Is America ready for a nuclear explosion in space? 

by Peter A. Garretson and Richard M. Harrison,   – 06/09/26, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5915315-space-based-nuclear-weapons/

Gen. Stephen Whiting, the commander of U.S. Space Command, recently made waves when he publicly discussed a major threat that America’s newest military branch recently war-gamed — that of an adversary detonating a nuclear weapon in space.  

At first blush, the scenario seems far-fetched. In truth, though, it is a real possibility. 

More than a year ago, in February 2024, House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) was already raising the alarm that Russia could place a space-based nuclear device into orbit. That possibility was later confirmed by the Pentagon.

The White House grasps the danger. A December 2025 Executive Order on Space Superiority directs the country’s relevant agencies to create “a space security strategy that accounts for United States interests in, from, and to space” and “a technology plan for detecting, characterizing, and countering potential adversary placement of nuclear weapons in space.” That strategy, moreover, is expected as soon as June 16.

This public call to action is notable. It marks the first time an unclassified document has publicly directed a response to a nuclear weapon in space. It also reflects the gravity of what is an increasingly plausible threat. After spending several months conducting a deep dive into this subject, we at the American Foreign Policy Council have come to the same ominous conclusions. Space-based nuclear weapons are a serious matter, and one that deserves the very highest level of national attention. 

Talk of a nuclear detonation generally triggers visions of cities being destroyed and mushroom clouds. The effects differ when a detonation occurs at a high altitude. While explosions near space, or in space, may not have immediate destructive effects here on Earth, they can prove equally devastating. Even a relatively small nuclear device, detonated at the right place in low Earth orbit, would have a catastrophic impact on U.S. and allied interests.  

That is because, while space itself is enormous, the vast majority of modern spacecraft (nearly 90 percent) are in low Earth orbit, most of them satellites. Both the American and the global economy rely on these systems for everything from the functioning of the Internet to aircraft navigation and ship tracking, at a cost of billions of dollars daily, and trillions annually.

Moreover, our intelligence agencies and the U.S. military rely extensively on satellites to detect the movement of adversary ships, aircraft and tanks; to track ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles; and to communicate with our overseas forces. And in the near future, advanced capabilities will allow the U.S. Space Force to globally track everything that moves in the skies or on the ground in real time, in addition to all weather across the entire globe.

A space-based nuclear explosion anywhere could be damaging, but one in low Earth orbit would be crippling. If a nuclear weapon were detonated above this range, in a medium, higher Earth or geostationary orbit, the blast effects would basically only destroy satellites within a few kilometers.

But a nuclear weapon detonated in low Earth orbit would be far more devastating, because it would interact with the Earth’s magnetic field. The resulting radiation would be so strong, it would basically destroy everything in low Earth orbit in under a week’s time — leaving more than 10,000 derelict satellites on intersecting orbits with no way to avoid each other. The resulting destruction would be massive. A nuclear detonation there would truly be a weapon of mass destruction. 

Worse still, repopulating those space assets after a detonation would be extremely complicated. We lack a stockpile of military (or civilian) satellites that are radiation-hardened, that could serve as replacements for the dead ones in orbit. Nor do we have proven technology available for deployment in space to reduce the harsh radiation. Finally, we have not yet invested in the technologies that would allow us to build build the satellites needed to replenish low Earth orbit quickly and efficiently.

By next week, the Department of Defense and intelligence community should have an actionable plan to deal with this gargantuan problem — or at least the start of one. Congress needs to stand ready to resource it. Moreover, as we have recommended, it should catalyze investments in space traffic management models, commercial “what if” agreements, radiation remediation technology, radiation-hardened replenishment, and long-term investments in an in-space industrial base above the threat.  

Putting such a plan in place is a necessary start. But it will necessitate political will and resolute action on the part of the U.S. government. Otherwise, we risk being left in the dark.  

Peter A. Garretson is a senior fellow in defense studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, where Richard M. Harrison is vice president of operations. They are the authors of a new report on Space Nuclear Weapons.

June 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

With launches slated to grow a hundredfold, Space Force seeks more sites, money, people, and AI

Even today’s accelerated pace strains decades-old launch facilities.

Thomas Novelly, Defense One, May 7, 2026

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida—The guardians manning screens in the mission-ops center here oversaw the launch of five types of rockets in April, a new record that involved NASA’s Artemis II, the first reused New Glenn booster, and a Falcon 9 lofting the final GPS III satellite. But tomorrow’s Space Force may have no time to mark even epochal missions. Within a decade, service leaders say, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station will be launching hundreds of rockets a year.

