The first major space decision made by the incoming Donald Trump administration was selecting billionaire entrepreneur and private space traveler Jared Isaacman as NASA administrator.
According to Ars Technica, a five-member committee within Trump’s transition team is reviewing policy proposals that represent major changes to how the space agency operates.
Policy changes being considered include:
- The goal is to send humans to the Moon and Mars by 2028.
- Canceling the costly Space Launch System rocket and possibly the Orion spacecraft.
- Consolidates the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center into the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama.
- Retain a small administrative agency in Washington, D.C. and move headquarters to a field center.
- Rapid redesign of the Artemis lunar program to make it more efficient.
The ideas are breathtaking in their scope and boldness. But some of these would likely face political backlash if implemented as executive orders or legislation.
The most difficult thing to do politically would be to close NASA Goddard and NASA Ames and wind down their functions at NASA Marshall. From an organizational perspective, this idea makes sense. NASA has too many centers spread out across the country that perform too many overlapping functions. Comfort saves money and increases efficiency.
However, the reason NASA has multiple centers spread out across the country is to increase congressional support for the program. If your congressman or senator isn’t moved by a love of science or a passion for getting the Chinese to the moon, he or she might be motivated by the jobs and contracts created by NASA centers in their area or state. They will fight tooth and nail against shutting down those voting sources.
Perhaps the best thing to do is to reduce redundancy as much as possible across field centers. NASA could also make its centers more attractive to commercial space investments, as is already happening at NASA Stennis, Johnson Spaceflight Center, and Kennedy Space Center.
The idea of ​​moving most of NASA’s headquarters from Washington to one of its field centers seems odd. What would such a move accomplish other than multiple centers fighting for new capabilities? It would seem advantageous to have headquarters in Washington, close to Congress and the White House, where space policy decisions are made.
This leaves us with suggestions related to the Artemis program. We’ve already covered the risks of pivoting to Mars. Trying to get there by the end of Trump’s second term risks undermining the return to the moon. Anyway, it seems impossible to reach Mars within 4 years.
The question may not be if the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft are canceled, but when. Will NASA fly the Artemis II lunar mission and Artemis III lunar landing using already-built hardware and then transition to commercial rockets, or will it immediately terminate the legacy hardware and commercialize from scratch?
It should be noted that as of this writing, Blue Origin New Glenn’s maiden flight is approaching. Additionally, the seventh test flight of the SpaceX Starship will soon follow. Both will be valuable assets in the quest to return to the Moon and, in time, to send humans to Mars.
Making Artemis more efficient involves a lot of things. This includes reducing the level of management and streamlining decision-making. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s DOGE needs to proceed at a decent pace.
Artemis lacks a basis that anyone can easily understand. Why are we going back to the moon? Why do we go to Mars? What does the Artemis mission statement look like?
We will revisit the Moon and Mars to advance the frontiers of science, create useful technologies in space and on Earth, access natural resources, create new industries, and strengthen America’s political soft power and security. no see. And its allies.
Everything we do should flow from that mission statement.
To put it more succinctly, our goal is to return to the Moon, go to Mars and beyond, and create a future better than the past for the benefit of all humanity.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of:Why is it so difficult to return to the moon?” furthermore “Moon, Mars and beyond,’ and most recently, ‘Why is America going back to the moon?“He blogsCurmudgeon corner.
