Welcome to “Beyond the Grid,” our Q&A series where we delve into the critical role of power in space. In each interview, we bring you insights from leaders at the forefront of space technology, policy, and innovation. Today, we feature Bailey Reichelt, Founding Partner at Aegis Space Law. A space lawyer focused on creating commercially viable paths for the technology that powers the future. Bailey has been at the forefront of efforts to modernize the legal and regulatory landscape, helping the U.S. commercial sector navigate the complexities of nuclear space power development in particular.

Tackling Power-Related Challenges

Q: Power is one of the most fundamental challenges in space exploration. From a legal and regulatory perspective, what are the biggest barriers to advancing space based nuclear power systems?

Bailey Reichelt: One of the most significant barriers is the lack of a clear, tiered regulatory framework that acknowledges varying levels of risk among different power systems. Right now, we have a one-size-fits-all approach, especially with nuclear and other advanced power systems, that creates a high barrier to entry for commercial players. Operators need clear guidelines on environmental reviews, safety protocols, and licensing requirements. When those guidelines don’t differentiate between low-risk and higher-risk technologies, companies either get tangled in red tape or avoid promising innovations altogether.

Analysis: A coherent, tiered approach to regulation could streamline the path to deployment for emerging power systems. As Bailey notes, this is not just about nuclear—solar and other advanced systems face their own challenges when regulatory requirements don’t match the actual level of risk. This underscores the need for modernized policies that balance safety with technological feasibility and commercial viability.

Navigating Evolving Regulations for Nuclear Power

Q: Nuclear power is often positioned as a game-changer for deep-space missions, but it’s also one of the most unclearly regulated. How do you see regulations evolving to support—not stifle—innovation in space power?

Bailey Reichelt: There’s a lot of optimism stemming from recent updates like the 2019 National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-20), which gave the FAA more structured oversight for space nuclear systems. That was a positive first step, providing a clearer process for commercial launch approvals involving nuclear power. However, regulations haven’t fully caught up with how much safer and lower-risk newer nuclear technologies can be.

I believe the next evolution in regulation will focus on granular categories of nuclear systems. We should see exemptions or streamlined processes for low-risk technologies like certain radioisotope power sources or innovative small reactors with robust safety features. This will allow the U.S. to maintain rigorous safety standards while giving commercial players the regulatory clarity to invest in game-changing power systems.

Analysis: For deep-space missions, continuous power is critical—and nuclear power can provide that where solar cannot. The key is differentiating between various nuclear technologies, so that not all fall under the same restrictive umbrella. As Bailey suggests, refining the current framework with clearer categories and exemptions could help drive innovation while maintaining global leadership in space nuclear systems.

Power Systems Enabling the Next Generation of Space Access

Q: When it comes to space power, there’s often a tension between ensuring safety and enabling progress. Where do you think the regulatory balance should be struck?

Bailey Reichelt: It’s crucial to recognize that safety and progress are not mutually exclusive. The ideal balance involves risk-based thresholds, where higher-risk technologies are subject to deeper scrutiny and more detailed assessments, and low-risk technologies have a more straightforward pathway. A big part of striking this balance is rethinking financial and liability constraints. Right now, the Commercial Space Launch Act requires hefty insurance for nuclear launches, but the market for underwriting nuclear risk in space is extremely limited. This leaves many companies at an impasse. We could look at adapting terrestrial nuclear indemnification models to the space domain or even exploring public-private partnerships for risk sharing. Once innovators have a workable route for both technical and financial compliance, we can foster progress without compromising safety.

Analysis: Bailey’s point highlights an often-overlooked factor: the cost and availability of insurance for nuclear systems. Even if a technology is deemed safe, mission operators can’t proceed if they’re unable to secure coverage. Balancing safety and progress, therefore, isn’t only about engineering and regulatory hurdles; it’s also about financial feasibility.

The Global Space Power Landscape

Q: Other nations are rapidly investing in space power technologies. What regulatory advantages or disadvantages does the U.S. have in the global space energy race?

Bailey Reichelt: The U.S. has the advantage of a robust private sector that’s incredibly motivated to pioneer space technologies—and a legacy of cutting-edge research in advanced propulsion, nuclear systems, and solar power. However, strict export controls (like ITAR) can hamper American companies from fully competing in international markets or collaborating with global talent. Many of these regulations were designed for Cold War-era threats; they can be overly broad when applied to modern, low-proliferation-risk nuclear technologies. On the flip side, regulatory clarity—even if not perfect—is still more developed in the U.S. than in many other nations. We’re seeing incremental steps, like the FAA’s recent announcements about refining guidance for space nuclear systems, which could provide a predictable path for innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. needs to continue modernizing export controls and liability structures if it wants to stay ahead in the global competition.

Analysis: While the U.S. benefits from a strong commercial ecosystem and developing regulatory structure, overly broad export controls can stall progress. By fine-tuning these controls to focus on truly high-risk technologies, the U.S. can protect national security and maintain its competitive edge. The key is ensuring the policy environment evolves in tandem with technological advances.

Bailey Reichelt’s insights shine a spotlight on the intricate intersection of law, policy, and innovation in space power. From establishing risk-based tiers to revisiting export controls, it’s clear that thoughtful regulatory reform will be pivotal in opening the next chapter of American leadership in space.

Stay tuned for more in our “Beyond the Grid” series, where we continue exploring the future of power in space. Follow us on LinkedIn to get the latest interviews and updates on groundbreaking advancements in the final frontier.