To facilitate the Pentagon’s fast-growing demand for orbital capability, the Space Force is looking for more launch sites, more money, more troops, and more AI. 

“In 2025, the Space Force saw a drastic increase in mission requirements across space access, global mission operations, and space control. This trend shows no signs of slowing,” Gen. Chance Saltzman, the Space Force’s top uniformed leader, told House lawmakers last week. “The Space Force we have today is not the Space Force we will need in the future.”

Nestled on a thin stretch of land just miles from nature preserves and cruise-ship ports, the historic Cape Canaveral facility launched 36 rockets in 2021, its first year as a Space Force facility. Last year, it sent 110 into the heavens, while its California counterpart, Vandenberg Space Force Base, launched another 65.

This year, Space Force leaders intend to launch more than 200 rockets from their two main launch sites. And by 2036, they project, the pair will launch as many as 3,000 annually, according to a service document released last month.

That’s going to take more launchpads……………………..

even as the Space Force looks to spread its launches around, Lauderdale said, it also needs to expand and improve its two main bases and “pivot to invest in ways we never did before.”

Pushing policy

The Space Force’s top brass has been making that pitch as well. 

Last month at the Space Symposium in Colorado, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman unveiled “Objective Force 2040,” an ambitious vision with a section on expanding the service’s launch capabilities. 

“As the space domain becomes increasingly linked both to national security and to economic

prosperity, the importance of space access grows commensurately,” the document said. “This is a significant challenge because the Space Force has supported exponential growth in launch cadence over the past few years using the same physical infrastructure first built decades ago. The future operating environment will only exacerbate this strain, with booming government and commercial demand as well as new mission requirements for responsive and scalable space access.”

The document noted that the service will “expand and certify state, commercial, and private launch sites to address routine launches, increase surge capacity, and provide geographic diversity,” but also noted some spaceports won’t be fully suitable for some missions. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. People problems

Increasing the number of launches will require more than money. Top Space Force officers have recently called for doubling the service’s end-strength over the next decade.

But even that won’t be enough, they say. Guardians will need to lean on AI to help. 

“Our manpower is going to change,” said Air Force Col. Douglas Oltmer, commander of Cape Canaveral’s 45th Weather Squadron. “It’s going to have to change to be able to flex to that launch cadence, but we will not be able to do the job in the future the way we’re doing it now. We’re going to have to leverage technology, AI tools a lot more than we’re doing now.” ……………………………………………………… https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2026/05/launches-slated-grow-hundredfold-space-force-seeks-more-sites-money-people-and-ai/413403/

May 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

  Satellites launched for coming war on China

Space Development Agency launches first operational satellites

By Courtney Albon, Sep 11, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/space/2025/09/10/space-development-agency-launches-first-operational-satellites/

The Space Development Agency launched its initial batch of operational satellites on Wednesday, kicking off a 10-month campaign to deliver more than 150 satellites to low Earth orbit.

The 21 satellites, all built by York Space Systems, flew on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The spacecraft are part of SDA’s Transport Layer, designed to provide fast, secure communication capability to military operators.

The launch represents a new phase for SDA, which since 2019 has been crafting plans for a large constellation of government-owned missile tracking and data transport satellites in low Earth orbit. Its first spacecraft, Tranche 0, launched in 2023 and 2024 and have been used to demonstrate capabilities like laser communication between satellites, with the ground and recently between a commercial partner’s satellite and an SDA terminal installed on an aircraft in flight.

Once on orbit, the Tranche 1 satellites launched today will build on that work. Following initial payload health and safety checks, the spacecraft could start providing operational capability to combatant commands and other users within four to six months, according to acting SDA Director Gurpartap Sandhoo.

“This is the first time we’ll be able to start working with our COCOMs, our joint force to start integrating space into their operations and getting the warfighters used to using space from this construct,” Sandhoo told reporters prior to the launch. “This is the first time we’ll have the space layer fully integrated into our warfare operations.”

SDA’s first user group, whom Sandhoo called “early adopters,” includes military operators in the Indo-Pacific. This initial work is key, he added, to familiarize the services and combatant commands with the capability SDA can provide.

“Doing the warfighter immersion is going to be critical because they have to get trained on this and we have to provide this capability,” Sandhoo said. “That’s what Tranche 1 will start doing.”

Tranche 1 will include 154 satellites — 126 for the Transport Layer and 28 for the Tracking Layer. The first 21 spacecraft will bring a limited coverage and capacity, but that will increase over time as more reach orbit.

Starting with today’s launch, SDA plans to fly a new batch of Tranche 1 satellites each month for 10 months, with six of those missions carrying transport spacecraft and four flying missile warning and tracking satellites. The first few launches will be dedicated transport missions, but Sandhoo said tracking satellites will start to fly early next year.

