The NASA Reauthorisation Act of 2026 has unanimously passed the House Science, Space & Technology Committee and is awaiting consideration by the full House. A companion measure is currently being developed by the Senate Commerce Committee. However, its specific timeline remains uncertain, and it must eventually be reconciled with the House version before it can be sent to the President for signature.
The 2026 Act is seen as a legislative “recommitment” to NASA’s multi-mission portfolio following the President’s December 2025 Executive Order (EO) 14369, Ensuring American Space Superiority. The EO mandated accelerates the Artemis programme to return American astronauts to the Moon’s surface by 2028 and establish a permanent lunar outpost by 2030. It calls for the deployment of a lunar surface reactor ready for launch by 2030 to provide reliable power for sustained operations. It instructs NASA and the Department of Commerce to adopt a “commercial-first” procurement preference and sets a goal to attract at least $50bn in additional private investment into the American space market by 2028.
In response to the EO, NASA and Department of Energy (DOE) in January renewed their partnership in the Fission Surface Power (FSP) project to deploy a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030.
The Reauthorisation Act confirms existing programmes while adding new strategic mandates. An adopted amendment requires NASA to establish the initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 31 December 2030. It reaffirms strong commitment to the Artemis programme and encourages NASA’s coordination with DOE to support space nuclear R&D, directing NASA to work with the commercial sector “to the maximum extent possible”.
NASA’s Artemis programme includes collaboration with commercial partners to advance scientific discoveries and technology required to live and work on other celestial bodies. The Artemis Accords, a multilateral agreement drafted by NASA has been signed by 61 states to date (excluding China and Russia, which are pursuing their own separate lunar base plans). The parties to the Accords intend to establish a lunar base camp, and then expand the base camp to become a more permanent moon base. Surface activities on the Moon will be supported by an orbiting platform, the Gateway, which will allow astronauts to commute between Moon orbit and the lunar surface.
NASA intends to establish the base camp near the moon’s south pole to ensure access to ice. However, areas with lunar ice are in complete darkness and the south pole region has a two-week long lunar night when temperatures can drop to -250 degrees C. A fission reactor can provide power under those conditions while solar power will struggle to meet the needs of the base camp. Nuclear power would also facilitate the extraction of lunar ice and its process into water, oxygen, and hydrogen.
The Artemis programme has three stages. Artemis I, completed in December 2022, was an uncrewed flight test of the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that looped around the Moon. Artemis II (targeted 2026) will be the first crewed mission, which will fly around the Moon and back to Earth. This mission is currently facing technical hurdles with its rocket boosters. Launch targets in February and March 2026 have been pushed back due to liquid hydrogen leaks and severe winter weather, with a target date now set for April.
Artemis III (targeted 2028 at the earliest) will land astronauts near the Lunar South Pole. The official launch date has been significantly pushed back due to technical and budgetary hurdles. Artemis III will be a complex multi-step journey involving several spacecraft. A crew of four will launch from Earth in the Orion spacecraft atop the SLS rocket. Orion will travel to lunar orbit and dock with a pre-positioned SpaceX Starship Human Landing System (HLS).
Two astronauts will transfer to Starship and will descend to the Moon’s surface, while the other two remain in Orion in orbit. The landing crew will spend approximately 6.5 days exploring the South Pole, performing moonwalks to collect samples and study water ice. They will launch from the Moon in Starship, rejoin Orion, and travel back to Earth for a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. NASA has identified nine candidate landing regions chosen for their proximity to permanently shadowed regions.
Potential delays include Starship development: SpaceX’s Starship HLS must perform at least one successful uncrewed lunar landing before it can carry a crew. NASA is also addressing erosion issues identified during the Artemis I mission. The next-generation Axiom Space suits are still in development.
The Fission Surface Power (FSP) lunar demonstration will follow Artemis III. This is a critical pilot mission designed to prove that a nuclear reactor can operate safely and autonomously in the harsh lunar environment. The reactor is designed to be a “plug-and-play” system that can be launched from Earth and operate autonomously. It must weigh less than 3,500 kg and fit inside a standard 4-metre-wide rocket fairing. The goal is at least 10 years of operation without any maintenance or refuelling. Since there is no air on the Moon, engineers are developing specialised Brayton converters and large radiators to bleed off excess heat into the vacuum of space.
The project is currently moving into a critical procurement phase. NASA previously awarded $5m design contracts to Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse, and IX (a joint venture of X-energy and Intuitive Machines). NASA is finalising a Final Request for Proposal (RFP), expected in early 2026, which will ask companies to bid on building the flight-ready hardware.
While early studies focused on a 40 kW system, recent directives have pushed for a more powerful 100 kW reactor to support a burgeoning lunar economy and national security interests. In a major change to the project’s structure, NASA will now provide the launch and landing services (likely via SpaceX or Blue Origin) rather than requiring the commercial partner to arrange their own transport. The Idaho National Laboratory’s DOME test bed is being prepared to receive the first experimental microreactors for criticality testing starting in late 2026.
