A New NASA Design Turbocharges Nuclear Spacecraft

The biggest threat to any crewed expedition to Mars is time . NASA’s shortest blueprint for sending people to the Red Planet and back requires spending 620 days in space and 30 days on Mars. Even setting aside the compounding challenges of building life-support systems that can operate without resupply for that long, or the fact that longer journeys leave more time for unlucky accidents, life in microgravity and solar and cosmic radiation will inexorably exact their cumulative toll on human bodies. We want to make it possible to dramatically reduce the length of time crews must spend in space—down to just 335 days in transit or less. This will both simplify many engineering challenges and keep astronauts healthier and safer. We believe the key to this time reduction is a new approach to building a holy grail of space exploration, the bimodal nuclear rocket. In the 1960s, U.S. open-air ground tests demonstrated much of the technology needed for nuclear thermal rockets as part of the NERVA and Rover projects. Nevada State Museum, Las Vegas Technicians at NASA’s Lewis Research Center test a nozzle design for a nuclear thermal rocket in 1965. GRC/NASA The prototype SNAP-10A, orbited in 1965, is to date still the only nuclear reactor launched into space by the United States. George Rinhart/Corbis/Getty Images We are Kurt Polzin , chief engineer of NASA’s space nuclear propulsion project at the Marshall Space Flight Center , with over two decades of experience in advanced propulsion research, and Robert Schleicher , chief engineer for nuclear technologies and materials at General Atomics . And to explain just what a bimodal nuclear rocket is, and why the new version we have conceived together brings it closer to future reality, we first need to take a quick trip to the past. As early as 1946 , researchers realized that nuclear reactors had the potential to become extremely efficient thermal rocket engines. Most rockets are thermal rockets, and they work by expelling hot gases through a nozzle, thrusting the rocket forward. While there are other factors such as nozzle shape, generally speaking, the hotter and faster you make the rocket’s exhaust gases, the more acceleration the rocket will produce for a given mass of propellant. Because a smaller molecule will move faster than a larger one when heated to a given temperature, the smaller the molecular mass of your propellants, the better. By convention, the efficiency of a rocket engine is measured by how long the engine can exert a thrust equal to the initial weight of its propellant, a quantity known as specific impulse . In a conventional thermal rocket, such as those used in every launch to orbit since Sputnik, the exhaust temperature and speed—and thus the specific impulse—is dictated by the energy released by a chemical reaction and the mass of the reaction’s by-product. The most efficient chemical rockets today combust hydrogen with oxygen, producing water and a specific impulse that tops out around 450 seconds. But a nuclear rocket is not limited by chemistry. The heart of a nuclear thermal rocket is a nuclear fission reactor, in which chain reactions in uranium fuel release much more energy per kilogram than is possible with chemical combustion. A turbopump forces liquid hydrogen alone—with its very small molecular mass—through the reactor’s core, heating it to temperatures of at least 2,700 kelvin before expelling it, resulting in a specific impulse of 900 seconds or more. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Rover and NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications) programs ­ ground-tested nuclear thermal rockets. By the early 1970s, the technology had matured to the point where flight tests were being planned . But changing political and budgetary winds led to nuclear thermal development being shut down in 1973. Another prong of nuclear propulsion that has also demonstrated considerable promise is nuclear electric propulsion. In electric propulsion , instead of creating a stream of hot rocket exhaust through chemical reactions or exposure to the core of a nuclear reactor, electricity is generated and used to create electromagnetic fields that accelerate an ionized propellant such as xenon or lithium. Various schemes to do this exist, including some that have already seen considerable time in space, such as the ion thrusters used on the Dawn asteroid mission launched in 2007. So far, these electric thrusters have only been powered by solar panels. But with a nuclear reactor as part of a power plant that supplies the juice, more thrust could be produced. And moving beyond solar power is particularly important in missions to the outer solar system where sparse solar photons would require enormous solar arrays. With electric thrusters, specific impulses in the range of 2,200 to 4,600 seconds are possible, but currently with very low thrust. With the energy available to a nuclear-powered electric ­propulsion engine, you could have greater acceleration and reduced mission times. The nuclear reactor could also provide electrical power for all the spacecraft systems