The next mission is slated for mid-October and will feature satellites built by Lockheed Martin.

By the end of Tranche 1, Sandhoo said, SDA hopes to be providing regional capacity. Tranche 2, scheduled to start launching in late 2026, will further expand the constellation’s reach.

The agency is making headway on future missile tracking capabilities beyond Tranche 2 — which could provide essential support for the Pentagon’s Golden Dome missile shield — but the longer-term future of the Transport Layer is uncertain. The effort is fully funded through Tranche Two, but the Space Force has paused work on Tranche 3 amid an ongoing study considering whether the constellation is the best solution to meet the U.S. military’s data transport needs.

Sandhoo said the stalled funding will delay SDA’s plans to expand from regional to global transport coverage.

April 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear-Powered Rockets — NASA Plans First Launch in 2028

In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”

by Karl H Grossman, April 17, 2026, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/4/17/800021876/community/nuclear-powered-rockets-nasa-plans-for-launch-in-29/

NASA got through the Artemis II mission last week with a few minor “anomalies,” as NASA calls problems, but in 2028 it plans to launch a nuclear-powered rocket to Mars as an initial step to using nuclear-powered rockets in space.

An accident involving a nuclear-powered rocket could be no small anomaly.

The NASA plan was heralded in a section titled “America underway on nuclear power in space” in a NASA announcement on March 24^th headed “NASA Unveils Initiatives to Achieve America’s National Space Policy.”

It said that “after decades of study and in response to the National Space Policy, NASA announced a major step forward in bringing nuclear power and propulsion from the lab to space. NASA will launch the Space Reactor‑1 Freedom, the first nuclear-powered interplanetary spacecraft, to Mars before the end of 2028, demonstrating advanced nuclear electric propulsion in deep space.”

Scientific American followed with an article the same day headlined: “NASA announces a nuclear-powered Mars mission by 2028.” The subhead: “The U.S. space agency will aim to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars—a first—in a bid to show that nuclear propulsion can be used to send missions into deep space.”

Pursuing use of nuclear propulsion in space has been a NASA aim for many years—indeed, going back to the 1960s.

This was highlighted by NBC News correspondent Tom Costello, who covers space issues, in 2023 going to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama where work has been done and remains underway on developing nuclear rockets.

Costello reported: “NASA looks at going to the moon…and to Mars. And to get to Mars, they’re going nuclear….While science and exploration are the driving motivators, there’s also a competitive factor, China. The Chinese government is very secretive, and a lot of their plans involve their military preparations. And so, there’s a reason for us to get there first. And NASA wants to get there faster…So to cut travel time, America is going back to the future.”

“This project was called NERVA,” Costello continued, citing NERVA (which stands for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application), “the 1960s a government program that most Americans have never heard of to develop nuclear powered rockets. It turns out they made big progress back in the 60s, running expensive tests.”

In Huntsville, he said, “they’ve got an exact replica to scale of the Saturn V [rocket]…Future astronauts will need that kind of lift. But once they’re in space, they can use a much smaller engine, a nuclear engine, to go all the way to Mars and back…It’s happening now at the Marshall Space Flight Center…This is where they put [together] components of nuclear thermal rockets.”

Things did not go smoothly for NERVA.

“NASA: Lost its NERVA,” was the heading in an article in Ad Astra in 2005 by longtime space journalist Leonard David. He wrote about how, “For NASA, it has been a long time in coming—permission to use the ‘N’ word: for nuclear power in space. In many ways, it has been the political, financial and technological third rail of space exploration—too hot of an issue to handle easily—radioactive to boot.”

He wrote that NERVA’s “success was short-lived. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. President Richard Nixon nixed NASA and NERVA funding dramatically…Eventually, NERVA lost its funding and the project was scuttled in 1973.

It’s not just the U.S. that is intending to use nuclear-powered rockets in space. “Nuclear-powered rockets will win the new space race,” was the headline last year in The Washington Post. The sub-head: “Russia and China are working hard for a nuclear-powered advantage in space. The U.S. must up its game.

“Space nuclear propulsion and power are not hypotheticals,” said the article. “China is investing heavily in both terrestrial and space-based nuclear technologies, with plans to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars by 2033. Russia, too, has announced ambitious goals.”

The headline in a 2024 article in the South China Morning Post: “Starship rival: Chinese scientists build prototype engine for nuclear-powered spaceship to Mars.” Its subhead told of how a “1.5 megawatt-class…fission reactor passes initial ground tests as global race for space. The lithium-cooled system is designed to expand from a container-sized volume into a structure as large as a 20-story building in space.”

