FSP System Industry Day Questions and Answers.pdf

FSP System Industry Day Q&A

1. Will the government provide any government furnished equipment (GFE), potentially including hardware, launch services, communication services, nuclear fuel, etc.?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach for the full end-to-end deployment of a Fission Surface Project (FSP) System. If the participant proposes to use GFE, they will need to initiate a separate agreement with the applicable government agency. Based on industry feedback, NASA is strongly considering providing the launch and landing services as a NASA Responsibility in the FSP Effort Funded Space Act Agreement

(FSAA).

NASA has put together a list of applicable points-of-contact (POCs) across the agency/government to facilitate coordination. Please see the posted “Government Resources POC List Access Instructions” for guidance on how to request this list.

2. Can participants propose a NASA launch or commercial launch?

Based on industry feedback, NASA is strongly considering providing the launch and landing services as a NASA Responsibility in the FSP Effort FSAA.

3. Are there any limitations on nuclear fuel selection?

No, NASA is open to either high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) or highly enriched uranium (HEU). However, NASA has not verified HEU availability and it is the responsibility of the participant to do so. NASA is working with the Department of Energy (DOE) for an allocation of HALEU that will be sufficient to cover a nuclear ground demo and the flight reactor. However, participants will have to use the DOE application process regardless of fuel type proposed. NASA will assist in coordinating with DOE as needed.

4. Can prime participants also participate as sub-participants on other proposal?

Yes, an entity may be a team member or sub-participant on other proposals. NASA will accept no more than one proposal per entity as the primary participant.

5. What defines a “major sub-participant”?

A major sub-participant is considered any entity that provides a major sub-system including, but not limited to, the reactor, PMAD, PCS, launch vehicle, lander, and/or rover (if proposed) or has at least a 10% stake in the overall business venture.

6. Are other lunar assets available to assist in startup of the FSP reactor?

NASA does not anticipate having assets on the moon available to support the FSP System for early operations. Participants are expected to identify and propose all resources needed for all phases of operations for their end-to-end proposal.

7. Shielding: Do we need to avoid lunar activation? What is the target activation limit?

On Earth, it is <25mr/yr.

Currently, there is no limit or criteria for Lunar activation. Regolith activation should be analyzed to show how the radiation protection is managed.

8. What is the target temperature and area allowed for radiator panels?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own radiator design approach as part of their proposed end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. NASA does not have constraints on the working temperature of the radiator panels.

9. There are a host of regulatory risks pertaining to the FSP program, starting with the various state, local, and federal permits required for purchasing, shipping, storage, and processing of nuclear fuel, whether HEU or HALEU. Even the INSRB process and obtaining the final NSPM 20-tiered approval to launch is a risk, given the unprecedented complexity and risk of this system development. For example, could any INSRB agency member “throw the red flag” and refuse to concur with approval to launch? If final launch approval is never granted, would the industry team be made whole, especially if it had taken a 25% equity ownership stake in the system?

The Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board (INSRB) does not approve the safety analysis report (SAR), direct the Program/mission, or make nuclear launch authorization decisions.

The INSRB evaluates the quality of the nuclear safety analysis for missions that meet criteria specified in NSPM-20. The INSRB reports the culmination of its findings in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Participants should refer to NPSM-20 and the INSRB Playbook, approved January 20, 2023, for information on INSRB’s role in the launch authorization process.

10. Are there any major safety showstoppers with installing nuclear fuel into reactor at launch site?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach for installing nuclear fuel as part of their proposed end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. NASA is not specifying a fueling location, it is up to the participant to propose preferred methods and identify certified processing facilities to perform this work.

11. Will the preferred fuels and moderators be the same as those discussed in the FSP information session in July?

The information session in July does not have any relation with the current FSP Effort. NASA is requesting participants propose their own fuels and moderators, NASA is not prescribing a fuel or moderator.

12. Can a reactor subcritical aliveness test be performed in the launch processing facility as a final acceptance test prior to launch?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach for system acceptance as part of their proposed end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. NASA is not specifying a specific certification test; it is up to the participant to propose preferred methods and identify certified processing facilities to perform this work.

