limited for a Moon base’s steady energy needs, while batteries and diesel are too costly to launch from Earth. Nuclear energy, he said, is the “obvious choice”, adding that it must be used “responsibly”. He said three or four reactors working together would likely be needed to power a base and mine lunar ice.

The American plan: Lunar Reactor-1

NASA’s first lunar reactor is called Lunar Reactor-1. It is designed to produce 20 kilowatts of electricity, roughly enough to power a handful of homes on Earth, and to run on its own for five years without maintenance. It would weigh under 6,000 kilograms and fit inside a rocket compartment measuring 3.7 metres long by 5.5 metres wide.

The timetable comes from the top. In a December 2025 executive order, US President Donald Trump ordered NASA to build a lunar reactor ready to launch by 2030. The following month, NASA and the Department of Energy announced their joint plan to develop, fuel and prepare the reactor. In late August 2026, NASA’s Glenn Research Center began seeking contractors to prepare the system, and the agency expects Lunar Reactor-1 to be ready for launch by December 2030.

That is a deliberately tight schedule for a machine that has never been built. In August 2026, Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, said the United States is in a “race to the moon, in a race with China”. The fear in Washington is that if China and Russia get there first, they will set the practical terms for how the south pole is used.

There is reason to be cautious. The United States has spent about 20 billion dollars on advanced space nuclear programmes over 70 years, but previous attempts stalled when budgets shifted. Middleburgh said 2030 is likely realistic for building the reactor, but the harder part will be launch approvals, landing and setting it up safely.

The Russian and Chinese plan: Selena

Russia and China are taking a different route to the same place. Their reactor is called Selena. It is expected to produce up to 10 kilowatts of electricity, about half the output of the American design, but to run for a decade without maintenance, twice as long. It is also expected to be far lighter, weighing about 1,100 to 1,300 kilograms, which should make for an easier and softer landing.

Selena is being built to power the International Lunar Research Station, the joint project China is leading with Russia. China included a nuclear power plant in a presentation of the station in December 2025, and the reactor is expected to be ready by about 2036, roughly six years behind the American schedule but longer-lived and lighter.

The partnership matters because the two countries bring different strengths: Russia has the deepest history of flying nuclear reactors in space, while China has the most active lunar landing programme of any country today. Together they offer an alternative to the American-led Artemis programme.

None of these reactors exists yet. Both are plans with dates attached, not hardware on a launch pad. Schedules in spaceflight slip often, and a reactor that must work for years with no maintenance, in temperatures colder than anywhere on Earth, is one of the hardest machines ever attempted.

A short history of reactors in space

Nuclear reactors have been placed in outer space before, but the record is mixed, and one accident in particular still shapes the debate.

The Soviet Union launched more than 30 nuclear fission reactors into orbit around Earth between the late 1960s and the 1980s, to power radar-tracking spy satellites during the Cold War. The small reactors, weighing about 1,000 kilograms each, produced 3 to 5 kilowatts of electricity. They are no longer working, and no other country has sent nuclear reactors into space since.

The most famous failure came in 1978, when a Soviet satellite carrying a reactor, Kosmos 954, fell out of orbit and scattered radioactive material across nearly 124,300 square kilometres of northern Canada, forcing an expensive military cleanup.

The United States has a shorter record: it has never successfully launched a nuclear reactor into space since a 1965 experiment to test whether nuclear energy could power a satellite. It worked at first but shut down after just 43 days, when a non-nuclear electrical part broke down. The satellite is still in orbit today.

The lesson both sides draw is the same: keep the reactor switched off until it is safely on the Moon. Both the United States and Russia say they would do that, to keep radioactive risk at a minimum during launch and the journey.

What could go wrong?

Middleburgh told Al Jazeera that an accident during the launch of a reactor would be less frightening than it sounds, because uranium alone, before it is used in a reactor, is not very radioactive. The risk is much bigger if a running reactor falls back onto Earth, as Kosmos 954 did in 1978.

On the Moon itself, the picture is different. If a reactor were damaged there, Middleburgh said, any contaminated area would be “extremely localised”. There is no air or water on the Moon to carry radioactive particles far, and no one lives downwind. That does not make an accident harmless. It would wreck the reactor, contaminate the ground around it, and could shut down mining or base operations in that area for a long time.

Other risks have nothing to do with radiation. Landing a machine weighing several tonnes gently, in exactly the right place, is hard; setting it up to run for years with no one to repair it is harder. Lunar dust is sharp, sticky and electrically charged, and eats through seals, gears, motors and spacesuits. Any of these could end a reactor’s working life early, and there is no repair shop on the Moon.

Who owns the Moon, and who is responsible?

