Confusion At NASA Over The America First National Space Strategy
President Donald J. Trump is Unveiling an America First National Space Strategy
“AMERICA FIRST AMONG THE STARS: President Trump’s National Space Strategy works within his broader national security policy by putting America’s interests first.”
Keith’s note: At the USRA/SPI Moon exploration event yesterday in Washington D.C, I asked NASA HEOMD’s Jason Crusan about the apparent mismatch between NASA policy and the recently-released White House Policy titled “America First National Space Strategy”. I noted that HEOMD AA Bill Gerstenmaier told a NASA Advisory Council committee the other day said the whole Lunar Outpost Gateway thing can be done on a flat budget with no adjustment for inflation. Of course, NASA never does big projects on time or within budget – Space Station, Webb, SLS being prominent examples. But NASA sells the Gateway concept with a significant role for international partners and the private sector with lots of cooperation i.e. NASA does not call all the shots. This global approach does have some positive aspects for many people.
Yet the White House’s “America First” space policy is rather blunt in its intention that it wants a space policy that “prioritizes American interests first and foremost, ensuring a strategy that will make America strong, competitive, and great” and “ensures that international agreements put the interests of American people, workers, and businesses first.” This does not sound too much like cooperation. I asked Crusan how he reconciled these two different approaches. Crusan tossed lots of pop management phrases out (he was clearly unprepared to talk about this White House policy document). Then he made one cogent observation: “it’s a balancing act”.
Oh yes: There is no mention of this official White House space policy document at NASA.gov. Nor has NASA released anything about it to the media. Stay tuned for more “balancing”.
I am not surprised. Nor has NASA posted this report released Tuesday by the White House OSTP on preserving Apollo era Landing sites and Artifacts on the Moon. Really, most folks appear to have missed it although it has important implications for space law.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/…
“and you balance the world on the tip of your nose,
you’re a seal loin with a ball at the carnival”
and ask Boeing how budgets and schedules are affected when there are uncontrollable components and multiple agendas.
it would be interesting to see if NASA could get commercial space to bid on building the Gateway for them, to a flat budget (well, say as flat a budget as the F35 has had).
NASA does not operate in a US first posture and has not since the Clinton Administration called for supporting the Russian space program instead of the US. In the late 1980s, human space flight managers were already trying to move engineering R&D away from NASA. The flight directors running the program wanted NASA to become ‘the operations arm’. In the 1990s, 2000s and in ISS and Orion NASA actively sought to give spacecraft and systems development responsibilities to the internationals (at US expense). To the IPs, it meant they no longer had to pay the US for the operations services they were getting from NASA. ESA and the Italians take great pride, with reason, that they built most of the habitable elements of ISS and now they are providing much of Orion and likely will develop much of the Gateway. The Canadians take rightful pride in being the lead expertise in robotics. They developed their expertise as their “payment” to NASA mainly for Shuttle launch services and for flying their international crew members. NASA lost twice; NASA did not get paid for the services they were providing and they were actively soliciting other countries to develop new technology. What is wrong with this picture? NASA has wasted 2 generations focused on operating their spacecraft from the ground which is exactly the wrong posture if you want to go to the Moon and planets. NASA should have been focused on AI and integration of computer controlled systems-exactly the approach taken by the unmanned planetary program- with local control by the flight crew. The NASA flight directors were abiding by their great guru Chris Kraft who wanted missioñs flown by ground control. Sorry NASA, technology has moved on since the 1960s. NASA continues to put far too much money into ‘operations’ even though there is minimal operations since Shuttle was grounded. Fortunately Space X and the other commercial suppliers have learned how to do research, design and development on behalf of the US, because NASA outgrew it decades go. NASA “lead” the program? Nonsense! As NASA has been demonstrating for years NASA has no plan and no architecture and is leading no one.
Has anyone actually seen this new “national space strategy”? I’ve seen a press release that said Mr. Trump was releasing such a thing, and which talked about all the great things it would do. But the actual strategy? I’ve looked, but I can’t find it.