The first major space decision made by the incoming second Donald Trump administration was the selection of billionaire entrepreneur and private space traveler Jared Isaacman as NASA Administrator.
According to Ars Technica, A five-person committee within Trump's transition team is considering policy proposals that would bring major changes to the way the space agency operates.
Policy changes being considered include:
- Establish the goal of sending humans to the moon and Mars by 2028.
- canceling the expensive Space Launch System rocket and possibly the Orion spacecraft;
- Consolidation of Goddard Space Flight Center and Ames Research Center into Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama.
- Maintain a small administrative base in Washington, DC, but otherwise move headquarters to a field center
- Rapidly redesign the Artemis lunar program to make it more efficient.
The scope and audacity of the ideas are breathtaking. However, some of them are likely to run into political headwinds if implemented as executive orders or laws.
The most politically difficult option would be to close NASA Goddard and NASA Ames and fold their functions into NASA Marshall. From an organizational perspective, this idea makes sense. NASA has too many centers spread across the country performing too many redundant functions. Comfort saves money and increases efficiency.
But the reason NASA has several centers across the United States is to increase Congressional support for its programs. Even if your congressman or senator isn't moved by a love of science or bringing the Chinese back to the moon, they might be motivated by the jobs and contracts that a NASA center in their district or state creates. They will fight tooth and nail against the closure of such voting sources.
Perhaps the best thing you can do is reduce redundancy throughout your field center as much as possible. NASA also could make its centers more attractive for commercial space investment, as is already happening at NASA Stennis, Johnson Space Flight Center, and Kennedy Space Center.
The idea of moving much of NASA headquarters from Washington to one of its field centers seems strange. What would such a move accomplish other than having different centers fight over which gets new capabilities? Headquartered in Washington, near Congress and the White House, where space policy decisions are made That seems to be an advantage.
This leaves us with proposals related to the Artemis project. We've already discussed the dangers of pivoting to Mars, and attempting to reach Mars before the end of President Trump's second term risks jeopardizing a return to the moon. In any case, it is probably impossible to go to Mars within four years.
Perhaps the question is not if the Space Launch System and perhaps the Orion spacecraft will be canceled, but when. Will NASA use the hardware already built to fly the Artemis II lunar flyby mission and the Artemis III lunar landing and then move on to commercial rockets, or will it retire legacy hardware soon? Will it be commercialized from the beginning?
Please note that as of this writing, Blue Origin New Glenn's first flight is approaching. SpaceX Starship's seventh test flight is also scheduled for shortly thereafter. Both will return to the moon and eventually become valuable assets in the quest to send humans to Mars.
There's a lot going on in Artemis' efficiency. That would include breaking down levels of management and streamlining decision-making. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's DOGE should work on it with appropriate speed.
Artemis doesn't have a rationale that anyone can easily understand. Why are we going back to the moon? Why are we going to Mars? What is Artemis' mission statement?
We will advance the frontiers of science, create technologies useful in space and on Earth, access natural resources, create new industries, and strengthen America's political soft power and security. or return to Mars. and their allies.
Everything we do must be guided by that mission statement.
More succinctly, we will return to the Moon and then go to Mars and beyond, to create a future better than the past, for the benefit of all humanity.
Mark R. Whittington writes,Why is it difficult to return to the moon?” Similarly “To the moon, Mars and beyond”, and more recently”Why will America return to the moon?” He blogs at:Karma John's Corner.
