r/ArtemisProgram • u/Donindacula • 17d ago
Discussion How will the MoonBase be powered.
NASA has plans to put a nuclear power plant on the moon by about 2030. Will that be necessary? Since Artemis will be landing on the high always sunlit areas, wouldn’t solar be the most likely first source of power. And maybe the future source too.
Nuclear will certainly be needed in the northern latitudes where the sun sets for days at a time.
Solar or nuclear or someday both?
13
u/nsfbr11 17d ago
If you look at the latest Nextstep 3 appendix you will see that NASA is looking for companies to start working on power distribution. I believe a good working assumption is that solar will the the primary generation method for over a decade. It may be the only one for a long time
While it is true that there are a few perfect locations that are almost always illuminated, the more logical approach is a mini grid where some fraction of the power towers are always in the sun and the grid moves electric power around.
The current plans are for 120VDC for local distribution and 3-ph AC at 3kV and 1kHz.
3
17d ago
[deleted]
3
u/nsfbr11 17d ago
Or, just hear me out, totally new tech will have delays. And thus solar.
Nukes will eventually be needed. Not for phase 1, 2, or currently scheduled phase 3.
3
17d ago
[deleted]
2
u/nsfbr11 17d ago
So you think ground tests are the same as putting things onto the South Pole of the moon. Okay. I wonder why all the things that are being developed aren’t just thrown up there. I mean, it is old technology just put it up there. Should work fine.
Yes, I know all about the reactor and Stirling engines. I also know about better generator technologies that can also work. Can work is not the same as working. So yes, color me skeptical if that keeps on schedule and works great at the first go.
7
u/literalsupport 17d ago
Don’t anybody hold their breath for a nuclear reactor or much else on the moon by 2030…
7
u/mitzi_mozzerella 17d ago
I think we can get at least cargo on the moon by '30, I'm not sure about boots by '28, but I'm confident cargo landers can get stuff there.
3
u/Reasonable-Start2961 17d ago
I think that’s extremely ambitious, given the payload you’re talking about.
3
u/ParodyGuyUSA 17d ago
Probably both-and, solar and nuclear. Solar initially while we're assembling the base, and nuclear thereafter.
Solar just isn't very practical for a permanent moon base. You'd need massive batteries to store enough energy to power a base through lunar nights.
I've read that a 40Kw fission rector should be all it takes, but they're aiming at 100Kw for growth and extra ad hoc capacity for construction/expansion needs.
2
u/seanflyon 17d ago
That is correct for almost all of the moon, but high points at the poles have constant sunlight. In the planed location for the lunar base, solar would not need massive batteries because the panels would not have a lunar night.
3
u/ParodyGuyUSA 17d ago
Ah, yes, thanks. Have we committed to building on those high points? That seems a dicey proposition.
Or perhaps just the solar panels themselves need to be elevated, e.g. on towers (assuming natural elevations would be tough to build on)?
It'll be interesting to see how much mass has to be launched up there to build the infrastructure you need for solar versus nuclear. I assume it would actually be less mass for nuclear, if we're talking equivalent levels of power generation. But I imagine all of that would be on cargo flights and not manned missions, so we could pre-stage most of that before any crew stepped foot on the Moon.
There's also the possibility of cracking water to power fuel cells, but it takes so much energy to crack water in the first place, I assume they'll have to start with either solar or nuclear before they can do that at scale.
2
u/seanflyon 17d ago
That is my understanding of the current plan, and yes elevating the panels let's you pick a location that is not as high.
Yeah, that mass comparison would be very interesting. My guess is that solar would win, but I don't really know.
I am not particularly optimistic about fuel cells.
3
u/thebigjake3 17d ago
Solar and small modular reactor (SMR)'s are the best nuclear option.
You can easily fit some reactors within the fairings and transport the fuel separately two trips for a great power source for the life of the base (20-50 years)if no impact issues.
3
2
u/AsparagusProper158 17d ago
Nasa will probably not FIRST land on the southpole the terrain is simply to bad and uneven. So it will probably be solar until they find a decend spot maybe malapart is flat enough. That said they will need fission eatly both for electricity as a heat source on the moon. Honnestly the big questions are can humans survive longtime under lunar gravity. Can we store things longterm on the moon and that will need climate control dometing fission can give us (its hot). So power source will be both dolar and nuclear
2
1
1
u/Decronym 17d ago edited 13d ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| DARPA | (Defense) Advanced Research Projects Agency, DoD |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| RTG | Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
2 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has acronyms.
[Thread #455 for this sub, first seen 16th Aug 2026, 05:19]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
1
u/Conscious_Coffee5854 17d ago
Nuclear is by far the most consistent and stable way to generate power and will be the main backbone.
Solar will undoubtedly also be utilized, but due to the moons long day/night cycle, and unknown technology in its atmosphere and large amount of infrastructura it will not be the main power source for a while
The base will be at the south pole, so I am unsure the exact day/night cycle at that specific location and if it is different. But even storing that power in batteries will be very difficult.
1
u/Rawbert413 16d ago
Notable: Because the moon has a 28 day day/night cycle, relying on solar leaves you powerless for two weeks at a time
1
u/TrollCannon377 15d ago
Nights on the moon last nearly a month you don't want to be relying on batteries alone for that long even if the reactor can't supply the entire colonies power needs having enough steady power to keep life support going is essential its the same reason why while a solar only power grid is technically pheasable its not a reliable option
1
-1
u/Bi_KerbonautYT 17d ago
It will be near the south pole so the sun will always be low, meaning solar is less effective
3
u/thebigjake3 17d ago
With no atmosphere, as long as the panels can point to the sun there is no degridstion of efficiently like on earth.
0
39
u/Helpme-jkimdumb 17d ago
Solar panels are limited by size, nuclear can produce so much more power. Not to mention there are permanently shadowed regions in which sun doesn’t reach.