WPI Major Qualifying Project · 2026

Lunar Nuclear
Power Plant

A 150 kWe nuclear power system for the lunar surface, because getting to Mars means first learning to live on the Moon, and living on the Moon starts with power.

From the Space Race to Mars

Lunar exploration has been one of humanity's most ambitious endeavors since the Cold War. Understanding where we've been, and what we learned, explains why this MQP exists and why power is the critical problem to solve.

The Race & the Landings

1957
Sputnik & the Space Race Begins
The Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, ignited a technological arms race between the US and USSR. Space was suddenly a frontier with profound geopolitical stakes.
1959
First Spacecraft Reach the Moon
Soviet Luna probes reached the Moon in quick succession: Luna 1 flew by, Luna 2 crash-landed (first human object to reach the Moon), and Luna 3 returned the first-ever photographs of the lunar far side, shocking the world.
1961
Kennedy's Moon Challenge
Following Yuri Gagarin's first human spaceflight, President Kennedy committed the US to landing a man on the Moon before the end of the decade. The Apollo program was born, kicking off the largest peacetime engineering mobilization in history.
July 20, 1969
Apollo 11, Humans on the Moon
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed in the Sea of Tranquility. Armstrong's first words, "The Eagle has landed", were heard by over 600 million people. The mission proved that humans could travel to another world and return safely.
1969–1972
Six Successful Apollo Landings
Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 followed (Apollo 13 aborted after an oxygen tank explosion but returned safely). Astronauts drove lunar rovers, deployed science stations, and returned 382 kg of lunar rock and soil, fundamentally changing our understanding of the Solar System's formation.
December 1972
Apollo 17, The Last Footsteps
Gene Cernan became the last human to stand on the Moon. His footprints, and those of all the Apollo astronauts, are still there today, preserved in the airless lunar environment. Nobody has returned in over 50 years.

Discovery, Absence & Return

1970s–1980s
The Long Gap
Following Apollo, human lunar exploration stopped entirely. Budget cuts, shifting political priorities, and the end of the Cold War Space Race meant the Moon was left to robotic probes. The lessons of Apollo sat in archives, waiting.
1994
Clementine Hints at Ice
The Clementine spacecraft mapped the entire Moon and found radar evidence suggesting water ice in permanently shadowed regions near the south pole. The implications were enormous: if ice existed, future astronauts could extract water, oxygen, and rocket propellant from the Moon itself.
2009
LCROSS Confirms Water Ice
NASA's LCROSS mission deliberately crashed a rocket stage into Cabeus crater, then analyzed the debris plume. The result was unambiguous: water ice exists on the Moon in substantial quantities. This single discovery reshaped all future plans for a lunar base.
2013–Present
A New Space Race Takes Shape
China landed Chang'e 3 in 2013 and the far side in 2019. India's Chandrayaan-3 landed near the south pole in 2023. Commercial companies, international agencies, and NASA all converged on the same conclusion: a permanent lunar presence is the next major milestone in human spaceflight.
2020s
The Artemis Era Begins
NASA's Artemis program targets the lunar south pole, exactly where the water ice is. The goal is no longer just to visit, but to stay. And staying requires power: lots of it, continuously, for years at a time. This is why solving lunar power generation matters so much right now.
💡
Why this MQP exists: Lunar and solar exploration have been a persistent goal since the Cold War. To push the frontier to Mars, we must first test colonization technologies on the Moon. By analyzing power generation, one of the most complex problems, this team hopes to break barriers on the technological path to Mars.

Humanity's Return to the Moon

NASA's Artemis program is the most ambitious crewed lunar effort since Apollo. Unlike Apollo, which was about planting a flag and winning a race, Artemis is about building a permanent infrastructure for long-term human presence on and around the Moon.

✓ Completed
Artemis I
November 2022 · 25.5 days

An uncrewed test flight of NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule , the hardware that will take astronauts back to the Moon.

Orion traveled 434,522 km from Earth, farther than any crew-rated spacecraft in history. It successfully entered and exited lunar orbit and splashed down in the Pacific. All systems were validated for crewed flight.

🕐 Upcoming
Artemis II
Targeted 2026 · ~10 days

The first crewed lunar flyby since Apollo 17 in 1972. Four astronauts, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen, will fly around the Moon without landing, validating the life support systems and crew operations for the first time in a lunar environment.

Victor Glover will become the first Black astronaut to fly to the Moon. Jeremy Hansen will be the first Canadian to leave Earth orbit. This mission closes a 50-year gap in human lunar exploration.