as well. The System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) program launched the SNAP-10A in 1965 as a proof of concept, the first—and so far only—U.S. nuclear power reactor in space. It generated about 600 watts of electrical power for 43 days before shutdown and is still in orbit. Subsequent U.S. initiatives for more substantive electric power and nuclear thermal propulsion systems, such as the SP-100 , Project Timberwind , and Project Prometheus , along with more recent projects like Demonstration Rocket for Agile Cislunar Operations ( DRACO ) and Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-Orbit Nuclear ( JETSON ), have emerged sporadically over the years. None of these have yet progressed to actual flight. However, space nuclear power got a huge shot in the arm in March 2026 when NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced a new space exploration initiative . As part of that initiative, the agency plans to launch Space Reactor-1 Freedom (SR-1) to deliver a trio of robot-survey helicopters to Mars. Driven by nuclear electric propulsion, SR-1 aims to demonstrate fission technology in deep space and would be the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft, generating 20 kilowatts of electric power aboard. This is a bold step for NASA, and brings us up to the present, but the details of the proposed mission also highlight a familiar limitation of nuclear electric propulsion. Even with improved acceleration, electric propulsion still cannot generate the powerful bursts of thrust needed to escape gravity wells, such as those of Earth or Mars, or perform time-critical maneuvers, like course corrections. On the other hand, while not as efficient and unable to supply electrical power for spacecraft systems, nuclear thermal engines are great at delivering high thrust at critical moments. What is a bimodal nuclear rocket? Some engineers would suggest we build two separate systems—one reactor for thermal propulsion and another reactor for power and electric propulsion. But since at least the 1990s , it has been the dream of many engineers to combine nuclear thermal and nuclear electric in one package, with one reactor: the bimodal nuclear rocket. Most previous bimodal proposals depend on complex valve arrangements to integrate the propulsion and power systems. In thermal propulsion mode, the reactor is brought to maximum activity by a set of control drums that ring the core, which is composed of a matrix of long uranium-fuel elements. The drums take the shape of long cylinders made of beryllium, with a 120-degree segment of each cylinder covered with boron carbide. Boron absorbs neutrons, and when that segment faces the reactor, the reactor’s activity is low as neutrons escaping from the core are captured. Rotating the boron segment so that it faces away from the core (leaving only the beryllium exposed) increases nuclear activity as the beryllium reflects escaping neutrons back into the core’s fuel elements, where they can contribute to chain reactions. This proposed trajectory, developed at NASA’s Glenn Research Center, shows where high-thrust maneuvers [blue dots] are executed by a nuclear thermal engine and additional low-thrust, high-efficiency acceleration and deceleration is performed by electric propulsion [hashed lines show thrust direction] NASA Glenn Research Center Once the reactor is generating large amounts of heat, liquid hydrogen is pumped through channels that run the length of the core. Turned into an expanding hot gas, the hydrogen blasts from the other end of the core to form the rocket’s powerful exhaust. In nuclear power mode, the reactor’s activity is damped. Valves seal the channels and a so-called power-conversion fluid—typically a mixture of helium and xenon gas—circulates through the reactor in a closed loop. The reactor is still hot enough to warm this fluid, which drives a turbine connected to an electrical generator. The key point here is that a single set of flow channels and nuclear-fuel elements are used for both modes. But the valves used to switch modes face the formidable challenge of enduring months, or even years, in a harsh radiation environment while maintaining leak-tight performance. The core’s activity is controlled by the rotating drums surrounding it. Within the core, low-temperature fuel elements [left in blue, and top right] produce electric power by heating a circulating fluid. High-temperature fuel elements [left in red, and bottom right] heat hydrogen as a propellant. (The taper of the HTFE’s exhaust channel is exaggerated for illustrative purposes. Ways of packaging the HTFE’s uranium fuel other than with particles are possible.) John MacNeill In addition, the nuclear-fuel elements surrounding the channels must be able to operate for short durations at very high temperatures during thermal thrust maneuvers and for long durations at lower temperatures during the rest of the voyage. It is difficult to build one type of element capable of both. Hence, the complexity and demanding engineering requirements of previous bimodal designs has hindered their practical application. We propose a simplified