Letters to the Editor: The government might want to prioritize Earth over investing in space-related pursuits
Cokinos quotes Casey Dreier of the Pasadena-based Planetary Society as saying, 'This is an extinction-level event for the Earth- and space-science communities ...' And he would probably be correct. However, right now I am more concerned with the already present extinction-level events happening to our Earth's science and its scientists. Yes, I do believe humans yearn for connection to the universe, but right now most are probably yearning for a habitable home base.
Paula Del, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: When I was about 9 years old, my father took me to an open house at the former Rockwell International plant in Downey, where we got to view parts of NASA's space shuttle. I was in awe of the idea of space travel and was told in order to pursue a career in that field, I would need to have a strong math background. As a result, math became my favorite subject. A few years later, I earned a degree in mathematics and had a rewarding career as a high school math teacher.
I often wonder about how many other children my age were inspired to pursue a career in math and science because of the work of NASA. The decision to not invest in NASA hurts economically and does not serve our interests in developing the next generation of STEM professionals.
Jason Y. Calizar, Torrance
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NASA launches second phase of moon recycling competition
Aug. 11 (UPI) -- NASA is launching the second phase of its moon recycling competition to clean up trash in space. The space agency's LunaRecycle Challenge is looking for the brightest minds to figure out a way to recycle plastics, foams and metals left behind by ongoing activity and building in space. "NASA is eager to see how reimagining these materials can be helpful to potential future planetary surface missions," said Jennifer Edmunson, acting program manager for Centennial Challenges at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. "I'm confident focusing on the most critical trash items -- and integration of the prototype and digital twin competition tracks -- will yield remarkable solutions," Edmunson added, "that could enable a sustainable human presence off-Earth and transform the future of space exploration." As the United States discusses replacing the International Space Station and placing a small nuclear reactor on the moon, the potential for increased waste in space is growing. LunaRecycle's Phase 1 competition attracted record-breaking interest with more than 1,200 registrations. Seventeen teams, from five countries and nine U.S. states, were named winners in that challenge. For Phase 2, only U.S. individuals and teams may participate and must build a physical prototype to manage a year's worth of trash. The challenge estimates a crew of four astronauts would produce more than 4,600 pounds of single-use waste to include food packaging and discarded clothing. The goal for competitors is to recycle the waste, while minimizing crew time and any hazards. Submissions for NASA's LunaRecycle milestone round, which is being administered by the University of Alabama, are open now and due January 2026. Finalists from that round will be announced in February with up to 20 finalists competing in the challenge's in-person prototype demonstrations next August. Successful solutions in both rounds could net winners cash prizes totaling $2 million. Solve the daily Crossword
Fast Company
3 hours ago
- Fast Company
NASA is putting a nuclear reactor on the moon. It could reshape space governance
The first space race was about flags and footprints. Now, decades later, landing on the moon is old news. The new race is to build there, and doing so hinges on power. In April 2025, China reportedly unveiled plans to build a nuclear power plant on the moon by 2035. This plant would support its planned international lunar research station. The United States countered in August, when acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy reportedly suggested a U.S. reactor would be operational on the moon by 2030. While it might feel like a sudden sprint, this isn't exactly breaking news. NASA and the Department of Energy have spent years quietly developing small nuclear power systems to power lunar bases, mining operations, and long-term habitats. As a space lawyer focused on long-term human advancement into space, I see this not as an arms race but as a strategic infrastructure race. And in this case, infrastructure is influence. A lunar nuclear reactor may sound dramatic, but it's neither illegal nor unprecedented. If deployed responsibly, it could allow countries to peacefully explore the moon, fuel their economic growth, and test out technologies for deeper space missions. But building a reactor also raises critical questions about access and power. The legal framework already exists Nuclear power in space radioisotope generators that use small amounts of radioactive elements—a type of nuclear fuel— to power satellites, Mars rovers, and the Voyager probes. The United Nations' 1992 Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space, a nonbinding resolution, recognizes that nuclear energy may be essential for missions where solar power is insufficient. This resolution sets guidelines for safety, transparency, and international consultation. Nothing in international law prohibits the peaceful use of nuclear power on the