# Research Musing — 2026-04-24

**Research question:** Has TerraPower's Natrium reactor crossed the line from "compatible with AI demand cycles" to "purpose-designed for AI training variability" — and does this constitute a new category of nuclear reactor (AI-native), distinct from conventional baseload nuclear? Secondary: Is China's Orbital Chenguang ($8.4B state-backed) a distinct orbital computing program from the Three-Body constellation (ADA Space/Zhejiang Lab), and if so, how many parallel Chinese orbital computing programs exist?

**Belief targeted for disconfirmation:** Belief 12 — "AI datacenter demand is catalyzing a nuclear renaissance, and fusion is the decade-scale wildcard." Specifically targeting the mechanism claim: that advanced reactors (Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor, Kairos molten salt) are the mechanism, NOT conventional LWR SMRs. Disconfirmation path: (a) maybe Natrium's load-following capability is incidental to AI demand, not purpose-designed — the AI demand narrative is marketing layered on top of an existing reactor design; (b) maybe renewables+storage (LDES) are actually undercutting the nuclear market.

**Why this session's questions:**
1. Yesterday (2026-04-23) identified the Natrium AI-native angle as the highest-priority branching point. The finding: Meta committed 6.6 GW total nuclear (January 9, 2026); NextEra-TerraPower committed 2.5-3 GW for Google/Microsoft data centers (April 8, 2026); Natrium's integrated molten salt storage surges from 345 MW to 500 MW — perfectly sized for AI training cycle variability. The question was whether this is engineered correlation or marketing correlation.
2. Also identified that China may have 2+ distinct orbital computing programs.
3. Tweet feed is empty (persistent state — 21+ consecutive empty sessions). Web searches used for all source material.

---

## Main Findings

### 1. Natrium's AI Fit Is RETROACTIVE, Not Purpose-Designed

**Critical finding for disconfirmation of Belief 12 mechanism claim:**

The Natrium reactor's molten salt storage was NOT designed for AI training cycles. Design history:
- TerraPower founded 2006; traveled from traveling wave reactor concept to Natrium by ~2020
- DOE ARDP funding selected 2020 (predates current AI demand wave by 2-3 years)
- Molten salt thermal storage borrowed from CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER (CSP) industry — the same technology used in solar thermal plants. The Natrium documentation explicitly states: "The Natrium technology leverages the equipment and system design from solar thermal facilities in the U.S. and around the world."
- Design motivation: complement intermittent renewables (solar/wind), not AI training cycles
- The 345 MW → 500 MW (150% for 5.5 hours) was designed for grid load-following with renewable integration

**BUT: The AI commercial fit is genuine and very large:**
- Meta deal (January 9, 2026): 8 Natrium units total — 2 committed (690 MW firm, 1 GW dispatchable, delivery 2032) + options for 6 more (2.1 GW by 2035)
- NextEra-TerraPower (April 8, 2026): 2.5-3 GW for Google/Microsoft data centers, $15-20B capex, Duane Arnold Iowa site
- NRC construction permit issued: March 4, 2026 — first commercial-scale advanced nuclear permit ever issued
- Ground broken: April 23, 2026 (literally yesterday) at Kemmerer, Wyoming
- First power target: 2030

**Implication:** The KB claim that Natrium is purpose-designed for AI is wrong — the correct framing is "AI buyers discovered a pre-existing advanced reactor architecture that happens to match their surge demand profile." Natrium's 345→500 MW surge capability is an AI training cycle match by virtue of physics (thermal storage provides rapid output ramping), not by design intent.

**CLAIM CANDIDATE:** TerraPower's Natrium molten salt storage makes advanced nuclear uniquely suited for AI training demand cycles not because it was designed for AI (it was designed to complement renewables) but because the same thermal storage physics that buffers solar intermittency also buffers AI training surges — a structural convergence of renewable integration and AI demand that makes Natrium the de facto nuclear solution for data center operators seeking firm, dispatchable power with surge capability.

---

### 2. China's Orbital Computing Portfolio: At Least TWO Distinct Programs

**CONFIRMED: Orbital Chenguang ≠ Three-Body. These are separate programs.**

**Three-Body Computing Constellation (ADA Space + Zhejiang Lab):**
- Status: OPERATIONAL — 9-month in-orbit test complete February 2026
- Scale: 12 satellites, 5 PFLOPS, 8B-parameter LLMs running in orbit
- Funding: Civilian/academic (university + commercial partnership)
- Expansion: 39 satellites in development → 100 by 2027 → 2,800 total ("Star-Compute Program")
- Power: solar-powered, independent
- Geography: SSO

**Orbital Chenguang (Beijing Astro-future Institute of Space Technology):**
- Status: PRE-OPERATIONAL — Pre-A1 funding round completed April 20, 2026; Chenguang-1 experimental satellite NOT YET LAUNCHED
- Scale: Target 1 GW power capacity, 16-spacecraft constellation
- Funding: State-backed ($8.4B credit from 12 major banks — Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of Communications, CITIC); backed by Beijing municipal science commission + Zhongguancun Science Park administration
- Orbit: Sun-synchronous, 700-800 km
- Timeline: 2025-2027 (tech dev + first launch phase) → 2028-2030 (Earth-space integration) → 2035 (gigawatt-scale)
- Character: State infrastructure play, not university research

**A possible third: Beijing Institute space computing center** — search results reference "Beijing Institute to Build China's First Space Computing Center 800 km Above Earth" — may overlap with Orbital Chenguang (which is also backed by Beijing institute) or be a third distinct program. Needs verification next session.

