Because nothing says “we’ve got this under control” like a man best known for The Real World: Boston now overseeing the launch of a nuclear reactor on the moon, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy—yes, that Sean Duffy—is expected to announce new directives to fast-track lunar radiation and orbital real estate development in what experts are calling “bold” and what the rest of us are calling “horrifyingly on-brand.”
The plan?
- Build a nuclear reactor on the moon.
- Replace the aging International Space Station.
- Hope to God those two missions don’t accidentally share a calendar invite.
Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that when the federal government moves “fast” and “bold” on infrastructure, what we get is usually a pothole with ambition.
Let’s start with the obvious: Sean Duffy is not a scientist.
He is, however, a man who once wore cargo shorts in a televised hot tub and now wields influence over national transportation policy. Which feels about as appropriate as handing Guy Fieri the nuclear codes and saying, “You do spicy stuff, right?”
And yet here we are—preparing for nuclear moon stuff led by someone whose most relevant experience with gravity was probably filmed in standard definition.
The logic, presumably, is this:
If we want to compete with China, Russia, and Elon Musk’s personality disorder, we need to get serious about space. That means getting reactors on the moon, establishing permanent lunar bases, and replacing the rickety orbital death trap we lovingly call the ISS with something shinier, newer, and ideally not held together with duct tape and regret.
But while the press release uses words like expedite and strategic frontier, the subtext reads more like:
“We are five bad PowerPoints away from launching nuclear fission into a zero-gravity environment staffed by interns from Purdue.”
Because, again—what could go wrong?
Let’s do a quick risk inventory:
- Nuclear reactor… on the moon.
- Built by government contractors whose last project was an Amtrak bathroom with no door latch.
- Replacing the only semi-functional orbital platform with a “faster” version designed during an election year.
- Led by a guy whose most passionate speech on record is about how hard it is to raise nine children on a Congressman’s salary.
We’re not just tempting fate.
We’re texting it in all caps from inside the rocket.
And before anyone accuses me of being anti-progress: I love space.
I’m pro-astronomy. Pro-exploration. Pro-vacuum-of-ego-floating-among-the-stars.
But you know what I’m not?
Pro-nuclear-reactor-designed-on-Earth-by-people-who-haven’t-updated-their-iOS.
Do you trust the current government to maintain your local roads?
Great. Now imagine them maintaining a fission-powered reactor on the surface of a cratered celestial body that rotates away from all help for half of every day.
And who will manage it?
NASA, hopefully. But more likely… Raytheon interns, backed by an emergency contract awarded through a phone call that starts with, “You guys have glow-in-the-dark capabilities, right?”
And about the International Space Station—yes, it’s old. Yes, it creaks. Yes, Russian cosmonauts have duct-taped it more times than their own diplomatic policies. But it still floats. It still orbits. And most importantly, it hasn’t exploded yet.
So why replace it now?
Because it’s not bold to maintain things.
It’s bold to scrap working systems and announce space real estate like it’s a new Top Golf franchise.
What will the new station look like?
We don’t know. But based on the current administration’s aesthetic, I’d guess:
- Neon blue underlighting
- Corporate sponsorship (Welcome to the Bud Light Orbital Lounge™)
- AI automation that mishears “shut down auxiliary thrusters” as “launch the toaster oven”
- A slightly racist Mars-themed mascot named Cosmo Kenny
It’ll be a floating condo with great views and no emergency exit plan.
Meanwhile, back on the moon, I imagine the reactor project being handled like most American infrastructure:
- Year 1: Plans drawn by a guy named Chad who once built a backyard zipline.
- Year 2: Groundbreaking ceremony, followed by immediate radiation breach.
- Year 3: Budget overrun by $87 billion, blamed on “cosmic inflation.”
- Year 4: TikTok conspiracy theories that the moon is now gay because the reactor uses pronoun-neutral uranium.
- Year 5: GoFundMe to replace the moon with something more “patriotic.”
But the truly terrifying part?
We’ll get used to it.
We’ll normalize phrases like “lunar containment breach” and “minor satellite fission event” the same way we accepted “unprecedented heat dome” and “presidential mugshot.”
We’ll tweet jokes about glow-in-the-dark astronauts and then move on to whatever celebrity got canceled for blinking weird.
Because that’s how it works now.
Disaster isn’t shocking anymore.
It’s just Tuesday.
Final Thought:
The idea of a nuclear reactor on the moon isn’t inherently evil.
But fast-tracking it with political urgency, corporate ambition, and reality TV leftovers at the helm?
That’s not innovation. That’s a launchpad-shaped midlife crisis.
We used to reach for the stars with wonder.
Now we just hurl hardware at them and pray no one asks for a maintenance log.