approach, a hybrid system we call the synchronal bimodal nuclear rocket (S-BNR). The genesis for this design came about when we were attending a conference together in 2025. One of us (Polzin) had an initial idea, and in time-honored tradition, he sketched it out on a napkin to see if the other (Schleicher) thought there was actually a way to do it. We’ve been working on refining the concept ever since. How the synchronal bimodal nuclear rocket works Rather than relying on a complex valve system, the S-BNR uses two hydraulically independent loops within a single reactor core, one open loop (for thermal propulsion) and one closed loop (for electrical power). The core is divided into two zones, one per loop, differentiated by the type of fuel elements in each. Several designs for the fuel elements are possible: In our preliminary design, the high-temperature fuel elements (HTFEs) in the thermal propulsion zone consist of a bed of “pebbles”—uranium fuel encased in zirconium carbide—that surround a central tapering channel and operate at greater than 2,700 K. (One possible alternative for the HTFEs would be a solid fuel design, as with NERVA.) The hydrogen propellant passes through the pebble bed, where the pebbles’ large surface area maximizes the transfer of heat needed for efficient high-thrust propulsion. The other zone has low-temperature fuel elements (LTFEs), optimized for long-term, efficient production of electricity, which can range from tens of kilowatts to several megawatts. In these elements, the uranium fuel in solid form surrounds a double-walled channel: The power-conversion fluid is pumped down the inside and returns along the outside wall, absorbing heat from the fuel and operating at moderate temperatures (at or above 1,200 K). The electric-power and nuclear-thrust elements of the core have separate fluid loops, which eliminates the need for valves to switch between closed-loop operation for power generation and open-loop operation for propulsion. John MacNeill Both the HTFEs and LTFEs contribute the neutrons required to sustain chain reactions. In power-only mode, residual heat moves from the HTFEs into adjoining LTFEs. The physical interface between the elements is designed to moderate this thermal flow to balance two competing needs: It must allow enough heat flow to safely remove the residual heat from the HTFEs, but it must also limit that heat flow so the LTFEs’ temperatures do not go past their allowable limits when the HTFEs operate at high power. During combined propulsion and power operation, a heat exchanger on the power loop preheats the hydrogen propellant for the thrust loop, aiding the turbopump that feeds the hydrogen through the core. After a propulsion burn is completed and the HTFE chain reactions are damped by the control elements, the power loop removes residual-decay heat coming from the HTFEs as described above, eliminating the requirement in earlier designs for additional propellant flow just to cool down the core while on standby. This dual-loop system also means the engine can produce high thrust whenever needed while allowing the generator to remain active at all times—a significant advantage for crewed missions. By adopting this dual-loop architecture, the S-BNR removes the need for the problematic mode-switching valves found in earlier concepts. Each fission zone is constructed with materials tailored to its specific temperature and power requirements, ensuring optimal performance and durability. The result is uninterrupted electrical power across all mission stages, making it unnecessary to carry additional liquid hydrogen just to manage decay heat. The challenges ahead While significant progress in developing the design of the S-BNR has been made, substantial challenges remain. The reactor must maintain stable control across a wide power range, from modest levels for electricity generation to hundreds of megawatts of thermal power during high-thrust operation. Operating the ­power-generation loop in close proximity to the HTFEs requires very careful management of both temperature and the neutrons emitted by the fuel elements. And crucially, demonstrating reliable, long-duration performance is particularly demanding: Missions to Mars may require years of continuous power generation. ­Outer-planet probes equipped with S-BNR engines could extend that to a decade or longer. In the past, nuclear thermal propulsion fuel elements were engineered for extremely high temperatures but only brief operational lifetimes (typically hours), whereas proposed nuclear electric propulsion fuel elements are optimized for lower temperatures and intended to last for years. By using two different types of fuel elements in the S-BNR, we can take advantage of the design heritage of both these development tracks. Fortunately, recent NASA-sponsored research has produced several promising candidates that may meet these demanding requirements. Ground-testing these systems is also a challenge. Early in the Rover and NERVA era, the exhaust from test engines was blasted into the atmosphere, something now unacceptable. Today, any ground test of an engine must completely capture all