moon. But what matters is how countries deploy it. And the first country to succeed could shape the norms for expectations, behaviors, and legal interpretations related to lunar presence and influence. Why being first matters The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by all major spacefaring nations including the U.S., China, and Russia, governs space activity. Its Article IX requires that states act with 'due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.' That statement means if one country places a nuclear reactor on the moon, others must navigate around it, legally and physically. In effect, it draws a line on the lunar map. If the reactor anchors a larger, long-term facility, it could quietly shape what countries do and how their moves are interpreted legally, on the moon and beyond. Other articles in the Outer Space Treaty set similar boundaries on behavior, even as they encourage cooperation. They affirm that all countries have the right to freely explore and access the moon and other celestial bodies, but they explicitly prohibit territorial claims or assertions of sovereignty. At the same time, the treaty acknowledges that countries may establish installations such as bases—and with that, gain the power to limit access. While visits by other countries are encouraged as a transparency measure, they must be preceded by prior consultations. Effectively, this grants operators a degree of control over who can enter and when. Building infrastructure is not staking a territorial claim. No one can own the moon, but one country setting up a reactor could shape where and how others operate—functionally, if not legally. Infrastructure is influence where ice found in perpetually shadowed craters could fuel rockets and sustain lunar bases. These sought-after regions are scientifically vital and geopolitically sensitive, as multiple countries want to build bases or conduct research there. Building infrastructure in these areas would cement a country's ability to access the resources there and potentially exclude others from doing the same. Critics may worry about radiation risks. Even if designed for peaceful use and contained properly, reactors introduce new environmental and operational hazards, particularly in a dangerous setting such as space. But the U.N. guidelines do outline rigorous safety protocols, and following them could potentially mitigate these concerns. Why nuclear? Because solar has limits The moon has little atmosphere and experiences 14-day stretches of darkness. In some shadowed craters, where ice is likely to be found, sunlight never reaches the surface at all. These issues make solar energy unreliable, if not impossible, in some of the most critical regions. A small lunar reactor could operate continuously for a decade or more, powering habitats, rovers, 3D printers, and life-support systems. Nuclear power could be the linchpin for long-term human activity. And it's not just about the Moon—developing this capability is essential for missions to Mars, where solar power is even more constrained. A call for governance, not alarm The United States has an opportunity to lead not just in technology but in governance. If it commits to sharing its plans publicly, following Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirming a commitment to peaceful use and international participation, it will encourage other countries to do the same. The future of the moon won't be determined by who plants the most flags. It will be determined by who builds what, and how. Nuclear power may be essential for that future. Building transparently and in line with international guidelines would allow countries to more safely realize that future. A reactor on the moon isn't a territorial claim or a declaration of war. But it is infrastructure. And infrastructure will be how countries display power—of all kinds—in the next era of space exploration. Michelle L.D. Hanlon is a professor of air and space law at the University of Mississippi. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
Race to build nuclear reactor on moon raises galaxy of legal questions
Accelerated plans announced by NASA this month for the United States to put a nuclear reactor on the moon ahead of its geopolitical rivals would break new ground — not just on the lunar surface, but in the realm of space law. The vastness of space is governed by long-standing legal frameworks, parts of which have yet to be tested. NASA's efforts in that realm raise thorny questions around those rules, and the possibility for conflict as countries vie for a stepping stone on the path to Mars and beyond, some experts say. Earlier this month, Sean P. Duffy, the acting administrator of NASA and the U.S. transportation secretary, asked NASA to accelerate efforts to place a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030. The reactor technology will 'support a future lunar economy, high power energy generation on Mars, and to strengthen our national security in space,' Duffy wrote in a directive first reported by Politico. The NASA chief cited growing pressure from China and Russia as a reason for urgency on the project. Since 2024, both countries have repeatedly affirmed their plan to jointly install a reactor on the moon by the mid-2030s. In his directive, Duffy wrote that the first country to place a nuclear energy source on the moon 'could declare a keep-out zone.' Although placing a nuclear reactor on the moon is not a new concept or a shocking leap for NASA — and the request for proposals calls for the construction of a rather small reactor — Duffy's framing of the move as relating to geopolitics and control raised questions among legal experts. 