![\"Fission](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/5065a.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A Lockheed Martin concept for a nuclear reactor on the Moon, a concept that has gained new life with an agency directive issued weeks after a recent report recommending rapid development of such systems. (credit: Lockheed Martin)<\/p>\n
by Jeff Foust
Monday, September 22, 2025<\/p>\n
\nNASA gets no shortage of advice. These range from formal recommendations from advisory committees chartered by the agency to outside assessments tossed over the transom with little expectation of an acknowledgement, let alone a response.\n<\/p>\n
\nBut there are exceptions. This summer, a report commissioned by the Idaho National Lab (INL) recommended NASA take a new approach to developing space nuclear power systems. The US had not flown a space nuclear reactor in 60 years despite billions invested in various projects. The report offered two scenarios for developing nuclear power systems with the goal of an in-space demonstration by 2030 (see \u201cMaking a new case for space nuclear power\u201d<\/a>, The Space Review, July 21, 2025).\n<\/p>\n \u201cIt’s almost like they read their report and decided to implement it,\u201d said GIlbert.<\/p>\n \nThat report was either extraordinarily influential or extraordinarily lucky in its timing. In late July, NASA\u2019s acting administrator, Sean Duffy, signed a policy directive putting into motion a new space nuclear power program at the agency, calling for the development a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030.\n<\/p>\n \nThe new directive appeared to mirror many of the recommendations of that report, including not just the schedule but the use of public-private partnerships and the power level of the systems. The directive was more specific in some areas, setting an upper limit on the mass of the reactor at 15 tons and requiring the use of a power conversion technology called a closed Brayton cycle.\n<\/p>\n \n\u201cIt was very clearly informed by Bhavya Lal\u2019s and Roger Myers\u2019s report,\u201d said Alex Gilbert, vice president of regulation at Zeno Power, a company developing commercial radioisotope power systems, referring to the authors of the report. \u201cIt’s almost like they read their report and decided to implement it.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nExactly what role the report played in the directive remains unclear, but Duffy has, since signing it, emphasized the importance of a fission surface power system for NASA\u2019s Artemis program.\n<\/p>\n \n\u201cWe are in a race with China to the Moon, and to have a base on the moon we need energy,\u201d he said at an event at the Department of Transportation in early August. \u201cWe\u2019ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying if can we do it. We are now going to move beyond studying and we\u2019ve given direction to start deploying our technology to actually make this a reality.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nIndustry seems willing to give it a shot. \u201cI think that at this point we can say it’s technically achievable,\u201d Gilbert said, citing progress made on past projects, like NASA\u2019s Kilopower program to develop a smaller nuclear reactor on the Moon.\n<\/p>\n \nIt is not without its challenges. Gilbert said there are questions on issues like the availability of high-assay low enriched uranium (HALEU), the preferred fuel for a space nuclear reactor, although he was optimistic efforts by the Department of Energy would resolve that by the end of the decade.\n<\/p>\n Recent developments, like proposals by China and Russia for a nuclear reactor on the Moon, may be \u201cdriving some sense of urgency and desire to prove the American capabilities in this area,\u201d said Timmons.<\/p>\n \n\u201cI think we’re at a point now where we’ve made a lot of advancements in material development, manufacturing maturity, understanding these higher temperature materials,\u201d said Kerry Timmons, who leads strategy and business development at Lockheed Martin for its space nuclear programs. That included the company\u2019s work on DRACO, a joint NASA-DARPA program to demonstrate nuclear thermal propulsion that ended earlier this year after DARPA withdrew.\n<\/p>\n \nThe technical challenges of a nuclear reactor in space are potentially outweighed by those of policy and funding. She noted that such effort sin the past stretched out for years, making them vulnerable to shifting priorities, an issue raised in the INL report. Recent developments, like proposals by China and Russia for a nuclear reactor on the Moon, may be \u201cdriving some sense of urgency and desire to prove the American capabilities in this area.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nA rapid nuclear reactor development effort faces other obstacles. \u201cI don’t know that we have all of the people we need, but I think this is the time to start,\u201d Timmons said, noting that Lockheed Martin has partnered with other companies with greater expertise in nuclear power systems to support past projects.\n<\/p>\n \nGilbert said that the new effort should be able to leverage other advances in nuclear power technology, like work on small modular reactors for terrestrial applications. \u201cUntil about five years ago, the United States did not have a competitive nuclear industry,\u201d he said. \u201cWe did not have a lot of innovation going on. That has changed decisively.