NASA is racing against time to guarantee the return of the United States to the Moon. Behind this rush is the dispute with China and Russia for leadership in the new space race, marked by the advancement of nuclear projects on the natural satellite and the search for a permanent presence outside the Earth. There is also a political component: President Donald Trump wants the American return to the Moon to take place during his term, transforming the act into a symbol of the resumption of US leadership in space.
In a recent interview with the broadcaster Fox NewsNASA’s acting administrator, Sean Duffy, when criticizing SpaceX’s alleged delays in delivering projects, stated that the US government can no longer depend exclusively on Elon Musk’s company to meet the schedule for the return mission to the Moon and pointed out the political issue behind the rush.
“[…] We are in a race against China. The president [Donald Trump] and I want to reach the Moon during this term”, said Duffy, when announcing that NASA will open the contract for the construction of the American base on the Moon to other private space companies, such as Blue Origin, by Jeff Bezos.
The US lunar plan
The United States’ goal is to return to the surface of the Moon by 2027, on the Artemis III mission, which will mark the first American manned landing on the satellite in more than five decades. With four astronauts and an expected duration of around 30 days, the mission is described by NASA as “one of the most complex undertakings of engineering and human ingenuity in the history of deep space exploration”. The crew will explore the region of the lunar south pole, collecting samples and data that will expand knowledge about the solar system and planet Earth itself.
By 2030, NASA plans to install a nuclear reactor at the lunar south pole, designed to guarantee continuous and independent energy for future scientific and habitable bases on the natural satellite. This step is considered essential to consolidate the Artemis Program, the agency’s main initiative to establish a permanent human presence outside Earth.
According to the BBC ea Euronewsthis American nuclear reactor should have a power of 100 kilowatts, enough to generate continuous energy in regions without sunlight. The system, a compact fission reactor type, transforms the heat generated by the division of uranium atoms into electricity, capable of sustaining missions and lunar bases for up to a decade. NASA considers the reactor essential to keep astronauts and equipment operating autonomously, ensuring the necessary support for long-duration missions.
Response to the Sino-Russian alliance
The American rush is also a direct reaction to the partnership between China and Russia, which foresees the construction of an automated nuclear power plant on the Moon by 2035, within the so-called International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) – a joint scientific base planned to also be developed on the south pole of the Moon, according to the broadcaster DW.
The ILRS is expected to operate autonomously, supplying equipment for future manned missions. China’s Chang’e-8 mission, scheduled to take place in 2028, will carry the first structural modules for the construction of the site.
The choice of the three powers for the Moon’s south pole reflects the strategic value of the region, rich in ice deposits, which can provide oxygen and rocket fuel, as well as containing rare metals and helium-3, a potential fuel for clean fusion reactors.
Infrastructure as power
The installation of nuclear reactors on the Moon represents, for the United States, a strategic step to guarantee presence and lasting power in lunar territory, amid attempts by China and Russia to impose their own rules in space.
Speaking to the American press in August, Duffy stated that “the first nation to install a reactor [nuclear] on the Moon it will be able to declare a security area that will make access difficult for other powers.”
In an article published on the website The ConversationProfessor Michelle Hanlon, an expert in Space Law at the University of Mississippi, explains that “the first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, the fight is over who builds – and building depends on energy.”
Hanlon notes in the text that the ongoing space dispute between the United States, China and Russia is a race for infrastructure – and, in her words, “infrastructure means influence.” For the professor, the country that manages to generate energy in a stable way outside the Earth will have the power to define norms, conduct and legal interpretations about how human presence should occur on the Moon.
The author notes that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits territorial claims, but allows the creation of permanent installations for peaceful purposes – which, in practice, can give functional control over strategic areas.
“Placing a reactor on the Moon is neither a declaration of war nor a claim to sovereignty, but it establishes a point of presence that others will need to bypass – legally and physically,” he wrote.
For Hanlon, the nuclear advance on the Moon opens a new phase in the race of space exploration, where the power of world powers will be demonstrated not by who plants the flag first, but by who builds and maintains the infrastructure necessary to remain.
Success of the US plan will depend on investment in Artemis
The scientific community considers nuclear energy essential to sustain human presence beyond Earth. Professor Lionel Wilson, from Lancaster University, told BBC believe that it is technically possible for the US to place a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030, “with sufficient investment”.
According to him, “there are already small reactor projects” being studied, which makes the US goal achievable – as long as the country maintains the pace of launches of the Artemis program, aimed at transporting people and equipment to the satellite.
“It all depends on there being enough launches from the Artemis program to build the infrastructure on the Moon by then,” Wilson said.