There is no shortage of great science fiction writing available for anyone with an interest in space to read. Timeless books by excellent authors such as Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Arthur C. Clarke, and Isaac Asimov can stand alongside the classic works of literature in terms of the quality of their writing and the lasting popularity of their stories. Unfortunately, however, there is also a lot of very poor quality science fiction around – including some which masquerades as news reporting.
Over recent months there has been a spate of avid stories in the news about the potential of nuclear power in space as a means for propulsion for spacecraft or as a power source for space colonialists. Many of these stories have their origins in media releases from nuclear vendors such as Rolls-Royce Nuclear, who are ruthlessly plugging new nuclear technologies and smaller modular reactor designs to governments and the media as a panacea for future energy generation. These vendors are also keen to present related reactor designs as possible sources of power in space – enabling them to grab government funding to subsidise development of their designs.
One such article was recently published on the BBC website with the title 'The nuclear reactors that could power bases on the Moon'. The story was part of the BBC's 'Future' series, which proclaims: “We believe in truth, facts, and science. We take the time to think. And we don't accept — we ask why”, and promises to provide “a home for slowing down, delving deep and shifting perspectives”. In other words, the article wasn't just an everyday news report: it purported to give a deeper and more considered factual analysis of the topic.
The article begins with the assertion “Astronauts living on the Moon will need lots of power – but they can't take fuel supplies with them. A new generation of miniature nuclear reactors could be the answer”, and goes on to discuss prospects for human colonisation of the moon and the potential of nuclear reactors to provide power for such colonies.
The Artemis Programme
Underpinning this storyline is the US government's Artemis programme, which is intended to stage a mission to the moon and, in the long term, establish a permanent human base on the moon. The Artemis programme had its origins in a proposal from the Trump administration to undertake mining on the moon and unilaterally redefine the terms of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that space can be freely explored and used by all nations and prohibits any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body. The 'Artemis Accords' sets out a declaration of the principles behind the mission, which partner nations hoping to join the venture must sign up to. These accords have been critiqued as representing American and commercial interests and as an attempt to unilaterally redefine the Outer Space Treaty rather than negotiate over new space law in the United Nations. The Artemis programme itself is clearly centred on the commercial exploitation and resource extraction of space rather than scientific and humanitarian advancement.
In response to the Artemis programme China has announced plans to set up an International Lunar Research Station. It's easy to see that these projects have more to do with political posturing and rivalry between governments than with scientific progress. What's more important is that they push forward the agendas of powerful governments and the hyper-wealthy and bear no conceivable relation to the well-being or needs of ordinary people. Journalists will rarely recognise or challenge these interests in their reporting, and even if they did, senior editors would not allow a serious sustained critique of them to be published. The BBC article follows this prescription, giving a one-sided description of the Artemis Accords as “guidelines for peaceful lunar exploration” and avoiding any discussion of the political or ethical context behind the accords.
Ignoring the risks
The article takes a similarly one-sided view of issues relating to nuclear power and space. An academic representing the nuclear sector is quoted as saying that: “The truth is that nuclear is the only option to power a moonbase", followed by an overview of some of the technical issues relating to the development of micro-reactors suitable for use in space. Disappointingly, however, there is no meaningful discussion of the morality or risks involved in taking radioactive material into space. Nuclear material has been sent into space by humans before now as power sources on Apollo moon missions, space probes such as Pioneer, Voyager and Cassini, and satellites orbiting the earth, but we should now be capable of taking a more considered and progressive view than in decades past. Is it right that humanity, a mere dot in the vastness and wonder of the universe, should be introducing harmful materials of our own production into the pristine space environment? And what about the risks to humans back here on earth? In January 1978 Kosmos 954, a Soviet nuclear-powered spy satellite, crashed in Canada's Northwest Territories and scattered highly radioactive material over a 124,000 square kilometre area. The Soviet Union eventually paid the Canadian government three million Canadian dollars in compensation for the incident, yet clean-up operations were able to recover less than one per cent of the satellite's radioactive power source. A similar crash had previously occurred in 1973, when a satellite and its reactor fell into the Pacific Ocean near Japan, and another occurred in1983 when a reactor fell into the South Atlantic Ocean.
The BBC article does not mention these incidents and seeks to provide reassurance to readers with the astonishing assertion by a nuclear industry spokesperson that
“We would only deploy a system when that system is safe in every aspect of its life cycle, including launch, and the reactor is only designed to be turned on when it actually gets to the lunar surface. Before the reactor is turned on, the nuclear fuel inside is inert. It's perfectly safe to handle and touch and it's not radioactive until that reactor has been turned on."
The scientist who has discovered how to switch radioactivity on and off should be nominated immediately for the Nobel Prize in Physics: such a discovery is an amazing breakthrough which totally rewrites all our previous understanding of the laws of nature.
One of the most difficult issues facing the nuclear industry is how to manage the radioactive spent fuels and harmful wastes that are produced during power generation. How will this be managed on the moon? The BBC quotes a spokesperson from NASA as saying: "When our lunar reactor mission is complete, we will shut it down and the radiation levels will gradually diminish so it can be safely approached and moved to a long-term storage location if desired." What the article doesn't say is that it will take hundreds of years for radiation levels to decay to a level allowing the waste to be safely approached. This is another way of saying that NASA's waste disposal strategy is to leave the nuclear mess they have created behind for history to deal with as they move on to new programmes. Such a strategy, of course, has been adopted as standard by the nuclear industry over the preceding decades, but it has left a highly problematic and expensive legacy for subsequent generations to tackle. The BBC sees no reason to mention this unpalatable detail in its reporting.
The BBC Future story about nuclear power on the moon contains a number of questionable omissions and assumptions, but perhaps the most egregious of these is the uncritical acceptance that colonisation of the moon, assisted by nuclear power, will inevitably happen and that this is a quite natural and acceptable way forward. There is no discussion of the impacts on the lunar environment, or recognition that a precautionary approach is needed because there is much that we don't know about space, including what might happen in the deep future or the possibility of the existence of other life forms that we cannot as yet understand.
Neither is there any mention of the ethics of space colonization: just a crass capitalist dogma that the natural environment is there for humans to do as they wish with regardless of the outcome. This is a 'cowboy' perspective on human existence: we can do whatever we want, however irresponsible, and then move on to somewhere new, leaving the mess we have created behind us.
Worst of all, the BBC Future article gives no alternative viewpoint to the narrative that space colonisation is something we should all welcome: the only sources the article quotes are advocates from the nuclear and space sectors. It's difficult to see how this tallies with the editors' claim that “we don't accept — we ask why”.
The BBC should not be publishing partisan, uncritical drivel of this nature. It is neither good science fiction or good journalism – merely corporate propaganda.
