MUMBAI, 31st Oct: The next great space race won’t be powered by sunlight alone. The United States, Russia and China are preparing to put nuclear reactors on the Moon, betting that reliable energy will unlock lunar ice mining, permanent bases and a new era of space exploration. The prize is enormous. So are the risks.

The Moon is no longer just a destination. It’s becoming a strategic battleground.

The United States and Russia, working alongside China, are developing nuclear power systems designed to support future lunar missions.

NASA announced plans in January to develop Lunar Reactor 1, a compact nuclear reactor capable of producing 20 kilowatts of electricity. The system is designed to operate independently for five years without maintenance.

The reactor will weigh less than 6,000kg and fit inside a rocket compartment measuring 3.7 metres long and 5.5 metres wide.

Russia’s Selena reactor is expected to produce 10 kilowatts of electricity. It is designed to operate for a decade without maintenance and is expected to support a Chinese-led lunar base by around 2036.

Selena will weigh approximately 1,100 to 1,300kg. That lighter design could make landing on the lunar surface easier.

The difference is straightforward. NASA is pursuing a more powerful system, while Russia is developing a lighter reactor with a longer expected operating life.

Both approaches point towards the same objective: reliable electricity on the Moon.

The Moon has a power problem.

The United States, Russia and China want to establish bases near the lunar south pole, where scientists have identified frozen water inside permanently shadowed craters.

That ice could become a critical resource. Processed water could support astronauts, provide oxygen and potentially be converted into rocket fuel.

But extracting it requires energy. Lots of it.

Nuclear reactors could power mining equipment, scientific facilities and lunar habitats. They could also provide the steady electricity needed to keep operations running through long periods of darkness.

Solar panels face a major limitation. Any given location on the Moon receives sunlight for only about half its lunar day. Some areas experience roughly two weeks without sunlight.

Batteries can store energy, but they add weight. Diesel generators would require fuel transported from Earth, making them expensive and impractical.

Simon Middleburgh, director of Bangor University’s Nuclear Futures Institute, told Al Jazeera that nuclear energy is the obvious choice for supplying a consistent flow of electricity.

He also stressed that it must be used responsibly.

Middleburgh believes three or four reactors working together could be necessary to power a lunar base and support ice mining.

The engineering challenge is not simply building a smaller nuclear reactor.

NASA’s Lunar Reactor 1 is designed to deliver 20 kilowatts, while Russia’s Selena is expected to generate 10 kilowatts.

Their operating lives also differ.

NASA’s system is designed for five years without maintenance. Selena is expected to operate for ten years.

The reactors will be transported from Earth using robotic spacecraft. These vehicles will fire their engines to achieve a slow, controlled landing on the lunar surface.

Both countries say their reactors will remain switched off until they reach the Moon.

That matters. An inactive reactor presents a different radioactive risk from one that has already begun operating.

Still, the landing itself is a major engineering challenge. A reactor must reach the surface intact, be positioned correctly and operate safely in an environment where repair work is exceptionally difficult.

Nuclear reactors in space are not entirely new.

The Soviet Union launched more than 30 nuclear fission reactors into Earth’s orbit between the late 1960s and the 1980s.

These reactors powered military radar-tracking satellites during the Cold War. Their systems converted heat from uranium fission into roughly 3 to 5 kilowatts of electricity.

The United States has also spent an estimated $20 billion on advanced space nuclear programmes over the past 70 years.

Yet it has never successfully launched a nuclear reactor into space, apart from an experimental system in 1965.

That experiment initially worked but shut down after 43 days when a non-nuclear electrical component failed. The satellite remains in space.

Previous US nuclear space projects have also stalled as budget priorities shifted.

The lesson is uncomfortable but useful. Nuclear technology may be proven on Earth, but deploying it in space introduces a different set of engineering and political challenges.

This is about more than electricity.

In December 2025, US President Donald Trump ordered NASA to develop a lunar reactor ready for launch by 2030.

China and Russia have outlined similar ambitions, with their reactor project targeting 2036.

In August, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described the competition as a race to the Moon against China.

The geopolitical stakes are growing alongside the technological ambitions.

The United States announced in September that it had deployed weapons into orbit, with officials saying they would defend American forces.

Experts believe the systems could involve communications jammers rather than weapons designed to physically strike targets.

The announcement nevertheless raised concerns about military competition in space, including the vulnerability of satellites used for GPS, communications and intelligence.

A lunar nuclear reactor may serve a peaceful purpose. But the infrastructure surrounding it could also shape which countries establish a lasting presence on the Moon.

The radioactive risks depend heavily on when an accident occurs.

Middleburgh told Al Jazeera that a launch accident involving an inactive reactor may be less dangerous than many people assume. Uranium, before it is used in a reactor, is not highly radioactive.

The situation changes after the reactor is switched on.

A running reactor falling back to Earth would present a much greater risk.

There is a historical warning. In 1978, the Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 scattered radioactive material across nearly 124,300 square kilometres of northern Canada.

The incident triggered an expensive military cleanup involving highly radioactive fragments and microscopic particles.

On the Moon, Middleburgh said, contamination from a similar accident would likely remain extremely localised.

That is reassuring, but not a reason to dismiss the danger.

The consequences of an accident would depend on the reactor’s operating condition, the nature of the failure and the location of the contamination.

Legally, no country owns the Moon.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over the Moon or any part of it. Countries can, however, retain ownership of the equipment they send there.

The treaty does not prohibit nuclear power in space.

Antonino Salmeri, director of the Lunar Policy Platform, told Al Jazeera that lunar reactors can be lawful if they comply with the treaty’s principles, including peaceful use and the avoidance of harmful contamination.

Norbert Schorghofer, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Arizona, said treaty signatories have the right to mine the lunar surface for peaceful purposes.

But there is a catch.

A country that reaches a valuable water-ice deposit first could establish a safety zone around its operations. Such a zone would not create formal territorial ownership.

Yet it could function as a practical barrier to other countries.

Nobody wants to operate inside a potentially radioactive area.

The Lunar Policy Platform has also highlighted a gap in existing liability rules. Current international frameworks were not designed to regulate long-term hazardous equipment operating on another celestial body.

If a reactor fails, who pays? Who investigates? Who decides whether another country’s operations must stop?

Those questions remain unresolved.

The Moon’s nuclear race is a logical step in space exploration. But logic alone does not guarantee a safe outcome.

Reliable power is essential if countries want to build permanent lunar bases, mine water ice and conduct long-term research. Solar energy has limitations, and transporting fuel from Earth is expensive. Nuclear power offers a practical solution.

The problem is that the technology is moving into an environment where international rules remain incomplete.

@shivendraedits