**Portfolio assessment:** China is running at minimum TWO parallel orbital computing programs at completely different maturity levels (one operational, one pre-commercial). These serve different strategic purposes: Three-Body = civilian science/commercial proof-of-concept; Orbital Chenguang = state-directed infrastructure at gigawatt scale. The US KB framing of "the Chinese orbital computing program" is a category error.

---

### 3. Starship V3 Flight 12: Capability Jump Larger Than "Just Another Test"

**Confirmed timeline:** Slipped from late April to early-to-mid May 2026 (Musk: "4-6 weeks" as of some prior statement). Full static fire complete. Pad 2, Starbase.

**What's different about V3 (not just V2+ with refinements):**
- Payload to LEO: >100 MT reusable (V2: ~35 MT) — 3x increase
- Expendable: up to 200 MT
- Raptor 3 engines: ~4x cheaper to manufacture than Raptor 1
- Taller stack (408.1 ft integrated vehicle), larger grid fins, on-orbit docking ports for propellant transfer

**Economics implication:** The tripling of payload at lower per-engine cost changes the $/kg calculation fundamentally. If Raptor 3 is 4x cheaper to manufacture and payload tripled, the marginal cost per kg drops not linearly but more steeply — because fixed costs (pad, crew, recovery operations) now spread across 3x more mass. The KB's cost projections ($78-94/kg at 6 reuse cycles) were based on V2 assumptions. V3 economics could be materially better.

**CLAIM CANDIDATE:** Starship V3's combination of tripled payload capacity (35 MT → >100 MT to LEO) and Raptor 3's 4x manufacturing cost reduction creates a compound economics improvement that may make the $10-100/kg long-term cost trajectory achievable earlier than V2-based projections suggested.

---

### 4. Long-Duration Energy Storage: Not Yet a Nuclear Competitor for AI Demand

**Disconfirmation target:** Can LDES (iron-air batteries, flow batteries) undercut nuclear for firm AI power demand, weakening the nuclear renaissance thesis?

**Finding:** NO, not in the 2026-2032 window.

Form Energy's iron-air battery status:
- Technology: 100-hour duration, reversible rusting, ~$20/kWh system cost target
- 2026 deployments: 1.5 MW (California), 15 MW (Georgia Power), 300 MW/30 GWh (Xcel Energy + Google)
- Still at proof-of-concept to early commercial scale — not multi-GW
- Key competitive threshold: capacity cost must fall below $20/kWh to displace nuclear economically. Current pricing is approaching but not below this threshold at scale.

**Why LDES doesn't compete with nuclear for AI demand in this window:**
1. Scale: AI data centers need 1-10 GW of firm power. LDES largest deployment is 300 MW.
2. Cost: At current costs, LDES is economically viable for 4-100 hour grid storage but not as primary baseload replacement at GW scale
3. Interoperability: LDES stores energy; nuclear generates it. AI operators need generation, not just storage.
4. Timeline: LDES at multi-GW scale is a 2030s story, not a 2026-2032 story.

**Verdict on Belief 12 disconfirmation:** LDES is not a credible near-term competitive threat to the nuclear renaissance for AI demand. The disconfirmation target (LDES undercutting nuclear) is not finding traction in the evidence.

---

### 5. AST SpaceMobile BlueBird 7: Satellite Lost, Company Undeterred

**Confirmed:** BlueBird 7 deorbited — too low orbit (154×494 km vs. planned 285 km circular), insufficient onboard thruster fuel to reposition.

**AST SpaceMobile response:**
- Insurance covers satellite cost
- BlueBird 8-10 ready to ship in ~30 days
- Still targeting 45 satellites in orbit by end of 2026
- Still planning "launch every 1-2 months on average during 2026"

**Key question this raises:** With New Glenn grounded indefinitely, where does AST get its launches? Their constellation depends on launch cadence. SpaceX Falcon 9 is the obvious alternative. This is a direct test of whether New Glenn's grounding is a program-level problem for customers.