🚀 Future
Artemis III+
2026 and beyond · First Landing

The first crewed lunar landing since December 1972. Astronauts will descend to the lunar south pole using SpaceX Starship as the Human Landing System (HLS). The first woman and first person of color will walk on the Moon.

Later Artemis missions aim to build a permanent Artemis Base Camp and the Lunar Gateway space station in lunar orbit, making the Moon a permanent outpost for humanity.

Why Artemis needs nuclear power: A permanent Artemis Base Camp on the south pole will need continuous power through 14-day lunar nights, far beyond what batteries can store and far more than solar panels alone can reliably deliver at the poles. Nuclear fission is the only compact, continuous power source that works anywhere on the Moon, at any time, indefinitely.

Why the Lunar South Pole?

Every aspect of the lunar power plant design is influenced by its intended location. NASA has designated the lunar south pole as the destination for Artemis, and for good reason. Understanding why explains many of the design choices in this MQP.

Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs)

The Moon's axial tilt is only 1.54°, nearly perfectly upright relative to its orbit. This means the floors of deep craters near the poles never see sunlight. Some of these Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSRs) haven't seen sunlight in over two billion years. Their floors sit at a near-constant −230°C, colder than the surface of Pluto, making them the coldest stable locations in our entire solar system.

That extreme cold is exactly why they're so valuable: over billions of years, comets and asteroids have delivered water ice and other volatiles to the Moon's surface. Most evaporated in sunlight, but those that landed in PSRs have remained frozen ever since. The LCROSS impact in 2009 confirmed that water ice is present in Cabeus crater in concentrations of 5–10% by mass.

Shackleton Crater

The prime candidate for Artemis Base Camp sits near the rim of Shackleton Crater , a 21-km-wide, 4-km-deep crater essentially sitting on the south pole itself. The crater's rim has a remarkable property: because the Moon barely tilts, the rim peaks stay partially illuminated by low-angle sunlight for about 89% of the year. NASA has identified this area as one of the best places for a long-duration lunar outpost.

The geometry is almost perfect: the base camp sits on a sunlit ridge, while the PSR floor just a few kilometers away holds the water ice needed for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).

The Case for Nuclear Power at the South Pole

Even with 89% sunlight on Shackleton's rim, solar panels fail completely during the 11% of time that's dark, and those dark periods can last days. At the south pole, the Sun never rises high; it skims the horizon at 1–2° elevation, creating extremely long shadows and making solar panel positioning complex. A nuclear reactor solves all of this: it doesn't care whether the Sun is up, where shadows fall, or what time of day it is. It delivers the same 150 kWe in perpetuity.

The reactor would ideally be positioned at least 1 km from the crew habitat, far enough that the radiation dose to crew remains within acceptable limits, but close enough that power transmission losses are manageable. Shielding mass can be dramatically reduced by leveraging shadow shielding , putting the reactor over a terrain rise so that the lunar landscape itself blocks the radiation.

Crater diameter
21 km
Shackleton Crater, centered almost exactly on the south pole
Rim sunlight
~89% of year
Near-perpetual illumination on Shackleton's rim peaks, best solar resource near the pole
PSR floor temperature
−230°C
Coldest stable environments in the solar system, preserving ice for billions of years
Water ice concentration
5–10% by mass
Confirmed in Cabeus crater by LCROSS (2009)
Artemis landing zones
13 candidates
All within 6° latitude of the south pole, selected by NASA in 2022
Distance reactor → habitat
> 1 km
Minimum safe separation to keep crew radiation dose within limits
🏬
The ISRU connection: Water ice at the south pole isn't just drinking water. Electrolysis splits H2O into hydrogen and oxygen, rocket propellant that can be produced on the Moon rather than launched from Earth. Producing propellant locally could reduce the mass that needs to be launched from Earth by enormous amounts, making frequent lunar missions and eventual Mars missions dramatically cheaper. But electrolysis is energy-hungry. Running it at scale requires tens of kilowatts, exactly the kind of continuous power only a nuclear reactor can provide.

What Does 150 kWe Actually Power?

150 kilowatts is a substantial amount of electrical power, roughly equivalent to 50–60 American homes. But on the Moon, the needs are very different from a suburban neighborhood. There's no grid to draw backup power from, no maintenance crews on standby, and no hardware stores. Everything has to work, all the time, from a single power source.