The article began by saying a “a collaboration of more than 10 research institutes and universities across China have made significant strides toward interplanetary travel with the development of a nuclear fission technology.”

 The Russians are bullish on the speed a nuclear-powered rocket could, they believe, attain. “Mars in 30 days? Russia unveils prototype of plasma engine,” was the headline last year of an article put out by World Nuclear News.

It began: “A laboratory protype of a plasma electric rocket engine based on a magnetic plasma accelerator has been produced by Rosatom scientists, who say it could slash travel time to Mars to one or two months.” (Rosatom is the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation.)

The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space was formed in 1992 at a gathering in Washington, D.C. and now has membership throughout the world. It has organized protests at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to NASA launches of spacecraft using radioisotope thermoelectric generators. Using the heat of plutonium-238, the RTG’s generate electricity to run instruments, not to propel spacecraft.

The largest protest organized by the Global Network involved the Cassini space probe mission to Saturn in 1997 with 73 pounds of plutonium in three RTGs, the largest amount of plutonium ever on a spacecraft.

The most dangerous portion of that mission was when NASA had the Cassini probe perform a “slingshot maneuver,” sending it back towards Earth to use Earth’s gravity to increase its velocity. If, as NASA said in an Environmental Impact Statement for Cassini, there was an “inadvertent reentry” into the Earth’s atmosphere in that maneuver causing it to disintegrate and release its plutonium, an estimated “5 billion billion…of the world population…could receive 99 percent of the radiation exposure.”

NASA insisted at the time that beyond the orbit of Mars, it was necessary to use plutonium-powered RTGs. However, in 2011 NASA launched its Juno space probe to Jupiter which instead of RTGs used three solar arrays to generate onboard electricity. Juno orbited and studied Jupiter, where sunlight is a hundredth of what it is on Earth.

In the U.S., in 2021 a report titled “Space Nuclear Propulsion for Human Mars Exploration” was issued by a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine of the U.S.

The 104-page report also lays out “synergies” in space nuclear activities between the NASA and the U.S. military. It said: “The report stated: “Space nuclear propulsion and power systems have the potential to provide the United States with military advantages…NASA could benefit programmatically by working with a DoD [Department of Defense] program having national security objectives.”’

What might be an “anomaly” involving a nuclear-powered rocket.

“Is using nuclear materials for space travel dangerous, genius, or a little of both?” was the heading of a 2021 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

With the U.S. setting a goal of “a human mission to Mars,” said the articleby Susan D’Agostino, “the words ‘nuclear’ and ‘space’ are again popping up together….Nuclear propulsion systems for space exploration—should they materialize—are expected to offer significant advantages, including the possibility of sending spacecraft farther, in less time, and more efficiently than traditional chemical propulsion systems.”

“But,” the piece went on, “extreme physical conditions on the launchpad, in space, and during reentry raise questions about risk-mitigation measures, especially when nuclear materials are present. To realize the goal of nuclear-propelled, human mission to Mars, scientists must overcome significant challenges that include—but go beyond—the technical. That is, any discussion about such an uncommon journey must also consider relevant medical, environmental, economic, political, and ethical questions.”

The piece said that “attaching what amounts to a nuclear reactor to a human-occupied spaceship is not without risks.”

An article in 2023 by Bob McDonald of the Canadian Broadcasting System was headed: “Nuclear powered rockets could take us to Mars, but will the public accept them?”

“Nuclear rockets are not a new idea,” it noted. “Now, with the prospect of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s, the idea is being revived in an effort to shorten the roughly seven months it takes a conventional rocket to get to Mars. This might be a boon for future astronauts who face a seven-month, one-way journey using current technology.”

“The idea is to use a small fission reactor to heat up a liquid fuel to very high temperatures, turning it into a hot gas that would shoot out a rocket nozzle at high velocity, providing thrust,” it continued.

“The design of a nuclear rocket means they typically would produce less thrust than a chemical rocket, but nuclear engines could run continuously for weeks, constantly accelerating, ultimately reaching higher velocities in a tortoise-and-hare kind of way. Nuclear propulsion is expected to be twice as fuel-efficient as chemical rockets, largely because they can heat the gas they use for thrust to a higher temperature than chemical combustion, and hotter gas means more energy.”

“A quicker trip to Mars provides huge benefits. Astronauts would be exposed to less cosmic radiation during the journey. The psychological pressures of living in a confined space far from home would be reduced. Supplies and a rescue mission could be delivered more quickly. These rockets could also open up the outer solar system so trips to Jupiter and its large family of icy moons could eventually be within reach,” the piece went on.

