SPEAKER_04 0:00

And that's a really interesting question because there is not a nuclear, a space nuclear agency that exists in government. So if you look at how uh, especially in the last few decades, the Department of Energy and our the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NASA, the other government agencies have collaborated. It is a it is a collaboration that involves multiple interagency agreements, multiple memoranda of understanding between government agencies, hello, I'm Colleen Stover with the Center for Space Policy and Strategy, part of the Aerospace Corporation.

SPEAKER_00 0:51

And welcome to the Space Policy Show. Today we bring you some insight into the regulatory world of space nuclear power and propulsion, NPP. And let me warn you, I encourage guests to go deep, and deep they went in true policy walk fashion. If you haven't already, you can check out episode 157, where we kind of set the stage a bit for this show. Just over a year ago, we hosted Dr. Bavia Long to gather some understanding about the space nuclear landscape. We explored use cases, and she laid out a potential roadmap. Today, however, I'm pleased to welcome Dr. Brian Whedon, Director of Civil and Commercial Policy here at the Center for Space Policy and Strategy. He's returned to the show to talk to Stuart Forbes, counsel for law firm Hogan Level's Global Regulatory Group here in Washington, DC. And together they take the plunge into MPP regulations. How is handling nuclear material different when it comes to launching and using in space? Where are the gaps in the policy and regulation and who owns them? Let's go over to Brian and Stuart, and I hope you enjoy their deep dive into space MPP.

SPEAKER_01 2:08

Thank you, Colleen. Stuart, it's great to see you again. Thank you for doing this. Yeah, thank you for having me. So, as Colleen said, you know, in a previous space policy show, we talked to Dr. Bob Gilal about the history and importance of space nuclear power propulsion and why it's become a big policy priority again. This show, we'd like to dive deeper into some of the policy regulatory licensing aspects of nuclear-powered things in space. Um, you know, to set the stage, we had a recent City Labs launch of not a big nuclear device, but an innovative nuclear device, right? Where they were using uh, as I understand, a nuclear uh material to power a solar cell, or at least, you know, try to demonstrate that in space. And I think that's an example we'll get into about some of the coming challenges of how does this fit into the licensing topic. So to get started, can you introduce yourself and your background on this? Yeah, happy, happy to.

SPEAKER_04 3:05

So I'm Stuart Forbes. I am currently an attorney at Hogan Level's Catwalleter here in Washington, D.C. in the Energy Regulatory Group. Previously was at the U.S. Department of Energy for the better part of a decade. And during my time at USDOE, I served a variety of roles, but for the purposes of this conversation and for the question of how is DOE involved in nuke in space nuclear, the answer is I helped support the Mars 2020 program. DOE produces the batteries for the deep space missions, the nuclear batteries for the deep space missions, the Mars surface missions, um, as well as working with uh the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency on Project Draco before that uh project was terminated, as well as uh a Department of War's strategic capabilities office for Project Paley. I've been working for the better part of a decade on interagency nuclear collaboration, as well, and specifically with an eye towards space and how do we, as a country, deploy space nuclear systems as they move forward and as they they are put into practice?

SPEAKER_01 4:11

So yeah, and that's one of the big changes. You mentioned those were all government programs that developed capabilities that is still happening, but now we're also seeing the private sector start to think about and try to deploy this and how the government, you know, have the government make use of those private capabilities. So, you know, it is so is that the big change, or are there other questions here about the cover programs themselves?

SPEAKER_04 4:33

I think right now we are at the dawn of private space nuclear. Uh, this has not been historically something that we have done as a country. We have been launching nuclear batteries for the better part of 70 years. I mean, you go back, you think about the Voyager missions. Voyagers one and two are still operating. They launched in 1977, they turned 50 years old next year, powered by a thermoelectric nuclear generator in the bat powering the system. So we've been doing it for a long time, but we've been doing it as a government action. It has been NASA or Air Force or other government agency needing the resilient, constant power of a nuclear system to power Rover on Mars or to power the uh the New Horizons spacecraft. We have not seen that interest until very recently, really, I would say the last five to seven years, where the private sector has said we also need uh the advantages of a nuclear space system.

SPEAKER_01 5:39

And from a government standpoint, that's a great opportunity, but there's also this requirement that the government provides an oversight function, provides a licensing function, both for sort of the nuclear safety part, public safety, but also under the outer space treaty and its role as a regulator. So that's the question is how do how do we do this or how do we make this happen, right?