13. What type of safety margin is required for prevention of a reactor going critical with saltwater intrusion?

NASA is requesting that participants proposed safety features are in compliance with NSPM-20 and other safety considerations as described in Attachment 1 “Suggested Design Considerations”.

14. What will the interface for the user be and should it be defined by NASA or the partner?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own user interface and provide the appropriate documentation detailing it (e.g. Interface Requirements Document (IRD) and Interface Control Document (ICD)). NASA is requesting the FSP user interface should be compatible with the Artemis lunar surface assets as described in Attachment 1 “Suggested Design Considerations”.

15. Clarify the location where the FSP system is targeted to land on the moon to minimize design rework during the execution phase.

NASA is requesting the FSP System should operate in the lunar South Pole between 84 and 90 degrees south as described in Attachment 1 “Suggested Design Considerations”.

16. Is there any openness to locations other than the South Pole to encourage the lunar economy?

From the Fission Surface Power System Announcement for Partnership Proposals 80GRC025FSPS, DRAFT, (August 29, 2025), in Attachment 1, The Landing Region in SSC-3 states:

The FSP system should operate in the lunar South Pole between 84 and 90 degrees south.

NASA is requesting participants propose the timeline they require to know the exact landing location to limit schedule risk.

17. Where in the AFPP is the regulatory engagement plan required?

The Regulatory Engagement Plan is requested in the Technical Volume.

18. Will the AFPP request pricing for Phase B (procurement of power as service) in the proposal for Phase A?

Yes, estimated pricing is requested in the Business Volume.

19. Will Phase B be a subsequent FAR-based procurement?

Yes, a separate contract would be required for NASA to purchase power on the lunar surface in Phase B of the FSP Effort.

20. Is there flexibility with respect to the methods of deployment? Can we leverage regolith for shielding?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach for deployment and shielding for the full end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. The goal is to impose as little constraint in the concept of operations as possible.

21. Radiation limits are specified for the surface, but are there any limits on overhead radiation that could impact flyover?

NASA does not have constraints on vertical dose limits.

22. Will the AFPP include targets for annual funding?

NASA anticipates that funding information will be released in the final AFPP.

23. Does everyone who successfully completes the base get to perform an option? If not, how will NASA determine to exercise an option if all partners successfully perform the base?

It is not necessarily the case that everyone who completes the base will get awarded the option. That will be dependent on a variety of factors, including funding availability. NASA reserves the right to exercise options at their discretion.

24. How does the partner purchase long lead items (e.g., launch) if the exercise of the option is uncertain?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach for purchasing long lead items for the full end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. This could be through specific milestones or risk reduction activities. The goal is to impose as little constraint in the proposal as possible.

25. Will delays in Artemis missions impact FSP annual funding?

Delays in the Artemis missions are not expected to impact FSP Effort funding. The FSP Effort funding is expected to be independent from Artemis.

26. Will NASA guarantee a per year power usage during the option period?

NASA intends to follow on with a procurement for Phase B. However, a power guarantee may not be offered at this time. Participants should propose estimated costs for Phase B to assist the government in understanding Phase B requirements.

27. Is the location for the integrated nuclear ground demonstration going to happen at a government facility or is it open to be a contractor defined site?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach to testing for the full end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. Participants may propose testing in a government facility; however, NASA is not assuming a government facility is required. If the participant proposes to use a government facility, they will need to initiate a separate agreement with the appropriate government agency. NASA has put together a list of applicable points-of-contact (POCs) across the agency/government to facilitate coordination. Please see the posted “Government Resources POC List Access Instructions” for guidance on how to request this list.

28. What are you looking for in a business case – e.g., solid customers, letters of intent, a general plan?

The requested details for the business case are outlined in the AFPP.

29. DISNE (Design Specifications for Natural Environments) addresses dust resulting occurring in the natural environment, but will there be requirements addressing dust resulting from human activity?

NASA does not anticipate landing in the 1 km limited access zone (LAZ). NASA is requesting participants propose any additional considerations for operating in the LAZ, if any.