potentially radioactive exhaust products. Fortunately, a number of approaches have been developed to capture and scrub the exhaust, although these methods currently carry a significant price tag. Then there is the ultimate test: flying an S-BNR in space. International regulatory and safety protocols for nuclear launches were developed largely in response to the Soviet Union’s launch of dozens of nuclear-powered Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellite (RORSAT) radar spy satellites in the 1970s and 1980s. There were a number of incidents, with the most serious leaving radioactive debris strewn across a swath of Canada in 1978. This history led to a consensus in the space community that might be summarized as “Thou shalt not bring a nuclear reactor to criticality in any Earth orbit that decays faster than dangerous isotopes.” Thus any S-BNR would be launched atop a conventional chemical rocket, with a completely cold reactor and fresh fuel. Fresh uranium fuel is not in fact very radioactive: The potentially larger concern is the chemical toxicity of this heavy metal, but it can easily be handled by wearing light protective suits, respirators, and gloves. Only after the control elements have been adjusted to permit chain reactions to begin within the core are highly radioactive isotopes able to form from fission fragments. There would be even less cause for concern than when launching a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), such as the sort that are currently powering the Perseverance rover on Mars and the New Horizons mission in the outer solar system. Even in the most extreme scenario imaginable—the chemical booster explodes and somehow damages the reactor’s control elements in just the right way to initiate a chain reaction—there wouldn’t be time to produce a large amount of toxic isotopes before the reactor broke apart and reactions ceased. (We can be sure of this because Project Rover actually tested this kind of worst-case scenario in 1965 with the Kiwi-TNT test , where an engine prototype was rigged to produce a runaway chain reaction sufficient to vaporize the reactor core due to the immense internal pressure buildup. Negligible radiation spread outside a radius of two miles (3.2 kilometers), well within the range of safe distances for launching any rocket capable of reaching orbit, and site decontamination was possible after only a few days of radioactive decay.) Despite all these considerable engineering challenges, the foundation laid by decades of investment in nuclear thermal and electric propulsion and terrestrial nuclear power technologies provides a solid platform for continued advancement. Indeed, much of the foundational work is already underway through ongoing NASA and U.S. Space Force efforts. The Dawn asteroid mission relied on electric thrusters, demonstrating their utility for long-duration spaceflight. JPL-Caltech/NASA We envision the following action plan to merge these technology pathways: Modeling must be performed to demonstrate and verify strategies for thermal management and the control of nuclear processes over the full range of operating power levels. Near-term non-nuclear testing will validate fluid loop operation, heat transfer mechanisms, and control strategies. Next, component-level irradiation and thermal trials will qualify new materials. Then, integrated reactor testing will begin, first without nuclear fuel and later with fueled reactors undergoing fission. Finally, initial in-space demonstrations could begin with lower-power systems, eventually scaling up to full bimodal capabilities. Achieving success will require close collaboration across NASA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, industry partners, and the broader technical community. Progress will depend on advancements in ­high-temperature fuels and materials, improved systems for power conversion and heat transport, and the adoption of innovative manufacturing techniques and methods to control nuclear fission over a wide range of output power. In particular, integrated system testing will be more complex than previous programs such as NERVA, due to the combined functions and distinct operational regimes for thermal propulsion and power generation. We hope engineers and researchers with relevant expertise will be encouraged to contribute to addressing these challenges, whether in the areas of thermal management, reactor modeling and control, extended-duration testing, or safety analysis. Past ground tests and limited demonstrations have already established the capabilities of space nuclear systems. With architectures like the synchronal bimodal nuclear rocket, the prospect of integrating high-thrust propulsion and sustained power generation becomes increasingly practical and versatile. The next phase is not simply about traveling fast. It’s about building crewed and uncrewed spacecraft that can reliably travel to destinations throughout the solar system that are currently difficult or impossible to reach, with missions potentially lasting years or even decades. This article appears in the September 2026 print issue as “A Reimagined Nuclear Rocket.”