SPEAKER_04 5:58

So and that's a really interesting question because there is not a nuclear, a space nuclear agency that exists in government. So if you look at how uh, especially in the last few decades, the Department of Energy and our the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NASA, the other government agencies have collaborated. It is a it is a collaboration that involves multiple interagency agreements, multiple memoranda of understanding between government agencies. So I'll I'll walk you through Mars 2020 as a good example. The Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Energy, through its national labs, specifically Los Alamos and the Idaho National Laboratory, have the responsibility to produce the nuclear material and build the batteries for the NASA system. NASA, however, if once receiving that battery, it has no legal authority to receive it without a license. This is a weird way. They can't just own nuclear material. No, and this is it is a weird legal nuance of the Atomic Energy Act and the way it was crafted in 1954. There are only two entities in the U.S. that can hold special nuclear material, a space battery nuclear battery, without a license. And those are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy. Everyone else, NASA, NOAA, even certain Department of War, there's some there's a giant asterisk there, but we'll get to that in a minute. All of them would need the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license it. And so for NASA missions, Mars 2020 mission, the way that operates legally is there is an memorandum of understanding between DOE and NASA. DOE says in that MOU, yes, we will build the battery for you, and yes, NASA, you will deliver it into space for us. And as a result, they inherit DOE's legal authority. They get the coverage of DOE's uh nuclear hazards and dimmification coverage, and they can put this system on space. And that is basically the structure that's worked for 50 plus years for space nuclear systems. When you get to commercial, that system is totally different. The government does not giant asterisk. The government does not generally do an MOU with a private sector developer for a private purpose to flow its authorities through. So there needs to be a different approach.

SPEAKER_01 8:28

So let's get into that, right? That's where we're headed. So let's start by kind of walking through from you know developing stuff on the ground, launching into space and operating it, what that might look like, what are some of the questions? So I'm a company, I want to build a even a simple, you know, radiothermal generator, right? Which is simply a lump of radio radioactive material that generates heat that makes power. Um, I want to build that. I start on the ground by building my satellite, doing testing. What are the existing oversight licensing for that? Where do we start on the ground?

SPEAKER_04 9:02

Okay, so let's break the let's look at the radioactive material and break it down into different pieces. What it could be. Now, there are under the Atomic Energy Act, there are you have byproduct material, material that has been processed and refined to concentrate radioisotopes, radioactive isotopes. You have source material, your uranium naturally mined. Um, and you have special nuclear material, your plutoniums, your amerasiums, with materials that are pulled out of out of in the processing and separated. So those are three lar large categories of material. The possession of those categories is controlled by statute. And I said earlier, only the NRC and DOE can hold it without a license. This is true. The NRC has regulatory oversight, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has regulatory oversight of the possession of that material. So if you're a company Y and you want to build out a battery or a satellite that's powered by, say, Amerisium, you're going to need, if you're going to possess that material, that americium, you're going to need a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a specific authorization under the regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Federal Regulations. So that is part of it. That's your first appropri, first step. And you can't bring that material into the factory and build the battery and install it on your satellite without that license. And this gets well before we get into shipping of the of the of the system to the launch pad. So from the very beginning, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is likely going to be involved. Now, if this is a government contract, and if you're working with the Department of Energy and NASA, maybe you could might be able to work under DOE's authorities. But that's a very you that has to be under government, government procurement and government activity.

SPEAKER_01 10:58

So how hard are those licenses to get to be able to possess and then go work? And is that a common thing? Is it a multi-year lead time?

SPEAKER_04 11:07

Licenses for materials are relatively easy. I think people, if you're not working in this industry a lot, you don't realize how many entities have licenses for the handling of special nuclear source and byproduct material. Hospitals have nuclear and uh hospitals have equipment that contains nuclear material. They'll have possession licenses. You know, that these aren't reactors. And I think this is a key difference when you think about the regulatory structures. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when regulating a reactor, they have inspectors on site. We've heard for years that we've over-regulated. This has been a catchphrase throughout for a while now. And it takes forever to get the license. Everybody knows about the Vogel uh power plants down in Georgia as a cautionary tale. It took so long to get the licensing. What we're talking about here is different, though. This is material, and material licenses are generally an easier filing burden. You don't have typically have the on-site inspectors, not to my knowledge at least. Um, so it is much more widespread. So if you are doing a system that is purely a power system, a radioisotopic thermoelectric generator, for example, you're probably in a relatively easy regulatory space to build it at your factory to put it on your on your satellite. Now, there are still considerations, obviously, depending on the material. You'll need a hazard category facility, uh, depending on the risk and the profile, and these this gets to the engineering that's beyond a lawyer's expertise.