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nThe new project will also stress-test regulatory structures put in place several years ago intended to streamline the approval of space nuclear power systems. \u201cFrom my perspective, it’s understood, but not fully exercised yet,\u201d Timmons said. \u201cThere is a process, and we just would look at that up front to make sure that it met the same timelines as the development of the spacecraft.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nIn late August, NASA released a draft solicitation<\/a>, formally known as an Announcement for Partnership Proposals (AFPP), outlining its plans for the Fission Surface Power program. It retained the key elements in the directive, including the goal of a 100-kilowatt reactor on the Moon by 2030.\n<\/p>\n \nNASA plans to use an AFPP rather than a traditional request for proposals since NASA plans to award funded Space Act Agreements for the program. Borrowing from other NASA services programs, like commercial crew and cargo, NASA would not purchase the nuclear reactor from a company. Instead, it would buy power from the reactor. That company would also be free to sell power to other customers.\n<\/p>\n \u201cThe market should include or leverage customers other than NASA,\u201d NASA\u2019s draft solicitation states.<\/p>\n \nCompanies, besides explaining their technical approach to developing the reactor, would also have provide NASA with a business case. The agency requests in the draft AFPP that companies provide a financing plan explaining how \u201ccash from operations, financing, and NASA covers the expenses of the total end-to-end deployment\u201d of the system.\n<\/p>\n \nThe agency also requested a \u201cCommercial Lunar Power Business Plan\u201d explaining how bidders would make money with the reactor beyond simply serving NASA. \u201cThe market should include or leverage customers other than NASA,\u201d the document states.\n<\/p>\n \nNASA\u2019s preference for fully commercial approaches extends to getting the reactor to the Moon. The draft AFPP said that companies could propose that NASA handle the delivery of the reactor on the lunar surface, but that those who instead propose \u201ca wholly commercial approach to the end-to-end deployment, all other things being equal, will receive higher rated proposal evaluations than otherwise.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nThe agency may have pushed too hard on that last point. Last Friday, NASA issued a request for information<\/a> about a potential change to the FSP plan. \u201cThe cost of launch and lander services is likely to be substantial,\u201d the agency stated, citing feedback on the draft AFPP and at an industry day earlier in the month. \u201cA significant cost share between NASA and participants for those services will be difficult, if not impossible, to justify the business case for cost share investment.\u201d\n<\/p>\n \nNASA said it is considering instead handling the delivery of the reactor to the Moon, using cargo versions of Human Landing System (HLS) reactors from Blue Origin and SpaceX. \u201cWill removing the financial burden of acquiring launch and landing services be beneficial to your business case?\u201d NASA asked industry.\n<\/p>\n \nThe agency said it also wants feedback on any additional milestones it should include in the Space Act Agreement. Those milestones would cover \u201coperational evaluation and service life verification\u201d of the reactor after deployment, which NASA said could build confidence in the performance of the system to help companies win business from other customers.\n<\/p>\n \nNASA is moving quickly on this: the request for information asked for responses by this Wednesday, just five calendar days later. NASA stated in the draft AFPP that it expected to release the final version no later than October 3, with a goal of making awards\u2014at least one, and potentially more\u2014by next March.\n<\/p>\n \nA question mark, though, is funding. The draft AFPP did not include any estimated funding levels for the program, but noted those would be included in the final version. The two scenarios in the INL report have estimated costs $1 billion and $3 billion.\n<\/p>\n \nNASA\u2019s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal would gut spending on nuclear power systems, particularly nuclear propulsion. \u201cThese efforts are costly investments, would take many years to develop, and have not been identified as the propulsion mode for deep space missions,\u201d the agency\u2019s detailed budget document stated.\n<\/p>\n \nThe NASA directive suggests that the program could tap into a new \u201cMars Technology\u201d budget line that the agency included in its fiscal year 2026 budget proposal requesting $350 million for it in 2026 and $500 million annually in 2027 and beyond. That proposal had provided, at the time of its release in May, no details on how the funding would be used.\n<\/p>\n \nLal, one of the authors of the INL report, said in a webinar<\/a> last month that NASA\u2019s approach was risky, but benefits from the perceived \u201cstrategic urgency\u201d for space nuclear power. \u201cThis urgency is what finally make space nuclear real because it turns what used to be a discretionary technology into a strategic imperative,\u201d she said.\n<\/p>\n