Lockheed Martin, in partnership with BWX Technologies and Creare, focuses on high-reliability cooling systems and potential in-situ regolith (moon dust) shielding to protect nearby habitats from radiation. Westinghouse, in partnership with Aerojet Rocketdyne, leverages eVinci microreactor technology, a heat-pipe-cooled system with very few moving parts to minimise mechanical failure in the lunar vacuum. IX, partnered with Maxar and Boeing, utilises TRISO-X fuel and a closed Brayton cycle (using a helium-xenon gas mix) for high-efficiency power conversion.
As of late February 2026, the three design teams have completed their initial Phase 1 studies, and the project is transitioning into a competitive procurement phase for flight hardware. In Phase 1, all three teams successfully submitted initial 40 kW design concepts. While they initially struggled to meet the strict 6-tonne weight limit, they provided “innovative approaches” that NASA is now using to refine the final requirements.
NASA is expected to release the Final Announcement for Partnership Proposals (AFPP) in early 2026. This will be an open competition for Phase 2, where one or more winners will be selected to build the “Engineering Flight Unit” for a 2030 lunar demonstration.
NASA has updated its expectations for the next phase. The target has increased from 40 kW to a 100 kW minimum output to support a larger “lunar economy”. The allowable mass has been raised to 15 tonnes to accommodate the higher power output. Concepts must now specifically use HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium) fuel.
The 2030 demonstration will follow a specific operational path to validate the technology. NASA will provide the launch and landing services, likely using a heavy-class lander (capable of carrying up to 15 tonnes) from either SpaceX or Blue Origin. The reactor must survive a robotic soft landing. Once on the surface, it may be deployed directly from the lander or transported a short distance away to establish a safe distance from future human habitats.
The system will remain non-radioactive during launch and landing. It will be remotely “turned on” only after it is securely positioned on the lunar surface. The reactor will undergo a one-year initial demonstration to prove it can handle the 14-day lunar nights and extreme temperature shifts. If the first year is successful, the mission will transition into a full nine-year operational phase, providing power for Artemis base camp infrastructure.
During the demonstration, NASA will measure several “Key Performance Points”. Continuous Power Generation will validate that the system can reliably produce at least 100 kWe without any sunlight. Thermal Management will test the efficiency of the closed Brayton cycle converters and large radiators in shedding excess heat into a vacuum. Safety & Radiation will monitor radiation levels to ensure they stay below a limit of 5 rem/year above background levels at a distance of 1 km. The reactor must operate for its entire 10-year lifespan without any human maintenance or refuelling.
Beyond technology, this demonstration is intended to establish a legal and geopolitical precedent. Under the Artemis Accords, the US plans to use the presence of the reactor to justify an “exclusionary zone” or safety zone around the site, ensuring that other nations do not interfere with its operations.
In a recent article in Space News, The space nuclear power bottleneck – and how to fix it, aerospace engineer David Schleeper, commenting on the project, said technology is no longer the bottleneck. “Today’s greatest barrier to nuclear power in space is infrastructure, not science. The US currently lacks the testing, demonstration and integration facilities necessary to turn advanced reactor concepts into flight-ready systems.” He noted that “converting a paper reactor into mission hardware requires specialised testing environments that simply don’t exist today”. He pointed out that reactors do not operate in isolation; they integrate with landers, radiators, converters and deployment hardware. “The US lacks a nuclear compatible, vacuum-capable facility large enough to test a full fission-lander system…. Without it, performance in space remains an assumption rather than validation.”
He added that nuclear thermal propulsion will require the same capabilities as electric propulsion, but with the additional hurdle of filtering an exhaust plume that has the potential to contain fission products. “These systems cannot be responsibly deployed until they are tested in purpose-built facilities.”
Another major choke point emerges at the spaceport. “There is no modern pathway to assemble and integrate a fission system onto a launch vehicle. Kennedy Space Center needs a dedicated high-bay, secure handling area, cranes, workforce pipelines and regulatory compliant procedure for enriched uranium systems. Attempting to squeeze nuclear payload operations into multipurpose spacecraft facilities would overlook radiological safety requirements and overload existing infrastructure, jeopardising non-nuclear missions. A purpose-built integration facility is essential.”
Schleeper said NASA should begin immediate site evaluations for new test and demonstration facilities, prioritising locations that can leverage existing capabilities such as decommissioned or abandoned nuclear sites. NASA must also establish a dedicated nuclear payload integration facility at the Florida Space Coast. “Without this capability, every nuclear mission stalls at the spaceport before it reaches the launch pad.”
He concluded: “If America wants to lead, we must build, now. Build the test facilities. Build the demonstration complexes. Build the integration infrastructure.… Delaying these investments doesn’t just risk missing deadlines — it risks ceding leadership at the dawn of a new era in space exploration.”