SPEAKER_01 12:41

But none of that needs to be created, right? Those that that already exists. That's something you can actually look up and figure out how to do. Because we've we've been doing this in the private sector for a while, right?

SPEAKER_04 12:49

Yeah, exactly. That is not that is well well-worn ground. And truthfully, if you look at the regulatory system, even the transportation of the system, the Department of Transportation has regulations for the shipment of nuclear material. They've been doing it for years, and uh you we don't think about it generally because it hasn't been an issue. But the U.S. highway systems almost always have some sort of nuclear material on them. It's just out of sight, out of mind, because that hasn't been an issue. It has been the safety case is well established, the regulatory system is well established. And so if from construction and fabrication in the manufacturing system to the shipment to the launch pad, that's well worn ground.

SPEAKER_01 13:33

So if I'm a company and I'm planning on a radioactive um heat source for a thermal generator, as you explained, that's sort of relatively well known, easy to do. But if I'm trying to plan a nuclear reactor in space, uh, how does that change the ground handling and transportation?

SPEAKER_04 13:50

Yeah, no, this is this is a great question. Right now, with all the activities that are going on, it's a little bit unresolved. So, as we said, dealing with a radio isotope thermoelectrogenerator, we know how to do that. A radioisotope power system, we know how to do that. We've been doing that for years. When you're dealing with a fission system, be it a nuclear thermal propulsion system or a surface power system, where you're actually dealing with a reactor that's splitting atoms, the regulatory structure really hasn't caught up yet. So under federal action, you can get there. You some sort of nested relationships, probably between Department of Energy, Department of War, NASA, DOT, and under uh NSPM20 for the authorization of the launch of the system, it would work out. And and we did this in part under Project Draco. There is a uh what we call what we called at DOE uh a 91B authorization. This is Atomic Energy Act 91B, where the Secretary of Energy authorizes Department of Defense Defense, now war, to build a nuclear reactor and to put it on in space in that instance for Project Draco. That you can do. When you get to a commercial system, it's regulated under a series of regulations that are found in chapter five of uh Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These are NRC regulations dealing with nuclear power plants. And what they don't have right now is a space section.

SPEAKER_01 15:28

Yeah, these are terrestrial nuclear power plants. There's that that was not created with thinking of space nuclear power plants in mind, right? There's a yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_04 15:36

I mean, you you don't get a resident inspector when you're on a series, right? Like this is not something that space is not designed to hit. I I assume the locality pay would be a lot different for that resident inspector. Um cool job, right? So there is and there's the territorial jurisdiction question. I mean, when you operate on Mars, does US even have jurisdiction to regulate it? So what you're really looking at, I think, is there's a legal fiction that will say yes, we will be able to regulate in space. But what we're really concerned about is launch, launch and re-entry. And those are going to be the key areas where even that, we don't have a very well-developed answer yet.

SPEAKER_01 16:23

So let's go, so let's get to that launch piece, right? Because that's something that really does fit in the space world. We launch stuff all the time, we're greatly increasing that rate. There are existing pathways for the launch of nuclear systems. You said before, we've done this back decades worth. Where does that stand in terms of the licensing and approvals to launch commercial nuclear payloads?

SPEAKER_04 16:46

So the CubeSat example, it it appears to the best that I've been able to find out that the NRC did indeed authorize that as a material. And so it was launched with a NRC approbation and then it went on orbit through the standard launch approval process. So, but that again, not a reactor system. So the way it will work, it will run through the stand the standard approval process for any commercial space launch. CSLA will apply to the launch activities, and then you need all the approvals from DOT and every other uh entity with agency with equities in the process. It doesn't really matter from the purposes of those statutes and regulations that the payload is nuclear. NRC serves this advisory role for the launch. Now, whether or not, and I think part of why I'm hedging a little bit is we haven't gotten to this question yet. Nobody's put it forward and said, here I'm putting here's the reactor I want to deliver to Mars for my commercial activity. What it seems likely is that the NRC would look at it and probably regulate it based on its uh safety profile. What does it look like? What are the safety and risk parameters around this material? And probably, I hope at least, with the revisions to Part 57 of their regulations, which is more a micro reactor, advanced reactor regulatory structure, they'll be able to shoehorn space nuclear into that because it is more of the what is the risk profile of this activity?

