WASHINGTON - Space nuclear programs are reportedly “having a moment,” which in government-speak means they’re getting attention, funding, and possibly a few sleepless nights. At the Space Nuclear Industry Symposium on Aug. 13, officials and industry reps gathered to celebrate progress while also acknowledging that the whole endeavor might collapse like a poorly built reactor core.
The good news: NASA’s Space Reactor 1 Freedom (SR-1) project aims to launch a nuclear electric propulsion system by the end of 2028, and the Lunar Reactor 1 (LR-1) effort is working on a nuclear power system for the moon. Aaron Miles, coordinator for strategic capabilities at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, called it “a generational opportunity” and noted that “space nuclear is indeed having a moment.” That’s the kind of enthusiasm that usually precedes a budget cut.
The less good news: A recent OSTP policy asked the Department of Energy to assess, within 60 days, whether industry could produce up to four reactors for space nuclear applications over the next five years. The verdict: The U.S. has the capability, but also has a few problems, like no production line for ceramic high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel, which is the likely power source for space reactors. HALEU is also in demand for terrestrial small modular reactors, so there’s a bit of a fuel tug-of-war happening.
Jeremy Kenny, NASA’s advanced nuclear technology office manager, called it “a good problem,” which is one way to describe a supply chain bottleneck. Other issues include a shortage of reactor components, a small workforce with combined nuclear and space expertise, and limited access to ground test sites. So, you know, the usual.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Army’s Janus program is developing microreactors to power bases, and it’s about to announce five companies for the job, along with locations and budget. Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, called Janus the “spearhead” for advanced nuclear applications, and noted that the Army has been collaborating with NASA because the tech overlaps and expertise is scarce. He urged cooperation: “Now is not the time for knife fights. We have to succeed and build some reactors, both on land and in space.”
But even as everyone plays nice, some are looking ahead to 2029, when a new administration might not share the love. Bhavya Lal, former NASA associate administrator for technology, policy and strategy, warned that support for space nuclear is “positional, not structural,” meaning it’s attached to people, not paper. She’s worried that in three years, the program could vanish, repeating history: the U.S. flew SNAP-10A in 1965, and then cancelled follow-ons. She suggested starting SR-2 before SR-1 launches, developing contingency plans, and getting Congress to actually own the program with multiyear appropriations. Otherwise, she warned, “We may still fly one reactor, but it will be the same as 1965, maybe with better graphics.”
So, space nuclear is having a moment. Whether that moment lasts past the next election is anyone’s guess.