The breakdown below estimates how 150 kWe might be allocated across a crewed outpost. The exact numbers depend on outpost size and mission goals, but the proportions reflect current NASA planning assumptions. ISRU dominates, it's the whole reason for being at the south pole in the first place.

Importantly, this power must be available continuously. Life support cannot be paused for a recharge cycle. The reactor doesn't sleep. That's the fundamental requirement driving this entire project.

Total Continuous Power
150 kWe
24 hours/day · 365 days/year
Through every lunar night · For years at a time
🏪
Life Support (ECLSS)
~25 kWe
The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) circulates air, scrubs CO₂, recycles water, and maintains cabin pressure and temperature. This is life-critical, it gets power first, always.
💧
ISRU Operations
~60 kWe
The biggest consumer by far. Mining water ice, electrolysis to produce propellant, and processing regolith for oxygen and materials are all energy-intensive. ISRU is the reason why 150 kWe is the target rather than a smaller number.
🌡
Habitat Thermal Management
~15 kWe
On the Moon, the sun can heat a surface to +127°C while the shadow side plunges to −170°C. Habitat thermal control (heaters, active cooling loops, radiators) keeps the interior at a livable temperature regardless of external conditions. This load is roughly constant day and night.
🔭
Science Equipment
~15 kWe
Lunar seismometers, geology labs, sample processing equipment, astronomical observatories (the Moon's lack of atmosphere makes it an exceptional observing site), and drilling equipment for subsurface investigation. Scientific productivity is the primary justification for human presence, it needs dedicated power allocation.
📡
Communications
~10 kWe
High-bandwidth links to Earth (the south pole has poor direct Earth visibility, relay satellites in Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit are needed), plus inter-base radio, EVA communications, and data transmission for science return.
🚗
Rovers & EVA
~15 kWe
Charging pressurized rover batteries for multi-day traverses, powering EVA suit life support during moonwalks, and maintaining overnight heat for equipment left outside. Cold lunar nights can destroy unheated electronics in hours.
📈
The math adds up: 25 + 60 + 15 + 15 + 10 + 15 = 140 kWe, leaving ~10 kWe of margin for unexpected loads, startup transients, or expansion. For a mature base producing significant quantities of propellant, the ISRU load could grow substantially, which is why future designs will need to scale to higher power levels. This 150 kWe system is a first step, not a final destination.

Design Goals

With the context above established, the MQP team defined six specific objectives that the power system design must satisfy.

Deliver 150 kWe Continuously

Net 150 kWe of electrical output at all times, no degradation through lunar night, no interruption for maintenance, sustained for the full mission lifetime.

🤖

Autonomous, Self-Contained

The system must operate autonomously , monitoring its own health, managing reactor power, and handling anomalies without requiring crew intervention or real-time ground control.

🔨

No On-Site Assembly

The system must land as a single integrated unit and deploy itself. This drives the use of deployable radiators and means every connection, seal, and mechanical joint must work correctly after surviving launch, transit, and landing loads.

🌏

Survive Lunar Extremes

Hard vacuum, 300°C thermal swings, reactor and cosmic radiation, and abrasive charged regolith dust , all over a multi-year mission lifetime. Every material and component selection must account for the full environmental envelope.

🚀

Fit Realistic Deployment Constraints

System mass and stowed dimensions must be compatible with near-term lunar landers. At roughly $1M per kilogram to the lunar surface, every gram matters. The design must maximize specific power (W/kg).

📈

Evaluate the TAC

A core research objective was to evaluate the Turbo Alternator Compressor (TAC) as the power conversion unit within a Closed Brayton Cycle at the 150 kWe scale.

How We Approached the Problem

Three complementary methods were used to evaluate whether this system concept is feasible and to characterize its thermal performance.

01

Thermodynamic Cycle Analysis

A full analytical model of the Closed Brayton Cycle was developed using thermodynamic first principles. The team applied the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics to find the cycle parameters, turbine inlet temperature, pressure ratio, and recuperator effectiveness , that maximize electrical output given the SAFE-400's thermal constraints.

The analysis confirmed that a well-designed CBC with He-Xe working fluid can achieve ~37.5% conversion efficiency, producing 150 kWe from the reactor's 400 kWt output.

02

Thermal Modeling in SolidWorks

SolidWorks FEA simulation was used to model the thermal performance of a TPMS heat exchanger design. TPMS (Triply Periodic Minimal Surface) structures use complex, mathematically-defined geometries with extremely high surface area per unit volume.

