Author name: Tim Belzer

The global space community awoke to a new reality on Wednesday morning.

The founder of this century’s most innovative space company, Elon Musk, successfully used his fortune, time, and energy to help elect Donald Trump to president of the United States. Already, Musk was the dominant Western player in space. SpaceX launches national security satellites and NASA astronauts and operates a megaconstellation. He controls the machines that provide essential space services to NASA and the US military. And now, thanks to his gamble on backing Trump, Musk has strong-armed himself into Trump’s inner circle.

Although he may not have a cabinet-appointed position, Musk will have a broad portfolio in the new administration for as long as his relations with Trump remain positive. This gives Musk extraordinary power over a number of areas, including spaceflight. Already this week, he has been soliciting ideas and input from colleagues. The New York Times reported that Musk has advised Trump to hire key employees from SpaceX into his administration, including at the Department of Defense. This reflects the huge conflict of interest that Musk will face when it comes to space policy. His actions could significantly benefit SpaceX, of which he is the majority owner and has the final say in major decisions.

It will be a hugely weird dynamic. Musk is unquestionably in a position for self-dealing. Normally, such conflicts of interest would be frowned on within a government, but Trump has already shown a brazen disregard for norms, and there’s no reason to believe that will change during his second go at the presidency. One way around this could be to give Musk a “special adviser” tag, which means he would not have to comply with federal conflict-of-interest laws.

So it’s entirely possible that the sitting chief executive of SpaceX could be the nation’s most important adviser on space policy, conflicts be damned. Musk possesses flaws as a leader, but it is difficult to argue against results. His intuitions for the industry, such as pushing hard for reusable launch and broadband Internet from space, have largely been correct. In a vacuum, it is not necessarily bad to have someone like Musk providing a vision for US spaceflight in the 21st century. But while space may be a vacuum, there is plenty of oxygen in Washington, DC.

Being a space journalist got a lot more interesting this week—and a lot more difficult. As I waded through this reality on Wednesday, I began to reach out to sources about what is likely to happen. It’s way too early to have much certainty, but we can begin to draw some broad outlines for what may happen to space policy during a second Trump presidency. Buckle up—it could be a wild ride.

Bringing efficiency to NASA?

Let’s start with NASA and firmly establish what we mean. The US space agency does some pretty great things, but it’s also a bloated bureaucracy. That’s by design. Members of Congress write budgets and inevitably seek to steer more federal dollars to NASA activities in the areas they represent. Two decades ago, an engineer named Mike Griffin—someone Musk sought to hire as SpaceX’s first chief engineer in 2002—became NASA administrator under President George W. Bush.

Griffin recognized NASA’s bloat. For starters, it had too many field centers. NASA simply doesn’t need 10 major outposts across the country, as they end up fighting one another for projects and funding. However, Griffin knew he would face a titanic political struggle to close field centers, on par with federal efforts to close duplicative military bases during the “Base Realignment and Closure” process after the Cold War. So Griffin instead sought to make the best of the situation with his “Ten Healthy Centers” initiative. Work together, he told his teams across the country.

Essentially, then, for the last two decades, NASA programs have sought to leverage expertise across the agency. Consider the development of the Orion spacecraft, which began nearly 20 years ago. The following comment comes from Julie Kramer-White from an oral history interview conducted in 2016. Kramer is a long-time NASA engineer who was chief engineer of Orion at the time.

“I’ll tell you the truth, ten healthy centers is a pain in the butt,” she said. “The engineering team is a big engineering team, and they are spread across 9 of the 10 Centers… Our guys don’t think anything about a phone call that’s got people from six different centers. You’re trying to balance the time zone differences, and of course that’s got its own challenge with Europe as well but even within the United States with the different centers managing the time zone issue. I would say as a net technically, it’s a good thing. From a management perspective, boy, it’s a hassle.”

Space does not get done fast or efficiently by committee. But that’s how NASA operates—committees within committees, reviewed by committees.

Musk has repeatedly said he wants to bring efficiency to the US government and vowed to identify $2 trillion in savings. Well, NASA would certainly be more efficient with fewer centers—each of which has its own management layers, human resources setups, and other extensive overhead. But will the Trump administration really have the stomach to close centers? Certainly the congressional leadership from a state like Ohio would fight tooth and nail for Glenn Research Center. This offers an example of how bringing sweeping change to the US government in general, and NASA in particular, will run into the power of the purse held by Congress.

One tool NASA has used in recent years to increase efficiency is buying commercial services rather than leading the development of systems, such as the Orion spacecraft. This most prominent example is cargo and crew transportation to the International Space Station, but NASA has extended this approach to all manner of areas, from space communications to lunar landers to privately operated space stations. Congress has not always been happy with this transition because it has lessened its influence over steering funding directly to centers. NASA has nonetheless continued to push for this change because it has lowered agency costs, allowing it to do more.

Yet here again we run into conflicts of interest with Musk. The primary reason that NASA’s transition toward buying services has been a success is due to SpaceX. Private companies not named SpaceX have struggled to compete as NASA awards more fixed-price contracts for space services. Given Congress’ love for directing space funds to local centers, it’s unlikely to let Musk overhaul the agency in ways that send huge amounts of new business to SpaceX.

Where art thou, Artemis?

The biggest question is what to do with the Artemis program to return humans to the Moon. Ars wrote extensively about some of the challenges with this program a little more than a month ago, and Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News, wrote a scathing assessment of Artemis recently under the headline “NASA’s $100 billion Moon mission is going nowhere.”