SPEAKER_01 18:30

And that's really the rub, right? You know, the NRC has a long history of being able to do that analysis with a lot of expertise and evidence for the terrestrial nuclear operator operations. Obviously, they understand reactors, but there may be something unique or different about space, and you're asking them to say, you know, it's okay to put this thing in space when they necessarily have that space experience, or or do they have that space experience?

SPEAKER_04 18:54

What we what it comes down to ultimately is that we have a lot of the data of how a launch performs. The fact that you put a reactor or an RTG or an RPS on the on the vehicle doesn't change the dynamics of the launch unless you're using a nuclear engine, which I don't believe that are any are in development for launch purposes. That's a whole other show, what you would do with it. Yes, yes. I'll defer to Bobia. She knows that far better than I do. Um so really it is a question of what is our what does the data set look like for launch safety? Is it that this rocket, this vehicle designed by this company, launches 99.9% of the time safely and securely? And that 0.1% of the time is really the risk factor. And we did this when we looked at the Mars 2020 mission. This is the Perseverance rover. One of the reasons, if you go into the literature that we did a supplemental environmental impact statement was because we tightened up some of the safety parameters. I can't remember the numbers. I think we went to a one in a million accident scenario. And when we did the analysis, you're not actually looking at the nuclear material. It's not going to produce a bomb. It's not designed that way. It literally physically can't. It is more of an exposure issue. What happens to the material if it's spread over a period? Because the rocket fails. Is it over the launch pad? Was it on launch? And then there was an incident, and then you have uranium, amerasium, plutonium, whatever, whatever it is, spread over an area of the Atlantic Ocean, an area of Florida. And so that's really the risk. That is what, again, my colleagues at Sandia have done a great job tracking these uh the risk profile for launches. So I don't think thinking of nuclear delivery on space, I'm not worried about an accident scenario for the nuclear nuclear power plant, the nuclear system. I'm worried about a rocket accident scenario. And then what does that then expose people to as far as dispersal?

SPEAKER_01 21:07

So let's assume we've we've got our thing manufactured, we've got it delivered to the launch pad, we've got a license from the FAA to launch it into space, we launch it into space, and let's say it's a it's a it's a nuclear reactor powering a commercial spacecraft that's going to move around between LEO and Geo. Now what do we do? Right? Because what you've talked about through now is the licensing for the launch. Yep. But the FAA's authority is only over the launch vehicle and attached payloads. Once it separates and it's flying around in space, who's in charge? What does that look like for the actual operation of it? We don't know. Which is probably not the best answer.

SPEAKER_04 21:50

Um, but this is really one of the big gaps that we're trying to figure out. This is one of the big gaps. It would be probably under the of the executive office of the president, obviously. But whether that is from the agency perspective, whether that's NASA, Department of Transportation, FAA, I don't I don't know as we know.

SPEAKER_01 22:09

Um or potentially Department of Commerce under the new certification process they're proposing, which is still voluntary, but you know, there's been a lot of discussion about them perhaps taking it, right? But again, we don't really know.

SPEAKER_04 22:20

Yeah, and I think that it's more likely to be well, what is the impact of this nuclear-powered vehicle in those orbits? Are you going to interact with other vehicles, other satellites, other material that's on orbit? That's going to be a bigger concern, I think, than the nuclear-powered piece of that vehicle itself. We're not going to likely, at least not anytime soon, launch inspectors up there to make sure that it's not leaking, it's not irradiating the surrounding environment. And if it does irradiate the surrounding environment, do we care? Space is big, there's a lot of nobody hears you scream, right? A lot of it's just irradiation. Yes, and a lot of it's irradiation. So are you going to be able to distinguish between the vehicle and the background? And do we care if we if we do?

SPEAKER_01 23:07

Right. But for example, to your point, if it's doing rendezvous with a crude spacecraft, right? Yeah, then I think we would care about it.