The simulation demonstrated that a TPMS-based heat exchanger provides strong thermal exchange behavior in this application, validating the design approach and informing the thermal sizing of the radiator system. The TPMS geometry also has potential for additive manufacturing, which aligns well with future in-space manufacturing goals.

03

System-Level Feasibility Assessment

Beyond individual component analysis, the team assessed the complete system, evaluating whether all subsystems can physically coexist within the constraints of a real lunar lander and deployment scenario. This included mass budgeting, volume envelopes, and identifying which subsystem interactions drive the design.

The assessment concluded that the system concept is conceptually feasible , no show-stopping physics violations or engineering impossibilities were found, while clearly identifying thermal rejection as the dominant challenge requiring more detailed future work.

How the System Works

The design uses a modified SAFE-400 reactor as the heat source, a Closed Brayton Cycle for power conversion, and an integrated thermal rejection strategy. Four subsystems work together continuously to deliver 150 kWe.

🌡
Heat Rejection: 250 kW · 400 kWt in, 150 kWe out, 250 kW of waste heat must be continuously rejected to deep space via deployable radiator panels. This is the single largest engineering challenge of the design.

Deep Dive: Each Subsystem

Modified SAFE-400 Reactor

The reactor is based on NASA's SAFE-400 design, a compact, heat-pipe-cooled fission reactor producing 400 kW of thermal power using enriched U-235 fuel. Heat is transferred to the Brayton cycle via liquid sodium heat pipes , entirely passively, with no pumps.

The reactor is launched in a sub-critical state and reaches criticality only after safe landing on the Moon, via remotely actuated control drums. The reactor's small size relative to its power output reflects the extraordinary energy density of nuclear fuel, one kilogram of U-235 contains roughly the energy equivalent of 3 million kilograms of coal.

Design Basis
SAFE-400 (modified)
Thermal Output
400 kWt
Fuel
Enriched U-235
Heat Transfer
Liquid Na heat pipes
Control Mechanism
Rotating control drums
Startup Location
Lunar surface (post-landing)

Closed Brayton Cycle & the TAC

Three power conversion technologies were evaluated against this design's requirements:

  • Closed Brayton Cycle Selected, scalable to 150 kWe, high efficiency (~37.5%) at SAFE-400 temperatures, space flight heritage from military aircraft and research programs
  • Stirling Convertor, high efficiency at small scale, limited scalability above ~10 kWe per unit, suitable for Kilopower-class systems
  • Thermoelectric Converter, no moving parts (very reliable), but only 5–8% efficiency, impractical for 150 kWe due to enormous radiator requirements

The CBC uses a He-Xe working fluid and a recuperator to pre-heat the compressed gas, significantly boosting efficiency. The heart of the CBC is the TAC (Turbo Alternator Compressor), a single high-speed rotor combining turbine, alternator, and compressor. Evaluating the TAC's performance in this system context was a primary MQP deliverable.

Cycle Type
Closed Brayton
Working Fluid
He-Xe mixture
Key Component
TAC (Turbo Alternator Compressor)
Thermal Input
400 kWt
Net Electrical Output
150 kWe
Cycle Efficiency
~37.5%

Integrated Thermal Rejection Strategy

Of all the subsystems, heat rejection is identified as the dominant engineering challenge. Here's why it's so hard: 250 kW of waste heat must be rejected continuously, but the Moon provides no atmosphere for convection, the only available mechanism is thermal radiation governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Radiator effectiveness depends strongly on temperature: doubling the radiator temperature (in Kelvin) quadruples the power it can reject per unit area. This creates a strong incentive to operate the radiators at the highest possible temperature, but that temperature is constrained by the cold end of the Brayton cycle, which in turn affects cycle efficiency. It's a fundamental thermal engineering trade-off.

The team modeled a TPMS heat exchanger for the interface between the Brayton cycle cold leg and the radiator coolant loop. The simulation confirmed strong thermal performance, validating the design approach.

Key open challenges for future work include: protecting radiator panels from micrometeorite puncture, preventing regolith dust fouling of the panel surfaces, and achieving reliable deployment of the large panel area needed.

Waste Heat Load
250 kW
Rejection Mechanism
Thermal radiation
Heat Exchanger
TPMS geometry (simulated)
Biggest Challenge
Panel area vs. mass trade

Power Conditioning & Distribution (PCAD)

The TAC alternator produces raw AC power at high frequency. Before it can power outpost systems, that power must be conditioned into stable, regulated voltage at the standard bus level. The PCAD system is the electrical infrastructure connecting the generator to the loads.

