When reporters revisit President John F. Kennedy\u2019s address to a joint session of Congress in 1961, it is often framed as a bold moment of promises made \u2014 and ultimately kept. The president vowed to land a man on the moon before the decade was out, and return him safely to the Earth. His challenge nevertheless ignited an American space effort that would stretch the boundaries of human exploration.<\/p>\n
Curiously, however, the moon wasn\u2019t the only goal or commitment outlined.<\/p>\n
\u201cAn additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket,\u201d Kennedy added just moments after his call to place astronauts on the lunar surface. \u201cThis gives promise of someday providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
Yet by the time his words echoed through the legislature, NASA and United States defense agencies were already exploring the use of atomic energy to accelerate spacecraft to speeds that chemical propulsion couldn\u2019t match. Almost simultaneously, those same agencies were developing nuclear-thermal engines through initiatives known as Project Rover and Project NERVA \u2014 often considered precursors to the current Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations, or DRACO, program, which aims to develop a nuclear thermal rocket by 2027 to significantly cut space transit times to Mars.<\/p>\n
At its peak, the Apollo program would consume nearly 4% of the national budget, and would come on the heels of today\u2019s equivalent of a $30 billion Manhattan Project that ushered the world into the nuclear age. And yet, in the intervening decades, such bold promises for harnessing nuclear power in space would fall far short of those early ambitions.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ve spent nearly $20 billion on nuclear (space) power since the 50s and the only system we currently have is a light-bulb sized, 100-watt radioisotope generator,\u201d Bhavya Lal, former NASA Associate Administrator for Technology, Policy, and Strategy, told me on the Space Minds podcast.<\/p>\n
Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 \u2014 the only two spacecraft to have reached interstellar space \u2014 employ the natural decay of plutonium-238 in their radioisotope thermoelectric generators to convert heat into electricity. NASA\u2019s New Horizons interplanetary space probe, designed to study Pluto and its moons, also generates power through the natural radioactive decay of plutonium dioxide fuel, comparable to that of a household lightbulb in terms of wattage. It\u2019s hardly the sort of the power that could lessen travel times to the red planet.<\/p>\n
Lal, however, along with Roger Myers say they now hope to \u201cconfront that disconnect head-on,\u201d with an upcoming Idaho National Lab-funded report, entitled \u201cWeighing the Future: Strategic Options for U.S. Space Nuclear Leadership.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report, slated for release this summer, maps \u201cthe full space fission landscape \u2014 surface and in-space, civil and defense, government needs and emerging commercial markets,\u201d Lal said. She and Myers conducted more than 100 interviews across NASA, DoD, DOE, national labs and commercial entities, while also reviewing comparable program postmortems, and evaluating historical nuclear efforts \u2014 like the Manhattan Project.<\/p>\n
\u201cBeyond Mars, we really don\u2019t have a whole lot of solar power \u2026 and there is no way to do a whole lot of science without nuclear,\u201d Lal added.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe went to Pluto with a New Horizons mission [and] the probes whisked past Pluto. Why? Because we didn\u2019t have the Delta V to go into orbit. So \u2026 all we have is basically 24 hours worth of data, which took a year to get back. [Because] we had a light bulb amount of power, and we had to split the power between sending data back and doing more science or processing data.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe just get so much more value for our money if we have nuclear,\u201d she added.
Meanwhile, as NASA\u2019s own landscape shifts, commercial entities are exploring how their efforts might align with emerging policy priorities, and where those nuclear efforts might fit in.<\/p>\n
In April of this year, Kristin Houston, president of L3Harris\u2019 space propulsion and power systems, told SpaceNews that \u201cwe are finally at the cusp for both nuclear electric propulsion and nuclear thermal propulsion,\u201d and that the company is monitoring NASA\u2019s Fission Surface Power program, meant to develop nuclear power systems for both lunar and Mars surface operations.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not clear what such developments could signal in this next era of space exploration, or whether they will involve nuclear energy in the ways Kennedy proposed. But as space infrastructure needs and developments ramp up, there is an open question of power.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s companies that want to do other industrial processes on the moon,\u201d Lal noted. \u201cAnd then if we go to Mars, we are going to need to generate propellant on Mars for journeys back. Especially if we use chemical systems again, we need megawatts of power to be able to do that sort of thing. And that is not coming from solar or batteries or fuel cells.\u201d<\/p>\n
David Ariosto is co-host of the Space Minds podcast on SpaceNews, and author of the upcoming Knopf book, \u201cOpen Space.\u201d<\/p>\n
This article first appeared in the June 2025 issue of SpaceNews Magazine with the title \u201cKennedy\u2019s other moonshot.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tRelated<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When reporters revisit President John F. Kennedy\u2019s address to a joint session of Congress in 1961, it is…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":171041,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3844],"tags":[7056,1303,391,70,413,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-171040","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-space","8":"tag-from-the-magazine","9":"tag-nuclear-power","10":"tag-opinion","11":"tag-science","12":"tag-space","13":"tag-uk","14":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114655077590273774","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171040\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/171041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}