SPEAKER_04 23:14

Or if it is a crude spacecraft, that's a whole different that's a whole different question, and we don't have an answer yet. But we are in a unique moment right now because that is answering that question will now will put us, give us a head start to when we have these crude vehicles and we have these nuclear thermal propulsion systems, or sorry, when we have these crude vehicles and when we have these propulsion systems in place. We don't have it yet, but it's far better for us to to answer the question, talk about the question now than to wait.

SPEAKER_01 23:46

And in the case of a commercial nuclear reactor or something on the surface of the moon, is that still an unanswered question? Does that change who might be in charge then?

SPEAKER_04 23:56

Likely if we yeah, I I think it's a little bit of an unanswered question because I I at least have not participated, and I'm not sure my my former colleagues at DOE or NRC have participated in a crosswalk of treaty and atomic energy act authorities to see how we would regulate that. It's possible it's been done. That's maybe a little bit outside of my knowledge base right now.

SPEAKER_01 24:18

Yeah, and to that, you know, there are under the Outer Space Treaty, there is specific language restricting what can be done on the lunar surface, other celestial bodies, um, uh things like there's a restrictions on military installations, maneuvers, and fortifications and exercises. Uh and so it really comes down to what is the nature of this, right? You can do scientific activities, you can do peaceful activities. Um, if there's a national security military component, that makes it a little more challenging. Right. Uh but as you said, you know, this is all new ground to investigate.

SPEAKER_04 24:51

Right, no, a hundred percent. And and for example, it is relatively easy for the Department of Energy to authorize the Department of War to possess and own a utilization facility as was described as under the statute, a reactor. And so they could build one, they could build one and have it ready to go onto the lunar surface, but then you trip into, as you were pointing out, the treaty obligations. Because under that 91B authority, it has to be for a military purpose. So, yeah, where do we stand uh between the military purpose and the commercial use, and how do you get a commercially regulated reactor up there? Still a little bit to be determined.

SPEAKER_01 25:33

So we've got it up into space, we've been operating it, now comes the end of life. Yeah. And here I think for at least somewhat we get back into known ground, right? Because if it's going to be in space, if it's coming back down to Earth and re-entry, that falls back in the category of the FAA. Yes. So is there a scenario where you would want to re-enter a nuclear payload, or is it something you'd want to keep in space?

SPEAKER_04 25:57

For most of the vehicles that I worked on when I was at DOE, most of the batteries and the power systems were designed to survive re-entry. I mean, they were designed with robust um redundant.

SPEAKER_01 26:09

And this is because of the launch problem. You want to make sure that they are they don't break up, they don't fragment on launch, right, to spread the reactive material, which then has the consequence of meaning if it ever comes back, it's probably going to survive.

SPEAKER_04 26:20

Exactly. And there's there is a case study of exactly what happens when a nuclear material fails on re-entry and the containment is compromised. Uh, the Soviets launched a vehicle, I believe, if I remember correctly, it was 60s or 70s, and it failed and spread nuclear material in northern Canada, and it was a billions of dollars of cleanup costs. We don't want that to happen. Now, when you're dealing with an RPS or an MMRTG, multi-mission radioisotopic thermoelectric generator, for those keeping track, you're dealing with smaller amounts of material. And so probably it's not going to be spread over vast quantities. You're looking at for one granule of plutonium in a you know on a beach. It's going to be cleanup will be costly for low rewards and low risk, probably. I think for commercial vehicles, I don't know if they're designing for burn up on re-entry, because that's also an alternative to completely burn up. But I think for the what you're pointing out on launch, you're going to want a robust system for that'll survive launch.

SPEAKER_01 27:26

And if it'll survive launch, it'll probably survive re-entry. So so the the odds are that we'll probably it'll probably be designed to stay in space in some sort of a disposal orbit. Yeah. Um, or if it's on the lunar surface and the Martian surface, stay there. Stay there.

SPEAKER_04 27:42

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 27:42

Do we know what those disposal guidelines are for safety reasons?