Key PCAD functions:

  • Voltage regulation, maintaining stable bus voltage despite load changes
  • AC/DC conversion, rectifying TAC alternator output to a DC distribution bus
  • Fault isolation, detecting anomalies and disconnecting faults without cutting life support
  • Load shedding, automatically deprioritizing non-essential loads during anomalies

For a crewed outpost, single-fault tolerance is a hard requirement: any one failure must not cause loss of power to life support. This drives redundant bus architectures and automated reconfiguration logic.

Input
Raw TAC AC output
Output
Regulated DC bus power
Fault Tolerance
Single-fault tolerant
Top Priority Load
Life support (ECLSS)

What the Analysis Found

150 kWe
Net electrical output, target requirement met
400 kWt
Reactor thermal power (SAFE-400 basis)
250 kW
Waste heat requiring continuous rejection
37.5 %
Cycle efficiency , 150 kWe from 400 kWt

Key Simulation Findings

  • The TPMS heat exchanger demonstrated strong thermal exchange behavior in SolidWorks simulation, supporting its use in the Brayton cycle.
  • The Closed Brayton architecture remained consistent with compact lunar deployment goals, the system concept is physically achievable within realistic lander constraints.
  • Heat rejection was confirmed as the dominant systems challenge, 250 kW of continuous waste heat requires large radiator area and is the primary driver of system mass.
  • The SAFE-400 reactor, as modified for this application, is a viable and well-matched heat source for a 150 kWe CBC system.

What We Learned & What Comes Next

Conclusions

  • A compact lunar nuclear power system is conceptually feasible at the 150 kWe scale within realistic deployment constraints.
  • Closed Brayton conversion with He-Xe working fluid is a strong candidate for 150 kWe lunar power, it achieves competitive efficiency at SAFE-400 operating temperatures and scales appropriately.
  • Thermal rejection is the dominant systems engineering challenge, the 250 kW waste heat requirement drives radiator sizing and is the primary source of system mass.

Future Recommendations

  • Higher-fidelity reactor analysis using dedicated neutronics codes (MCNP, OpenMC) to characterize core design and shielding mass.
  • Radiator/shell thermal closure, a complete, self-consistent system-level thermal model.
  • Shielding mass optimization to minimize launch mass while keeping crew dose within limits.
  • Long-duration materials testing under combined radiation, vacuum, and temperature cycling representative of the lunar environment.
  • Lunar dust and thermal cycling validation, the only way to confirm that radiators, seals, and deployable structures survive years of lunar exposure.

Technical Terms

Every term highlighted throughout this site is collected here alphabetically. Hover or tap any underlined word anywhere on the page to see its definition inline.

References

Sources cited in this research. Open-access links provided where available.

  1. Brayton Cycle, Gas Turbine Engine Nuclear-Power.com, Thermodynamic Cycles Reference. View source ↗
  2. NASA Kilopower, Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY) Ground Test Results NASA Technical Reports Server, 2018. Link to be added
  3. Idaho National Laboratory / NASA Marshall Space Flight Center SAFE-400 Reactor Design and Development Documentation Idaho National Laboratory. Link to be added
  4. Colaprete, A., et al. Detection of Water in the LCROSS Ejecta Plume Science, Vol. 330, Issue 6003, pp. 463–468, 2010. Link to be added
  5. NASA Artemis Program, Lunar Surface Power Requirements NASA Human Research Program / Exploration Systems Development. Link to be added
  6. Mason, L. S. A Comparison of Fission Power System Options for Lunar and Mars Surface Applications NASA/TM-2006-214120, NASA Glenn Research Center, 2006. Link to be added

📝 This reference list is in progress. Replace placeholder entries with full citations. For open-access NASA technical reports, links can be found at ntrs.nasa.gov.

About This Project

This website is a companion to our MQP poster, providing expanded context, inline glossary definitions, and source links beyond what fits on a printed poster.

JB
Julian Bankier
Mechanical Engineering
BW
Brinson Wyche
Mechanical Engineering
MG
Max Gerry
Mechanical Engineering
DG
Douglas George
Mechanical Engineering
AW
Amar Warden
Mechanical Engineering
Advised by
Professor Selcuk Guceri & Dr. Malachi Nelson
With thanks to Idaho National Laboratory, NASA, and the designers of the SAFE-400 reactor.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute · Class of 2026