'There's a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,' Duffy said in the news conference Tuesday. 'We want to get there first and claim that for America.' The United States' lunar activity is largely governed by the Outer Space Treaty, a legally binding agreement signed by all major moon faring nations in 1967, and the Artemis Accords, a set of nonbinding principles designed to guide civil space exploration launched in 2020. China and Russia are not signatories to the latter. Michelle Hanlon, the executive director for the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, said that certain clauses of the Outer Space Treaty have unintentionally created a first mover advantage for placing an energy source on the moon. Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty says that nations have to conduct activities with 'due regard' for the activities of others, she said, adding that Article 12 outlines the need for state to ask permission to work in an area where another nation has an installation. 'Whoever gets there first has this implicit greater right to exclude than anybody else,' Hanlon said. 'This raises a question of what exactly 'due regard' means.' Neither the treaty nor the accords mention a 'keep-out zone.' In fact, the treaty prohibits all nations from claiming territory on the moon or any celestial bodies. The accords, meanwhile, outline a 'safety zone' — areas where nations can conduct space operations with the assurance that their personnel and equipment will be safe from other nations. The size, scope and duration of the safety zones are left vague, however. 'The only practical and legal provision is that if you land on a particular spot, then the Russians or whomever else would not be entitled to land so closely as to prevent an actual operating risk,' said Frans von der Dunk, a professor of space law at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. If a nation claims more than a few kilometers as a 'safety zone,' other countries might begin to suspect that they aren't motivated by a desire for security but are instead using it as a 'sort of veiled approach to say everyone keeps out,' said von der Dunk. He added that it is too early to assess the proper size of a lunar safety zone, given how little is known about NASA's plans. The intention of the Outer Space Treaty, according to Erika Nesvold, an astrophysicist and author of 'Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space,' was to prevent misunderstandings and conflicts and accidents — not to help people 'looking to get a foothold for their nation's government or profit for their companies.' China is committed to 'the peaceful use of outer space,' said Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China's embassy in Washington. 'China has no intention to engage in a space race, nor do we seek so-called edge in outer space.' Duffy's team forwarded The Washington Post's request for comment to NASA, which said in a statement that the nuclear reactor plans are meant to 'further advance U.S. competition and lunar surface leadership.' Bethany Stevens, a spokeswoman for the agency, said NASA would share additional details about the plans in the future. NASA has been eyeing areas around the moon's southern pole for science and exploration. There, the sun hovers below or just above the horizon in some parts, with looming mountains casting long shadows over the surface. Deep craters are expected to hold frozen water, an extremely valuable commodity in space. In his Tuesday news conference, Duffy pointed to the availability of ice and sunlight as motivating the push to 'claim' space on the moon. Even in sunlit regions of the South Pole area, solar panels would provide energy for only half the month because a night on the moon lasts roughly two weeks. Hanlon said that finding a nonsolar source of energy for rovers or even an eventual permanent human presence on the moon would be 'the right next step' for long-term lunar exploration efforts. 'We can't ship propane to the moon for energy,' she said. Though few details exist about the aim of the project, the request for proposals issued by Duffy calls on commercial companies to outline plans to build a reactor that could generate at least 100 kilowatts of power. 'That's the same amount of energy a 2,000-square foot home uses every 3½ days,' Duffy said Tuesday, describing the project's scale. 'We are not talking about massive technology.' Space experts are concerned that the urgency surrounding Artemis, NASA's return-to-the-moon program, is papering over a range of lunar legal issues. Nesvold, the astrophysicist, said there are concerns that racing to the moon could lead to a 'gold rush' mentality, conflicts over access to lunar resources, environmental losses and labor exploitation that would especially stem from the involvement of profit-motivated private companies mining on the moon. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization in Washington, said 'undue speed is not a friend of nuclear power development,' adding that rushing the process could result in 'safety incidents and reliability issues.' Lyman also raised questions about what might be done with radioactive waste on the moon. 'That type of waste could persist for hundreds of years,' Lyman said. 'It's going to be a mess frankly.'