SPEAKER_04 27:45

Or we have not, there aren't any right now. So I would guess it would be in situ disposal. I mean, we're not really worried about Voyager's battery. It's going to keep going past the helio pause and that's out in the middle of nowhere, low, right? That's right. I mean, this is for years there there is always rumblings as to as to deal with domestic nuclear waste that maybe what if why don't we just launch it into space? Space is empty. Um, obviously we don't do that. Send it to the sun, right? Send it to the sun, burn it up. There are good reasons why we don't, but the real there is this notion that the vastness of space provides us with the opportunity just to leave on site, and you'll probably end up exposing, especially if you do human decontamination and DD, you'll probably have more exposure, both from cosmic radiation as well as the source material to those humans who would be working it. So probably, probably just a bad idea.

SPEAKER_01 28:40

Yeah. I reminded that scene in The Martian where you know Matt Damon's character goes and digs up the RTG they had buried and used it as basically a furnace for his vehicle, right? Yep. Yep. Yeah, okay, interesting. Uh so we've gone through the life cycle of the creation, the transport, the launch, the operation, and then disposal. As you look across that, what are some of the biggest challenges for the licensing that you see to get us to the point where we can do commercial nuclear power systems in space?

SPEAKER_04 29:11

I think from a few things. Let's talk first about regulatory. I think from the regulatory vantage point, I'm seeing improvement, and I and I think we're getting there, but having a statutorily defined single point of contact, this is the individual in the executive who who is responsible for this. It doesn't have to be necessarily be an agency head. I maybe you want a nuclear space agency, I doubt it. But someone who is empowered, probably within the Department of Transportation, and has the authorities to herd the cats. Um, because this is one of the big issues in when dealing across agencies in government, is it's not my top priority, so I'll get back to you when I get back to you, sort of problem.

SPEAKER_01 29:58

The age-old of no one's in if no one's in charge, then it doesn't really happen. Yeah, who's in charge, who's the responsible for making it.

SPEAKER_04 30:04

And NSPM20 has vastly improved this along with uh NSD six or three, three or six.

SPEAKER_01 30:10

Yeah, and those are both products of the the first Trump administration when they put those in place, but generally have pretty good bipartisan support.

SPEAKER_04 30:17

They do, they do 100%. So I think having that designated entity, that individual or entity that can take the disparate authorities is would be huge. Um, I don't know where that needs to sit. There's some advantages if it sits in NRC or DOE, mostly on the authorizing of nuclear materials, um, and then the capacity to flow, perhaps, at least for government launches and demnification authorities, down to the companies who are working under government contract. When you're dealing with, so that's the government side and the regulatory side. When you're dealing with the commercial side, there are a few things that are are problematic right now. We don't, as a country, have we're relying on test capability that's a little bit dated. We need a massive investment in labs. Um, FFRDCs need more funding. We need to see a greater build-out to allow for more hot cell use at Idaho or Los Alamos, more investment in JPL because the private corporations are reliant on those resources. They need to be able to go to, say, uh the advanced test reactor at Idaho and put in material to make sure it behaves properly. But that reactor is 60 plus years old and it has really nine experimental slots, and six of them are already always taken up by the Navy.

SPEAKER_01 31:35

So and this is the kind of capability that you don't say a commercial private company is not going to have or be able to afford to operate. It's more of a national resource sort of thing.

SPEAKER_04 31:44

These are national resources. So that that is a huge thing. We need to invest in that laboratory eco infrastructure because the companies can go, and and anybody, you know this as well as I, any any of these developers, they will can go to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory, enter into a cooperate cooperative research and development agreement, and then do all sorts of experimental activities that will really be valuable to the business uh build-out. But you need more.

SPEAKER_01 32:59

And you would want this high SA low entry Halo because it's a better fuel, but it's not quite the weapons grade stuff that has all the restrictions.

SPEAKER_04 33:07

Is that what the Yeah, essentially? It it has a longer burn. Um, so you're able to operate. Uh, the idea is that you can operate an advanced reactor for a longer time on a single core. Uh, and we're never gonna get to the point where commercial entities are using high-enriched uranium weapons grade, anything above 20% of U235 in the fuel matrix. Uh it's just not gonna happen. There's a bipartisan consensus that that would be a bad idea. So you need that HALU to build out specifically for surface power systems on a commercial side, as well as for nuclear thermal propulsion uh in cis lunar orbit. That has to be resolved. And it's getting better. Uh, companies are producing more, but with the amount of interest there is terrestrially, you you're going to be in a competition, which of course that then drives the cost up. And then, well, why would I build a nuclear system in space at the cost of this fuel? And I'll just build a large solar array and it'll give me the power I need. So that that's going to be a big one. Then I mentioned earlier insurance. We need to be able, because of the way the CSLA operates, you need to be able to have insurance of the launch. When you get into a nuclear payload, there is an old uh there's an open question as to whether or not an insurance company will insure that launch because they see the word nuclear. And while this is less true to me on the terrestrial side, in launch, we're still I'm still seeing some hesitancy for that. Now, I don't know exactly what the answer is. I don't believe you're ever going to get government indemnification programs like we have for government launches.