It is unlikely that outright cancellation of Artemis is on the table—after all, the first Trump administration created Artemis six years ago. However, Musk is clearly focused on sending humans to Mars, and the Moon-first approach of Artemis was championed by former Vice President Mike Pence, who is long gone. Trump loves grand gestures, and Musk has told Trump it will be possible to send humans to Mars before the end of his term. (That would be 2028, and it’s almost impossible to see this happening for a lot of reasons.) The Artemis architecture was developed around a “Moon-then-Mars” philosophy—as in, NASA will send humans to the Moon now, with Mars missions pushed into a nebulous future. Whatever Artemis becomes, it is likely to at least put Mars on equal footing to the Moon.

Notably, Musk despises NASA’s Space Launch System rocket, a central element of Artemis. He sees the rocket as the epitome of government bloat. And it’s not hard to understand why. The Space Launch System is completely expendable and costs about 10 to 100 times as much to launch as his own massive Starship rocket.

The key function the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft currently provide in Artemis is transporting astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit and back. There are ways to address this. Trump could refocus Artemis on using Starship to get humans to Mars. Alternatively, he could direct NASA to kludge together some combination of Orion, Dragon, and Falcon rockets to get astronauts to the Moon. He might also direct NASA to use the SLS for now but cancel further upgrades to it and a lunar space station called Gateway.

“The real question is how far is a NASA landing team and beachhead team are willing to go in destabilizing the program of record,” one policy source told Ars. “I can’t see Trump and Vance being less willing to shake up NASA than they are other public policy zones.”

What does seem clear is that, for the first time in 15 years, canceling the Space Launch System rocket or dramatically reducing its influence is on the table. This will be an acid test for Musk and Trump’s rhetoric on government efficiency, since the base of support for Artemis is in the deep-red South: states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida.

Will they really cut jobs there in the name of efficiency?

Regulatory reform

Reducing government regulations is one area in which the pathway for Musk and Trump is clear. The first Trump administration pushed to reduce regulations on US businesses almost from day one. In spaceflight, this produced Space Policy Directive-2 in 2018. Some progress was made, but it was far from total.

For spaceflight, Musk’s goal is to get faster approval for Starship test flights and licensing for the (literally) hundreds of launches SpaceX is already conducting annually. This will be broadly supported by the second Trump administration. During Trump’s first term, some of the initiatives in Space Policy Directive-2 were slowed or blocked by the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA, but the White House push will be even harder this time.

A looser regulatory environment should theoretically lead to more and more rapid progress in commercial space capabilities.

It’s worth noting here that if you spend any time talking to space startup executives, they all have horror stories about interacting with the FAA or other agencies. Pretty much everyone agrees that regulators could be more efficient but also that they need more resources to process rules in a timely manner. The FAA and Federal Communications Commission have important jobs when it comes to keeping people on the ground safe and keeping orbits sustainable in terms of traffic and space junk.

The second Trump administration will have some important allies on this issue in Congress. Ted Cruz, the US Senator from Texas, will likely chair the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees legislation for space activities. He is one of the senators who has shown the most interest in commercial space, and he will support pro-business legislation—that is, laws that allow companies freer rein and regulatory agencies fewer teeth. How far this gets will depend on whether Republicans keep the House or Democrats take control.

Other areas of change

Over the course of the last seven decades, space has largely been a non-partisan topic.

But Musk’s deepening involvement in US space policy could pose a serious problem to this, as he’s now viewed extremely negatively by many Democrats. It seems probable that many people in Congress will oppose any significant shift of NASA’s focus from the Moon to Mars, particularly because it aligns with Musk’s long-stated goal of making humans a multiplanetary species.

There are likely to be battles in space science, as well. Traditionally, Republican presidents have cut funding for Earth science missions, and Democrats have increased funding to better study and understand climate change. Generally, given the administration’s likely focus on human spaceflight, space science will probably take a back seat and may lose funding.

Another looming issue is Mars Sample Return, which NASA is reconsidering due to budget and schedule issues. Presently, the agency intends to announce a new plan for retrieving rock and soil samples from Mars and returning them to Earth in December.

But if Musk and Trump are bent on sending humans to Mars as soon as possible, there is little sense in the space agency spending billions of dollars on a robotic sample return mission. Astronauts can just bring them back inside Starship.

Finally, at present, NASA has rich partnerships with space agencies around the world. In fact, it was the first Trump administration that created the Artemis Accords a little more than four years ago to develop an international coalition to return to the Moon. Since then, the United States and China have both been signing up partners in their competition to establish a presence at the South Pole of the Moon.

One huge uncertainty is how some of NASA’s long-established partners, especially in Europe, where there is bound to be tension around Ukraine and other issues with the Trump administration, will react at the US space agency’s exploration plans. Europeans are already wary of SpaceX’s prowess in global spaceflight and likely will not want to be on board with any space activities that further Musk’s ambitions.

These are just some of the high-level questions facing NASA and US spaceflight. There are many others. For example, how will Trump’s proposed tariffs on key components impact the national security and civil space supply chain? And there’s the Department of Defense, where the military already has multibillion dollar contracts with SpaceX, and there are bound to be similar conflicts and ethical concerns.

No one can hear you scream in space, but there will be plenty of screaming about space in the coming months.