Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base

The Hill

9 hours ago

Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics.
The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately.
As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base.
It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion.
Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China.
While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory.
Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise.
Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control.
The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth.
The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting.
Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.'
Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.'
Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis.
In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done.
The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten.
The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world.
Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.