Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the former Fox News host and former contestant on MTVs 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 hes also the acting administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. government agency responsible for the nations civilian space program. Duffy became the administrator in July, but hes expected to soon announce his first big initiative: nuking the moon.No, Duffy doesnt 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 Buttigiegs replacement begs governors to remove rainbow crosswalks, claiming they kill people He didnt offer any proof that rainbow crosswalks cause car crashes. An unnamed NASA senior official said that Duffys 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 the first country to build one 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 some reason. (Because all research and exploration are good, I guess?)NASA will solicit industry proposals for building the reactor and would like to award two companies a contract by six months later. 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 researchinto developing a 40-kilowatt nuclear reactor the moon by 2030, so Duffys 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 from50 to 300 homes. Thats 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 underNASAs 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 Earths 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? I know its a very low priority, since the lethal threat of poverty and homelessness helps keep the U.S. economic engine running with frightened and hungry workers. But The American Prospect estimated that it would take approximately$177 billion annuallyto lift all Americans currently living below the federal poverty line above it.This figure represents a relatively small percentage of the nations 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 theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.