Legally, no one owns the Moon. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans countries from claiming the Moon or any part of it, although they own the equipment they send there. The treaty does not ban nuclear power in space. That leaves a gap: the reactors are legal, but the rules about how they are used are thin.

Antonino Salmeri, director of the Lunar Policy Platform, told Al Jazeera a reactor can be lawful if it follows the treaty’s principles, including peaceful use and avoiding harmful contamination. Norbert Schorghofer, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Arizona, said all signatories “have the right to mine the lunar surface as long as it is for peaceful purposes”.

The harder question is what happens when the first reactor arrives at the best ice. Whichever country’s reactor gets to the most valuable water ice first could claim a “safety zone” around it. That would not be a land claim, and Salmeri said declaring one creates no territorial rights. But in practice it could work like one, because a safety zone around a nuclear reactor shuts others out anyway: nobody wants to enter a radioactive area.

A report from the Lunar Policy Platform, released in October 2026, points to another problem: who is responsible if something goes wrong? The report says existing liability rules have not been designed to regulate long-term hazardous equipment on another celestial body. On the Moon, those rules are unclear, and no court obviously has the authority to settle a dispute about a reactor hundreds of thousands of kilometres away.

Why the rush?

The rush is about geopolitics as much as engineering. The Moon is where the rules of the next era of space activity will be decided, and the countries that arrive first with working infrastructure will have the strongest voice in writing them.

The military background is impossible to ignore. In September 2026, the United States announced it had deployed weapons into orbit, which officials said would defend US forces. Washington gave no details, but experts say they are likely space-based communications jammers rather than weapons that launch strikes. A reactor on the Moon is not a weapon, but it sits inside the same competition over who controls the high ground beyond Earth.

The Moon is also a stepping stone. Josef Aschbacher, the director general of the European Space Agency, has said the Moon is critical because it will make going further, to Mars and beyond, much easier. A base that can make its own fuel from lunar ice could send missions deeper into the solar system.

What to watch next

The next year will show whether the 2030 target is serious. Watch for contracts to build Lunar Reactor-1, ground tests of the reactor and its fuel, and the safety and launch approvals needed before anything radioactive leaves Earth.

Selena’s progress will be harder to follow from outside, but work on the International Lunar Research Station will give clues about whether the 2036 date is realistic. Finally, watch for the rules. If countries begin negotiating safety zones, liability and shared use of the south pole before the reactors arrive, the Moon could get a legal framework in time. If they do not, the first reactor to switch on will set the precedent.

Frequently asked questions

Why does the Moon need a nuclear reactor at all?

Because the lunar night lasts about two weeks, solar panels go dark for half of every month. A Moon base needs continuous power for heating, life support and mining, and a small fission reactor can provide it day and night, for years without refuelling.

What is Lunar Reactor-1?

It is NASA’s first planned lunar reactor. It is designed to produce 20 kilowatts of electricity, run on its own for five years without maintenance, weigh under 6,000 kilograms, and be ready for launch by December 2030.

What is Selena?

Selena is the reactor Russia is building with China to power their planned International Lunar Research Station. It is expected to produce up to 10 kilowatts, run for a decade without maintenance, weigh about 1,100 to 1,300 kilograms, and be ready by about 2036.

Has a nuclear reactor ever been used in space before?

Yes. The Soviet Union launched more than 30 small fission reactors into Earth orbit between the late 1960s and the 1980s to power spy satellites. The United States flew one experimental reactor in 1965, which shut down after 43 days. No reactor has ever operated on the surface of the Moon.

Is it legal to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?

Yes, under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which bans countries from claiming the Moon but does not ban nuclear power in space. Experts say a reactor is lawful if it is used peacefully and avoids harmful contamination. But the rules on safety zones and who pays if something goes wrong are unclear.

Conclusion

The race to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon is real, and it is moving fast. The United States wants one ready to launch by 2030. Russia and China want theirs running by about 2036. Both sides say the reactors will stay switched off until they reach the Moon, and both say the goal is peaceful: power for bases, and power for mining the water ice that could sustain human life beyond Earth.

The technology is the easier part. The harder parts are landing the machine safely, keeping it running for years with no one to fix it, and agreeing on the rules before the first reactor switches on.

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.

Sources

• https://www.europesays.com/russia/82875/ (Al Jazeera, via EuropeSays, 31 Oct 2026)
• https://www.powerinfotoday.com/nuclear-energy/us-russia-and-china-compete-in-a-lunar-nuclear-reactor-race/ (Power Info Today, 6 Oct 2026)
• https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/12/1145760/imagining-building-cities-on-the-moon/ (MIT Technology Review, 12 Oct 2026)