---

## Disconfirmation Search Summary

**Belief 12 (nuclear renaissance mechanism):**
- **Target:** Was Natrium designed for AI, and is LDES competing?
- **Natrium AI-native claim:** PARTIALLY DISCONFIRMED — Natrium was NOT designed for AI training variability; design predates AI demand wave, molten salt storage borrowed from CSP. The mechanism claim needs nuancing.
- **LDES as nuclear competitor:** NOT FINDING TRACTION — Form Energy at proof-of-concept scale; system costs approaching but not below competitive threshold at GW scale needed for AI demand.
- **Overall Belief 12 direction:** STILL HOLDS. Nuclear renaissance is real, driven by AI demand, led by advanced reactors. But the mechanism is more precisely: "AI buyers selected a pre-existing advanced reactor architecture that matches their demand profile" rather than "AI demand catalyzed new reactor designs."
- **Scale confirmation:** Meta (6.6 GW total), NextEra-TerraPower (2.5-3 GW for Google/Microsoft). These are real capital commitments with real timelines.
- **Mechanism shift confirmed:** Conventional LWR SMRs (NuScale) are dead in this market. Advanced reactors (Natrium sodium fast + molten salt) are the mechanism. Belief 12 is correct in direction, needing mechanism precision.

---

## Follow-up Directions

### Active Threads (continue next session)

- **NG-3 root cause (check ~May 8-12):** Investigation still ongoing 5 days post-failure. Root cause unknown — "one BE-3U engine insufficient thrust" is a symptom, not mechanism. Key question: systematic (design flaw = months) or random (hardware = weeks). VIPER timeline directly affected. Don't check until early May.
- **AST SpaceMobile launch replacement:** New Glenn grounded. BlueBird 8-10 ready in ~30 days. Where does AST launch next? SpaceX Falcon 9? This is a test case for New Glenn customer resilience. Watch for AST announcement in next 2-4 weeks.
- **Starship V3 Flight 12 (early-mid May):** This is the major upcoming data point. Watch for: (1) Raptor 3 performance in actual flight, (2) cost validation of >100 MT payload, (3) new economics for $/kg projections, (4) upper stage reentry pattern (per "headline success/operational failure" pattern — watch upper stage specifically). The payload tripling makes this mission more consequential than any previous Starship test.
- **Natrium Kemmerer construction progress:** Ground broken April 23. First concrete pour, NRC inspection milestones, any cost overruns vs. $4B DOE cost share. The 2030 first-power target will be tested by construction pace.
- **Beijing Institute / Orbital Chenguang overlap:** Is the "Beijing Institute to Build China's First Space Computing Center 800 km Above Earth" the same entity as Orbital Chenguang or a third program? Two search results reference this separately. Verify.

### Dead Ends (don't re-run these)

- **NG-3 root cause before May 8:** Too early. Investigation takes 3-4 weeks minimum for preliminary findings. No results before then.
- **Conventional LWR SMR economics:** NuScale dead, no new players emerging. The nuclear AI story is entirely advanced reactors (Natrium, Kairos) + fleet restart (TMI, Duane Arnold via Google PPA). Don't spend session time on conventional SMR economics.
- **LDES vs nuclear for AI demand (short-term):** Form Energy and iron-air are at 300 MW max deployments. Not competing with GW-scale nuclear for AI demand in 2026-2032 window. Don't revisit until Form Energy announces multi-GW commitments or system cost drops below $15/kWh at scale.
- **SpaceX HLS as VIPER alternative in 2027:** Confirmed dead end in session 2026-04-22. Do not revisit.

### Branching Points (one finding opened multiple directions)

- **Natrium CSP heritage × AI commercial fit:** Direction A — Research whether the CSP (concentrated solar power) heritage of Natrium's molten salt storage has created any cross-pollination between the solar and nuclear industries (personnel, IP, equipment sourcing). If CSP industry workers are building nuclear storage, this is an interesting convergence story. Direction B — Research Kairos Power's molten salt design origins — is Kairos also a CSP technology adaptation? **Pursue Direction B** — if both leading advanced reactor companies (TerraPower AND Kairos) adapted CSP technology, this is a structural claim about how nuclear innovation is borrowing from solar, not competing with it.
- **AST SpaceMobile launch flexibility × New Glenn grounding:** Direction A — Track which launch vehicle AST SpaceMobile uses for BlueBird 8-10. If they switch to Falcon 9, this is evidence of the market's dependence on SpaceX in a New Glenn gap scenario. Direction B — Research New Glenn's manifest: what other customers were scheduled for 2026 launches, and what does the grounding do to their timelines? **Pursue Direction B next** — the full New Glenn customer manifest impact shows how concentrated the risk really is.
- **Starship V3 >100 MT × launch economics:** Direction A — Model the $/kg update: if V3 delivers >100 MT at Raptor 3 costs (4x cheaper than Raptor 1), what does that mean for the cost curve vs KB's V2-based projections? Direction B — Research Starship V3's impact on Starlink V3 deployment cadence: if V3 can carry 3x more Starlink mass per launch, does SpaceX reach coverage saturation faster? **Pursue Direction A** — getting the updated cost curve right matters for multiple KB claims.
