CSA Seeks Canadian Industry Input on Lunar Microreactor Capabilities

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) is asking Canadian companies, universities, utilities and laboratories to describe capabilities that could contribute to a lunar fission microreactor. The request for information, posted October 27, is intended to identify Canadian strengths in a developing space-power field—not to select a contractor. The CSA has not committed Canada to a lunar microreactor program, and the RFI explicitly states that it will not lead to a contract. For potential respondents, the immediate opportunity is to shape the agency’s understanding of available technology, expertise, infrastructure and near-term development priorities.

The conceptual planning envelope is a compact reactor providing approximately 20–80 kilowatts of continuous electrical power (kWe) for at least 10 years. The system would be largely autonomous and safely deployable, usable and decommissionable, including at polar locations or sites near permanently shadowed regions. The CSA describes fission as a possible complement to solar panels and batteries, particularly for maintaining power through the roughly two-week lunar night and in areas where sunlight is limited. These figures are planning assumptions, not mandatory performance requirements: the RFI invites respondents to challenge the concept and propose alternative technologies or architectures.

The 16 areas of interest span a broad, distributed supply chain, including fuel, heat transport, power conversion, radiators, radiation shielding, autonomous instrumentation, testing and robotic emplacement. The CSA does not assume that one Canadian organization would design and deliver a complete reactor. Responses may instead address a subsystem, individual component or test facility, and should identify technologies at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 2 or higher. This structure creates an opening for specialist suppliers and research organizations, as well as potential teams combining nuclear, aerospace, robotics and utility expertise. Responses are due November 23, 2026, at 2 p.m. Eastern.

The RFI also asks respondents to identify the three highest-priority activities Canada could undertake over the next one to four years to strengthen its potential capability. The CSA sketches a possible progression from studies and component development to ground testing—first non-nuclear and then nuclear where authorized—and ultimately a lunar demonstration. However, responsibility for licensing and authorizing a reactor, approving its launch and overseeing safety has not yet been assigned. Respondents are asked about prior dealings with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), making regulatory experience and safety planning relevant areas to document. The RFI should therefore be treated as market research and an opportunity to inform priorities, not as funded work or a guaranteed precursor to procurement.

• Response deadline: Submit information by November 23, 2026, at 2 p.m. Eastern. Organizations should confirm the submission process and allow time to assemble technical and partnership details.
• Power planning range: The CSA’s conceptual system would deliver 20–80 kWe continuously for at least 10 years; this is a planning envelope, not a requirement.
• Readiness threshold: Describe relevant technologies at TRL 2 or higher, whether they apply to a complete system or a specific subsystem.
• Supply-chain scope: The 16 areas include fuel, heat transport, power conversion, radiators, radiation shielding, autonomous instrumentation, testing and robotic emplacement.
• Participation model: A response may cover a component, subsystem or test facility; the CSA does not expect a single entity to provide the full reactor.
• Architecture remains open: The agency has not selected a reactor type, fuel, coolant or power-conversion system and welcomes alternatives to its assumptions.
• Potential development path: The RFI describes studies and component work, ground tests, non-nuclear testing followed by nuclear testing where authorized, and a possible lunar demonstration.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Licensing, launch approval and safety oversight responsibilities are not yet assigned; respondents are asked about experience with the CNSC.
• Prior Canadian activity: The CSA awarded MDA Space $250,000 in 2022 for a concept study of a Canadian-led lunar nuclear power system. In June, four Lunar Surface Exploration Initiative contracts totaled $2 million, including power studies by Volta Space Technologies and CSMC Nuclear.
• Related capability development: CSMC Nuclear’s parent, Canadian Strategic Missions Corporation, licensed technology based on the SLOWPOKE research reactor from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in 2024. Separately, the CSA has funded two radioisotope technology projects focused on lunar-night heating and power for spacecraft and rovers.
• International context: NASA is pursuing a lunar fission reactor producing at least 100 kWe by 2030 and has sought U.S. industry designs; its broader space-nuclear effort includes the planned Space Reactor-1 Freedom mission in 2028.

For industry, the most useful response is likely to connect a clearly defined capability to the CSA’s stated operating environment and development path. Suppliers should distinguish demonstrated or currently available work from longer-term concepts, explain the evidence supporting the stated TRL, and identify testing, integration and deployment needs. Organizations with partial capabilities can make their contribution legible by describing interfaces with other parts of the system—for example, how a shielding, instrumentation or robotic emplacement solution would support autonomous operation and safe deployment. Where relevant, respondents can also identify prospective Canadian partners, facilities and regulatory experience without implying that the RFI itself creates a procurement opportunity.

The CSA’s request is also a signal that Canadian lunar infrastructure planning is considering power beyond solar and batteries. The technical range and open architecture leave room for competing concepts, but do not establish a selected design or funded program. The question about Canada’s highest-priority activities over the next one to four years gives respondents a direct channel to recommend studies, component development, testing or other capability-building steps. That makes the RFI potentially consequential for future planning even though it carries no contract commitment: well-supported submissions can help define where Canadian expertise exists, where gaps remain and what evidence would be needed before a later feasibility study or demonstration.