New Trump Space Policy, More a Question of Catching Up than Leading

Dec. 27—The White House issued a new Space Policy Dec. 18, declaring that space superiority is essential to U.S. national security. The policy includes space exploration, missile defense, commercial markets, and nuclear technology, treating space not only as a scientific frontier, but also as a strategic domain similar to land, sea, air, and cyberspace. The U.S. will be “leading the world in space exploration,” it proclaims, as it once was before Wall Street ordered compliant governments in Washington to shut down the costly manned space program that saw the United States be the first--and still only--nation to reach the moon in 1969. It has not been back there since the early 1970s, but President Donald Trump has ordered NASA to meet his stated goals and return Americans to the moon this coming year through the costly and much delayed Artemis program.

The plan includes most of the items that have for some time been on the agenda of other space-faring nations such as China, Russia, and India. Going back to the Moon by “laying the foundations for lunar economic development” through Artemis, preparing for the journey to Mars, and “inspiring the next generation of American explorers” are all wonderful objectives, but the devil is in the details. American efforts in this regard have been littered with failures, that have so far, not cost any lives, but have delayed timelines.

In many respects, it sounds like another “golden age” myth coming from Trump, the Midas of the White House, who revived manned space exploration as a U.S. priority during his first Administration. It is, of course, laudable that the President is attempting to revive America’s space potential, which has unfortunately suffered greatly under the last few Presidents, including Trump, through spending cuts. It will be a relief if the cuts that have been made to NASA are reversed under this new policy, although there are some doubts about that happening, given the military-political direction of the present policy. Some people may be “inspired” by it, but a lot of people will simply be turned off, given the decades of anti-science propaganda and environmental fraud, some of which came from sections of NASA , where more money was spent on "global warming," that manned space exploration.

Back to the Past for the Future?

Sources report that Trump, in reviving the push for American-led space exploration, is walking in the famous steps of President John F. Kennedy, who inspired the Apollo lunar program. While some people, including NASA "old time" are quick to criticize Trump for placing the new initiative on the context of the need for America to be paramount in space for geopolitical and military purposes, it should be remembered that Kennedy also sold his program as a race against the Soviet Union to the moon.

Given the debt-ridden nature of our financial apparatus and our federal government, it is difficult to see how such a program will be financed. The only times the order mentions funding (which, to be fair, is what Congress has to do), is in the phrase “within available funding.”

Examining the condition of the scientific cadre and capabilities of the U.S. industrial complex, one can also see that even realizing the projects the document lays out will take more time than envisioned. This includes the loss of important scientific and engineering cadres, who have left the country because of Trump’s belligerent immigration policy, or the absolute need for revamping U.S. education, and, in particular, "STEM" education from K to 12, which has been significantly abandoned since the Apollo program’s heyday.

A Privatized Space Program? 

In the recent past, NASA sought to privatize these programs, giving, for example, Elon Musk's SpaceX, control over its program, as it competes with NASA directed and contracted programs with other aerospace contractors. This raised the question as to why NASA needs to be involved at all, and would it not be more efficient to let the private sector under government contract, do the job. But projects of this scope and size will not work, as the federal government alone, through NASA, , must prevent such projects from succumbing to the whims of the free market and its investors desire to maximize profits.

All of the accomplishments that the space policy document hopes to achieve are already in well-advanced stages in both China and Russia. A Lunar Research Station that Russia and China intend to start—at least robotically—around 2030 has been in the works for almost a decade. China has already sent a rover to the far side of the Moon, the only country to have done so. 

The space strategy calls for a replacement of the International Space Station in 2030, starting now. Russia’s plans for a space station around that same time are already under construction. The timetable outlined in the White House document, therefore, seems to be wishful thinking at best.

False Dominance or Collaboration

While the recent National Security Strategy document says that the United States must abandon its false policy of trying to dominate the world, the Space Policy document seems infused with the old way and calls for U.S. domination in space. Such thinking will not sit well with most of the world, including Russia and China. A far better route to take would be to use space as a means to promote cooperation and collaboration for goals that are in the best interests of all mankind.

That was the spirit that imbued the Kennedy vision of space exploration as a collaborative effort among all space-faring nations, allies as well as rivals, and it inspired a generation, and still inspires most of the world’s space community. John F. Kennedy also spoke of U.S. preeminence in space in the midst of the Cold War, but he noted in his famous speech at Rice University Sept. 12, 1962: “There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again.”

This is also the view that has imbued the international space community since that time. It will be an uphill climb to gain support from them if what Trump is proposing winds up becoming a geopolitical gambit disguised as a U.S. space program. But as with most of what he does, Trump has left the details of the program open and yet to be determined, opening the door to possible collaboration.