The White House has now ordered federal agencies to get a nuclear reactor ready to power the Moon by 2030, turning a long-discussed concept into formal national policy. NASA and the Department of Energy are moving in lockstep, building on a joint effort to field a fission surface power system under Artemis that could later support Mars missions. The plan traces back to 2022, when NASA and DOE awarded three companies Phase 1 contracts worth about 5 million dollars each to design a 40-kilowatt-class lunar reactor, and it is now racing a political clock.
The Push for Lunar Nuclear Power
The current U.S. policy comes from a White House executive order that directs the “near-term utilization of space nuclear power” and explicitly calls for nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit. In that order, the administration instructs agencies to have a lunar surface reactor “ready for launch by 2030,” tying the technology directly to American space superiority and setting a clear deadline for deployment on the Moon. The rationale is straightforward: a fission system can provide steady electricity regardless of sunlight or local temperature, something solar arrays alone cannot guarantee on a world with long nights and deep shadows.
Major context reporting has framed this directive as a way for the White House to lock in a strategic lead just as other nations pursue their own lunar bases. Analysts point out that by making a lunar reactor part of national policy, the administration has effectively turned what was once a NASA technology experiment into a flagship infrastructure project for Artemis. That political backing, combined with a hard 2030 target, is now driving schedules across NASA and DOE.
NASA and DOE’s Joint Commitment
NASA has formally announced that it is partnering with the Department of Energy to develop a fission surface power system for the Moon under Artemis, with an explicit goal of having a lunar surface reactor operating by 2030. In its statement, NASA ties the reactor to broader plans for a sustained presence on the Moon and future Mars missions, emphasizing that a compact fission plant can deliver continuous power independent of sunlight and extreme temperature swings. Senior NASA officials describe the effort as essential for running habitats, science instruments, and resource extraction systems in locations where solar panels would struggle.
The Department of Energy has echoed that framing, calling the project a renewed commitment under a formal MOU that aligns the two agencies. DOE’s announcement highlights expected capabilities such as years of operation without refueling and reliable power regardless of environmental conditions, positioning the lunar reactor as a testbed for future deep-space systems. A senior DOE leader characterizes the collaboration as a way to bring decades of terrestrial nuclear experience to bear on the unique constraints of spaceflight and lunar surface operations.
Technical Foundations from Phase 1
The current plan rests on work that began in 2022, when NASA selected three Phase 1 design concepts for a 40-kilowatt-class fission surface power system intended to last at least 10 years on the Moon. According to NASA, each concept received a contract valued at about 5 million dollars through DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, or INL, to flesh out an integrated system that could be delivered to the lunar surface. That early round focused on high-level architecture and risk reduction rather than flight hardware, but it set hard performance targets that now define the program.
A later project status update from NASA describes the Phase 1 scope in more detail, covering the reactor itself, power conversion equipment, heat rejection systems, and power management and distribution. The concepts also had to include cost estimates, schedules, and safety and shielding approaches that would allow the reactor to operate for a decade without human intervention. Those studies are now feeding into the next acquisition phase, shaping the technical requirements that industry will have to meet to turn the paper designs into a working lunar plant.
Procurement and Industry Engagement
To move from concepts to hardware, NASA is using an acquisition pathway built around an Announcement for Partnership Proposals, or AFPP, that invites companies to team with the agency on detailed design and eventual deployment. NASA has described how it released initial AFPP materials and held an industry day and requests for information to gather feedback from potential partners. That early engagement is meant to flush out technical and programmatic concerns before NASA locks in the final requirements.
Program updates from NASA Glenn, which serves as the central hub for the Fission Surface Power System effort, show how the process has evolved. Glenn notes that a second draft AFPP was posted on Dec. 5 and that the final AFPP is anticipated for early 2026, giving companies a clear view of the timeline. The center also manages a technical library and controlled documents that qualified industry teams can access, providing canonical design data and safety guidance that will underpin any future contract awards.
Why Fission Matters for the Moon
NASA’s own explainers on lunar power needs make the case that fission is not just a nice-to-have but a practical answer to the Moon’s harsh environment. A typical lunar day lasts about two Earth weeks, followed by roughly 14 days of darkness, which means solar arrays must either be massively oversized with large batteries or shut down for long stretches. As NASA-focused coverage explains, a compact fission reactor can keep producing electricity through those long nights and in permanently shadowed regions where sunlight never reaches.
That capability fits directly into Artemis goals for a sustainable presence and for preparing crews and systems for Mars. Reporting that situates the NASA and DOE announcements within the broader Artemis program notes that NASA leaders see lunar nuclear power as a way to support bases at the poles, where water ice is trapped in cold, dark craters. Continuous power could support mining that ice for life support and fuel, while also running scientific instruments and communications gear that cannot tolerate two-week blackouts.
Challenges and Safety Considerations
Even with strong political backing, the path to a lunar reactor is not guaranteed to be smooth. Regulatory and safety requirements add complexity, particularly where DOE’s nuclear rules intersect with spaceflight. The department’s guidance on its nuclear safety rule, 10 CFR Part 830, explains how safety bases and technical positions are managed for nuclear facilities, and those concepts are being adapted through the NASA and DOE MOU for space nuclear systems. That means the lunar reactor must not only work on the Moon but also meet stringent safety expectations during fabrication, testing, and launch from Earth.
Timeline and cost are also open questions. NASA’s Phase 1 documents identify the need for decade-long operation and robust shielding, but they leave many details, including full lifecycle cost, to be resolved in later phases. Coverage that synthesizes the agency statements notes that the 5 million dollar Phase 1 awards are only a small fraction of what a full system will require, and that regulatory reviews could delay the schedule set by the executive order. For now, officials present the 2030 target as achievable, but they acknowledge that design, safety authorization, and launch approval will all have to line up for the plan to stay on track.
Looking Ahead to 2030 and Beyond
NASA’s announcement of the joint effort with DOE explicitly ties the 2030 lunar surface reactor to future Mars exploration, treating the Moon as a proving ground for nuclear systems that could one day power human outposts on the Red Planet. In that framing, a successful fission surface power system under Artemis would demonstrate that small reactors can be delivered, started up, and operated remotely for a decade or more. NASA officials quoted in coverage of the plan suggest that, if Phase 2 succeeds, the same basic architecture could be scaled or replicated for other worlds.
Outside analysts have compared the lunar fission push with parallel efforts in advanced nuclear technologies, including fusion, which remains far less mature. One report on broader nuclear trends notes that while some indicators suggest fusion may progress faster than expected, fission is the only space-ready option for the near term. Public explainers from outlets that track the Artemis program point out that if the U.S. can field a working reactor on the Moon by 2030, as the NASA and DOE plan envisions, it would mark a shift from short, solar-powered sorties to a power infrastructure model more like a small town. That, in turn, could shape how future lunar and Martian settlements are designed, even as the underlying technology continues to evolve.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