30. Will NASA define what requirements in the EHP documents, which contain hundreds of requirements, will be required?

Any reference or applicable documents within the EHP documents can be disregarded at this time. NASA is working to identify he most critical EHP requirements. Participants should review the provided EHP documents. Additional documentation will be posted to the FSP Technical Library as it becomes available.

31. Is NASA open to delaying the decision on whether the launch will be NASA or commercial?

Based on industry feedback, NASA is strongly considering providing the launch and landing services as a NASA Responsibility in the FSP Effort FSAA. NASA is requesting participants propose the timeline for when a decision on the launch and landing service selection needs to be made to limit schedule risk.

32. Have you already started engaging with the FAA?

NASA routinely engages with the FAA through several different forums, including the nuclear sub-group of the Range Safety Common Standards Working Group and the INSRB.

Beyond that, NASA cannot speak on behalf of FAA’s equities and refers the inquirer to FAA AC 450.45-1 and the FAA’s pre-application process.

33. Do the U.S. citizen eligibility requirements apply to subs? Would a sub that is domestically incorporated but foreign owned impact eligibility?

Apart from the restrictions noted in the AFPP regarding commercial launch services and research, entities on a participant team that will not be the primary partner (i.e. subs) do not need to meet the U.S. citizen eligibility criteria.

34. What will be required for post-deployment security?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach to post deployment physical, cyber, and communication security.

35. What will be required for pre-launch security?

Any facilities proposed for nuclear processes should be appropriately licensed through the NRC or authorized by the DOE.

36. Is there a requirement that the FSP provide full capability at deployment?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach to demonstrating full capability after deployment to include power generation and delivery to the user interface.

37. Would NASA be open to termination liability that would allow a partner to recoup its costs if NASA terminates?

The model FSAA presents a termination clause. Participants may propose changes to the model FSAA clauses as defined in the AFPP.

Any participant-proposed changes to the FSAA must be highlighted with an accompanying rationale explaining why the proposed change is necessary. Otherwise, NASA seeks to use standard articles/approaches for all participants and will seek to adopt the FSAA, as drafted in the AFPP. Any proposed changes to standard terms will be evaluated for acceptability and presented to the Selection Authority. Unacceptable changes to standard terms can impact a participant’s selection. Additionally, please also note that the Government does not anticipate revisions to the terms of the FSAA post-award. Proposals cannot be contingent on NASA accepting proposed changes to the FSAA.

38. What Con Ops will be provided? Will it be a requirement?

NASA may provide an Artemis concept of operations (CONOPS) with the final AFPP. NASA is requesting participants propose their own CONOPS for their FSP System in the Technical Volume.

39. What communications capabilities are required?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own approach to communications. On the lunar surface the partner should choose to be compatible with EHP-10068, Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program Communications Specifications. NASA is still assessing if compatibility with EHP-10068 will be a requirement.

40. Will a data link to assets be required?

NASA is requesting participants identify datalink requirements to provide services to users.

41. Is NASA open to different definitions for the required milestones, e.g., the ground demonstration at the end of the base?

Yes, NASA is requesting participants propose their own milestones for the full end-to-end deployment of an FSP System. Milestone entrance and success criteria are negotiable.

42. Do you foresee allowing for degraded performance after an anomaly? Would you allow degraded performance?

NASA is requesting participants propose their own degraded performance capability, however that is not the intent for meeting fault tolerance or redundancy.

43. Does NASA need the FSP to communicate with the NASA mission control center?

Does NASA need the contractor to interface directly with NASA system for data and telemetry?

No. Participants are permitted to have command and control authority for their FSP System. NASA is expecting to have access to partner control centers through Phase A, however NASA is not expecting to have command and control authority.

44. Can you make the documents referenced in the AFPP available for participants to review?

The team has created a technical library that can be accessed through sam.gov. The team will be posting additional documentation to this site as they have been cleared for public release. Please continue to monitor sam.gov for updates.

45. Will NASA accept classified information as part of the proposal?

No. NASA will not accept any classified materials as a part of the proposals.