*REQUEST FOR INFORMATION* Space Reactor Industrial Base Assessment

Request for Information

Space Reactor Industrial Base Assessment

THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. DO NOT SUBMIT PROPOSALS IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE.

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting a Space Reactor Industrial Base Assessment to identify gaps in the U.S. industrial base and recommend actions to close them. The assessment is mandated by National Science and Technology Memorandum 3 (NSTM 3, April 14, 2026), which implements Executive Order 14369, Ensuring American Space Superiority (December 18, 2025).

The specific mandate: assess the readiness of the U.S. nuclear reactor industrial base to produce up to four space reactors within five years, covering reactor design, long-lead-time components, and fuel allocation or production.

This RFI, and the broader assessment it informs, supports DOE's mission to develop and enable the use of space nuclear power systems to advance U.S. scientific, exploration, and national security objectives — in coordination with sponsoring agencies and as directed by Space Policy Directive-6, "National Strategy for Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion" (December 21, 2020).

This RFI solicits industry input to inform that assessment. It is technology-inclusive — no specific design or technology solution is presumed.

What This RFI Is Asking For

The goal is to identify constraints, not collect capability statements.

Responses should focus on what is hard, what is missing, what is at risk, and what government actions would help. Respondents should address only the areas relevant to their expertise.

Scope

The assessment covers the nuclear power unit — from the reactor core through the power conversion system (PCS). It excludes the spacecraft bus, avionics, launch vehicle, and other mission-level systems.

Topical Area

Examples

Nuclear fuel -  Enrichment, fabrication, fuel forms

Design capability - Workforce, nuclear data, material performance data, modeling & simulation tools

Non-fuel core components - Radiation shielding, Coolant, heat transfer mechanisms, reflectors, moderators, structural components

Instrumentation & control - Radiation hardened components supporting space reactor relevant temperatures, control systems and software

Power conversion systems - Stirling, Closed Brayton Cycle, Other

Infrastructure capabilities - Ground test facilities, irradiation facilities, integrated vehicle testing, launch safety qualification facilities, safeguards (e.g. if HEU)

Parameter envelope for this assessment

This assessment is technology-inclusive; respondents should therefore describe their capability against the parameter bands below rather than against any specific design, and identify which bands their product or capability can serve. Respondents whose offerings are parameter-agnostic (for example, workforce services or cross-cutting modeling tools) may note that and skip.

• Electrical power class — <10 kWe | 10–40 kWe | 40–100 kWe | >100 kWe
• Fuel form class — HALEU TRISO | HALEU metallic | HEU metallic | Other
• Primary coolant/heat transport — Heat pipe | Liquid metal | Gas | Other
• Core thermal power — <50 kWt | 50–250 kWt | 250–500 kWt | >500 kWt
• Mission profile — Orbital | Lunar surface | Deep space

Questions

Q1 — What do you make?

List the products, components, or materials your organization produces or develops for space nuclear reactor applications. For each, state:

• Current status: in production, prototype, or design
• Whether it requires significant adaptation for a space reactor application

Q2 — What are your biggest production constraints?

Describe the challenges to producing your product(s) at the rate and quality required for a campaign of up to four units in five years. Address whichever of the following are relevant:

• Design maturity — Is the design stable enough to commit to production?
• Manufacturing capacity — Can existing facilities meet the required output?
• Materials and supply chain — Are critical inputs available at scale?
• Workforce — Are sufficient skilled workers available or trainable in time?
• Qualification and testing — What certification or test requirements create schedule risk?
• Facilities and infrastructure — Are the right facilities available, accessible, and funded?
• Rate capability — units per year achievable at current steady state, the rate achievable with 24–36 months of warning and adequate funding, and the non-funding ceiling (the rate beyond which money alone will not raise output).
• Other constraints — Are there other factors not captured above that constrain production readiness?

If your organization spans multiple product lines, address each separately.

Q3 — What can't be fixed with money alone?

For your longest-lead items, identify the constraints that additional funding cannot resolve on its own — for example, regulatory timelines, facility construction, workforce development, or irreducible process durations.

For each constraint, explain:

• The underlying cause
• What would be required to resolve it
• Any external dependencies (facilities, services, suppliers)
• Whether alternatives exist
• The schedule consequences if those dependencies are delayed or unavailable

Q4 — Where are your sole-source or foreign-source dependencies?

Identify any critical input that is:

• Sole-sourced — only one qualified domestic supplier exists, or
• Foreign-sourced — the supplier or source material originates outside the United States

For each, provide: the item, the supplier or country of origin, and the production risk if that source is disrupted. Additionally, if you believe you are the sole or primary U.S. supplier of any product or capability relevant to space reactor production, identify it.

Q5 — Are you a unique U.S. source?

Are you the sole or primary U.S. supplier of any product or capability relevant to space reactor production? If so, identify it.

Q6 — What actions are needed, and who should take them?

For each challenge identified above, recommend a specific action. Structure your response by timeframe:

Near Term (Next 12 months)

• What must happen immediately to avoid foreclosing options?
• Who should act — government, industry, or a public-private partnership?
• What specific gap does the action address?

Longer Term (Years 1–5)

• What investments, policy changes, or infrastructure development are needed over the longer term?
• Who should act, and what gap does it address?

Q7 — Anything else we should know?

• Are there any additional items or information that would be useful in furtherance of the stated purpose of this RFI?

Information Protection

Individual responses will be kept confidential. Specifically:

• Responses will not be shared with other respondents or published in attributed form
• The final report will present findings in aggregate by subsystem area, without identifying companies unless they provide explicit written consent
• Responses will not be used for company rankings or procurement down-select decisions
• The assessment team is aware that some respondents are direct competitors; data handling reflects this

This assessment is conducted by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on behalf of the Department of Energy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactors. Because INL also develops space reactor technology, analytical independence is maintained: individual company responses are not shared with INL reactor development programs, and the assessment team operates under DOE direction.

How to Respond

Submit responses by email no later than May 5, 2026.

Submissions: contact@example.gov

Questions: Sebastian Corbisiero, National Technical Director, DOE Space Reactor Program — contact@example.gov

Respondents are encouraged to submit candid assessments, including commercially sensitive information where relevant. Any proprietary information must be clearly marked as such.

Disclaimers

This RFI is issued for information and planning purposes only. It is not a solicitation for proposals. Per FAR 15.201(e), responses are not offers and cannot form a binding contract. Submission is voluntary and does not affect eligibility for any subsequent solicitation. Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) will not reimburse response preparation costs, is not obligated to acknowledge submissions, and may share responses with government personnel and FFRDCs and Government support contractors.