“While the technology of nuclear propulsion is certainly feasible, it may not be readily embraced by the public. The accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have left many people skeptical about nuclear safety. And there will be risk,” said the piece.

“Technicians at the NASA Lewis Research Center in 1964 testing a nozzle design for a nuclear thermal rocket. A nuclear rocket wouldn’t be used to launch a spacecraft from the Earth’s surface — it would be designed to run in space only. It would have to launch into orbit on a large chemical rocket — so the public would have to accept the risk of launching a nuclear reactor on a standard rocket filled with explosive fuel.”

“And rockets have and will malfunction catastrophically, in what with black humor rocket scientists sometimes call RUD—’rapid unscheduled disassembly.’”

“No one wants to see nuclear debris raining down on the Florida coast or Disneyland, and that’s not the only possible scenario. An accident in orbit could potentially drop radioactive material into the atmosphere. These safety concerns need to be addressed before any nuclear rocket leaves the ground,” said the article.

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network since its formation, cites in the past NASA “postponing a test of a nuclear-powered spacecraft just above the Earth. They weren’t allowed to test it on Earth because of its potential for spreading contamination widely, so they intended to test it over our heads. There were concerns about the technology failing, and it falling, burning up on re-entry. At the present time there is no schedule to do those tests, but I’m sure they’re pushing ahead to do them as quickly as possible.”

“Besides the problem of an accident,” said Gagnon, “the production process for nuclear space devices leads to radioactive contamination in the laboratories where they takes place and in air and water.”

In 2015 Gagnon said: “The nuclear industry views space as a new market for their deadly product. Nuclear generators on space missions, nuclear-powered mining colonies on Mars and other planetary bodies and even nuclear reactors on rockets to Mars are being sought. Thus, there are many opportunities for things to go wrong.”

If things go wrong, these “anomalies” could be major.

NASA’s March 24 announcement also said: “When SR-1 Freedom reaches Mars, it will deploy the Skyfall payload of Ingenuity‑class helicopters to continue exploring the Red Planet. SR-1 Freedom will establish flight heritage nuclear hardware, set regulatory and launch precedent, and activate the industrial base for future fission power systems across propulsion, surface, and long‑duration missions. NASA and its U.S. Department of Energy partner will unlock the capabilities required for sustained exploration beyond the Moon and eventual journeys to Mars and the outer solar system.”

April 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Fresh off Artemis, America is now turning its attention to creating nuclear power in space.

The administration wants to launch the reactors to the moon within the next four years – a timeline that critics say could be a problem

Indeoendent, Julia Musto in New York, Tuesday 14 April 2026

The Trump administration is renewing its focus on creating nuclear power in space, releasing updated guidance for federal agencies following the historic Artemis II lunar mission.

The action is aimed at ensuring the U.S. stays ahead of China in the new space race, which will determine which political power creates the rules there in the future, as humans establish a permanent moon base and work toward getting to Mars in a nuclear-powered spacecraft.

Nuclear energy will be necessary to live and work on the moon because there is not unlimited access to solar power and lunar nights are 14.5 Earth days long. Nuclear reactors can be placed in permanently shadowed areas and can generate power continuously, according to NASA.

The administration’s guidance, issued Tuesday, instructs the Departments of Energy and Defense, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA to start taking steps toward safely deploying nuclear reactors in orbit as early as 2028 and launching them to the moon by 2030, in line with a December executive order from President Donald Trump.

“The time has come for America to get underway on nuclear power in space,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, a former SpaceX astronaut, wrote in a post sharing the news on the social media platform X

………………………………. By the next 60 days, it calls for a Department of Energy assessment on the readiness of the nuclear industry to produce “up to four space reactors within five years, including reactor design, delivery of long lead-time components, and fuel allocation or production, along with recommendations for addressing any gaps.”

And the guidance also instructs the OSTP to develop a roadmap that identifies obstacles to achieving these objectives within the next 90 days.

“DOW will, pending availability of funding, pursue deployment of a mission-enabling mid-power in-space reactor by 2031,” the guidance said.

…………………..But some experts say that recent goals for reactors are just not feasible within the allotted timeline – although not everyone agrees.

“The whole proposal is cock-eyed and runs against the sound management of a space program that is now being starved of money,” national security analyst, nuclear expert and author Joseph Cirincione told The Independent last August.

He believes a nuclear reactor on the moon could take up to 20 years to become a reality. https://www.independent.co.uk/space/us-nasa-space-nuclear-power-b2957498.html

April 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, USA | Leave a comment