WASHINGTON — While space nuclear programs are “having a moment,” industry officials say they face near-term challenges as well as longer-term concerns.
At a recent conference, both government and industry representatives highlighted the recent progress on space nuclear power and propulsion efforts, including NASA’s Space Reactor 1 Freedom project to launch a nuclear electric propulsion system by the end of 2028 and the Lunar Reactor 1 effort to develop a nuclear power system for use on the moon.
Aaron Miles, coordinator for strategic capabilities in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in a keynote at the Space Nuclear Industry Symposium here Aug. 13 that space nuclear projects stood at the intersection of growing interest in both space and nuclear technologies.
“In my view, this may truly be a generational opportunity,” he said, mentioning various government and commercial efforts in the field. “Space nuclear is indeed having a moment.”
That moment, though, is not without issues. He noted that one element of a space nuclear policy published by OSTP in April called on the Department of Energy to develop an assessment in 60 days on the readiness of the industry to produce up to four reactors for space nuclear applications over the next five years.
“The bottom line is that the U.S. does indeed have the capability,” he said, but highlighted some risks. Those include a lack of a production line for ceramic high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, fuels that are a likely power source for space nuclear reactors.
Demand for HALEU is also growing for terrestrial nuclear power systems, such as small modular reactors. DOE, the only current domestic supplier of HALEU, announced July 23 it was providing an unspecified amount of that fuel to NASA for use on the SR-1 mission. It also allocated HALEU to a reactor company, Radiant, after making similar allocations of the fuel last year to several other reactor companies.
“We have a good problem in that we need to be mindful of the availability of HALEU and supply chain aspects of it,” said Jeremy Kenny, manager of NASA’s advanced nuclear technology office. “That potentially could be a bottleneck in terms of prioritization and availability.”
Other issues, Miles said, are the supply chain for reactor components, a small workforce with both nuclear and space expertise, and limited access to ground test sites.
NASA’s work on space nuclear reactors is occurring at the same time as commercial and other government programs to develop small nuclear reactors, raising risks of competition for fuel and other resources. Among them is the U.S. Army’s Janus program, which is seeking to develop microreactors that can power bases.
The Army will soon announce five companies it has selected to proceed with microreactor development for that program, said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment. The Army will also announce the bases where those reactors will be located and its overall budget. “You will see that this is a very serious program.”
Janus is not focused on space nuclear applications, he said, but described it as the “spearhead” for advanced nuclear applications. The Army has been collaborating with NASA on elements of it given the technological overlap, he added, and the limited expertise available on such systems.
“I think all these programs will have to succeed together,” he said. “We are at a very good point here for advanced nuclear. There’s broad support, there’s a lot of money coming in, both from the government and the private sector. So, we have to help each other succeed.”
“Now is not the time for knife fights,” he added. “We have to succeed and build some reactors, both on land and in space.”
“The public and private sectors will need to work together to mitigate these risks,” Miles said of the issues identified in the DOE assessment, “and to establish real and enduring space nuclear industrial capability and capacity.”
Long-term risks
Some at the conference, though, were thinking ahead about how to sustain those space nuclear programs, particularly after the current administration. One expert was skeptical that could be done.
“What keeps me awake at night is, in three years’ time, will we have a space nuclear program?” asked Bhavya Lal, former NASA associate administrator for technology, policy and strategy and the co-author of a 2025 study that looked at the long, troubled history of space nuclear programs.
Space nuclear programs enjoy strong support today, she said, “but this support is positional, not structural. It is attached to people and not to paper. So, what happens in January 2029?”
That is an issue for SR-1, which she said is a program without a clear customer. It is carrying a technology demonstration payload, a set of Mars helicopters called SkyFall, but she noted those could fly on a different mission. The LR-1 lunar reactor program is also not directly dependent on SR-1. “The only thing that truly needs SR-1 is SR-2, SR-3 and SR-4, and those don’t exist.”
Even if SR-1 launches on time in December 2028, before the next administration takes office, the next administration could cancel future programs. That was the case in the 1960s when the U.S. flew its first space nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A, with follow-on missions canceled.
She recommended NASA start work on an SR-2 mission before SR-1 launches and also develop contingency plans should SR-1 suffer schedule slips.
“Last but not least, get Congress to own space nuclear, not just be briefed on it,” Lal added. That includes convincing Congress to make multiyear appropriations for space nuclear programs. “It’s the only thing on this list that a transition inherits instead of reviews.”
Without those steps, she warned, NASA could repeat history: “We may still fly one reactor, but it will be the same as 1965, maybe with better graphics.”
Related
Read the original article here