SPEAKER_01 34:50

And that's where the government says, don't worry, we'll handle it, right? If something goes wrong, we'll absorb the costs. There's at least a good chunk of that that is going to be passed on to the companies. Right.

SPEAKER_04 34:58

So, for example, under Project Draco, uh the DARPA was able to get an 85, what's called an 85.804 coverage, indemnification coverage for the launch. This is unlimited indemnification for liabilities that are incurred due to a nuclear hazard, nuclear accident that occurred with that project. You can't that extends only for government activities. Uh, likewise, DOE extends Price Anderson, which is their indemnification scheme, to NASA for nuclear launches, and it's 15, 16.2 billion dollars per incident, but it can't only extend through DOE contracts. So if you're in a purely civilian, purely commercial action, those two schemes are unavailable. Now, Congress will never, in my opinion, never pass another indemnification type program for space nuclear because it would have to score under the Congressional Budget Office rules. And the the amount of offset, the unknowns are just too big. So you'll probably need some sort of congressionally created reinsurance, I think is probably the most likely outcome there.

SPEAKER_01 36:07

But we'll see what happens. And and that's that's important because these companies are taking on this risk, the investors, that's a liability, and so they have to figure that out really to make this a commercial proposition work.

SPEAKER_04 36:20

Yeah, yeah. Get that certainty. Well, and they need the insurance coverage in order to do the launch. What is it? I think it's a $500 million coverage is required under the tier one under CSLA and the regs. So if they don't get that, they're already in trouble, they're all already going to have a difficulty.

SPEAKER_01 36:37

But we know how to do that private insurance for civilian nuclear on the ground. Yeah, right. What about that market work is it different from what could be in space?

SPEAKER_04 36:47

So there for civilian reactors, there is the NRC's Price Anderson system. Okay, so they have a separate system. Yeah, they they have a their own unique system from the DOE. So it's possible that a reactor system that is licensed by the NRC, actually, the way the regs are written now, if they fall within that advanced reactor authorization authority, they would be required to enter into the price anderson program. It's it's uh it's a requirement under licensure for terrestrial reactors. If you're dealing with RPSs, radio power i systems, you're you're likely under a material possession license. And for those activities domestically, there's no price Anderson coverage. That's an insurance issue. So for our RTGs, RPSs on launch, you're not going to get that benefit if it's a reactor, maybe, if the NRC uh asserts jurisdiction over it as a reactor.

SPEAKER_01 37:51

Well, this has been a faceted discussion. I'd say at the end of the day, it looks like this is a new yet another new area where the commercial innovation is challenging sort of these frameworks. Um, but it sounds like there's a pathway. We we can think of a couple pathways to get there. Oh, yeah. Do you anything so?

SPEAKER_04 38:07

No, I I think so. I think we are at, like I said at the outset, this is the dawn of a new structure. We are seeing companies who are interested in entering into the marketplace with nuclear systems. People are looking not just to the moon, but beyond to Mars and the to the outer solar system. And it's people who are not just in NASA, which is a really it's a fundamental shift in what's happened. And so much of this is due to what happened in the early 2000s with the commercial orbital transportation system and NASA kind of opening up the idea that it's not just government, but also industry that should be involved in this. Nuclear is now a part of that, and that especially as we look towards the outer solar system, it's a necessary part.

SPEAKER_01 38:53

Well, Stuart, thank you for joining us. This was great, very insightful. We'll see how this all figures out. Yeah, I'm looking forward to it. Thanks, Brian. Colleen, back over to you.

SPEAKER_00 39:02

And that's a wrap. Great engagement between Brian and Stuart on this topic. And it's nice to see where we are today compared to the first time that Brian talked to Dr. Lowell on the show in July 2025. Please bronze our 170 plus shows in the center's deep research papers at csps.org. And of course, subscribe and follow us on social media to get notified by from now.