Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the former Fox News host and former contestant on MTV’s Real World reality series and the spinoff Real World: Road Rules, is not only the heterosexual man who replaced gay former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — he’s also the acting administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. government agency responsible for the nation’s civilian space program. Duffy became the administrator in July, but he’s expected to soon announce his first big initiative: nuking the moon.
No, Duffy doesn’t want to send a nuclear missile to destroy the moon. He wants to expedite plans to build a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030, according to Politico. While nuclear reactors seldom explode, when they do, it tends to be very, very bad. Does anyone remember the 1986 Chernobyl disaster? Nearly 40 years later, the city now has an estimated population of just 150 people. Yes. Bad.
Related
Pete Buttigieg’s replacement begs governors to remove rainbow crosswalks, claiming they kill people
He didn’t offer any proof that rainbow crosswalks cause car crashes.
An unnamed NASA senior official said that Duffy’s expedited plan is all “about winning the second space race.” That is, Duffy wants to build a nuclear reactor on the moon because China and Russia also want to, and whichever country builds one first could “declare a keep-out zone which would significantly inhibit” other countries, Politico writes. Building one would also help accelerate U.S. efforts to eventually put a man on Mars… which… is also a priority… for scientific reasons(?).
NASA will solicit industry proposals for building the reactor and would like to award two companies a contract by six months after. The reactor could provide a reliable, continuous source of power, particularly during the long lunar nights, for powering lunar bases, surface rovers, backup power grids, science experiments, and extracting ice on the moon. In other words, it would help support human life on the moon and help enable future space exploration.
Dive deeper every day
Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues
Subscribe to our Newsletter today
NASA had previously funded research into developing a 40-kilowatt nuclear reactor the moon by 2030, so Duffy’s aim is just above that. Put another way, a 40-kilowatt reactor can power between 6 and 25 homes (depending on their energy usage), a 100-kilowatt reactor can potentially power anywhere from 50 to 300 homes. That’s a lot of moon bases!
But it remains to be seen how much such a construction project would cost, considering the potentially high costs to ship construction and nuclear materials to the moon. Modern missions to the moon, like those planned under NASA’s Artemis program, are estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars, with some estimates reaching $93 billion.
Building the reactor would also require construction crews to live on the moon, which would also cost an untold amount, seeing as the floating space rock is notoriously inhospitable to human life (because of the intense radiation it gets from the sun and its freezing temperatures and non-fertile soil).
And of course, if the reactor ever breaks or is attacked — or if a shuttle transporting nuclear materials to the moon explodes — it could potentially leak lethal radiation, causing widespread environmental contamination. While the Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere would likely act as a shield, preventing any significant radiation from reaching our planet, a nuclear leak on the lunar surface would make the moon much more dangerous for future explorers.
So, instead of spending hundreds of billions to make the moon nuclear, might I suggest spending that money on solving U.S. poverty?
Yes, it’s a very low priority, since the lethal threat of poverty and homelessness keeps the U.S. economic engine running with frightened and hungry workers. But The American Prospect estimated that it would take approximately $177 billion annually to lift all Americans currently living below the federal poverty line above it. This figure represents a relatively small percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product, around 1%.
We live in a country where 59% of Americans are just one missed paycheck away from losing their housing, 49% have difficulty affording healthcare, and 28% have no retirement savings. Meanwhile, the president is slashing social safety net programs like Medicaid, SNAP food stamps, and veterans’ benefits, ensuring that the most vulnerable Americans slide deeper into poverty and despair.
As such, perhaps it would be better to, oh I dunno… put “America First” and invest in us poor Earthlings instead? Because numbers and percentages like those above make investing in the moon seem like, well, lunacy.
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.