NASA under Trump – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its three part review of NASA’s future under the Trump Administration.

A Scribd-published study of a NexGen Space LLC study, partly funded by a grant from NASA found that:

“…a human return to the Moon may not be as expensive as previously thought…America could lead a return of humans to the surface of the Moon within a period of 5-7 years … at an estimated total cost of about $10 Billion (+/- 30%) …America could lead the development of a permanent industrial base on the Moon of 4 private-sector astronauts in about 10-12 years after setting foot on the Moon that could provide 200 MT of propellant per year in lunar orbit for NASA for a total cost of about $40 Billion (+/- 30%)…Assuming NASA receives a flat budget, these results could potentially be achieved within NASA’s existing deep space human spaceflight budget…A commercial lunar base providing propellant in lunar orbit might substantially reduce the cost and risk NASA of sending humans to Mars. The ELA would reduce the number of required Space Launch System (SLS) launches from asmany as 12 to a total of only 3, thereby reducing SLS operational risks, and increasing its affordability…A permanent commercial lunar base might substantially pay for its operations by exporting propellant to lunar orbit for sale to NASA and others to send humans to Mars, thus enabling the economic development of the Moon at a small marginal cost…”

The widespread fascination with travel to Mars was given verbal support by Obama, but the premature ending of both the space shuttle program and the cancellation of its intended manned successor, the Constellation program, were not conducive to accomplishing advances in human spaceflight technology.

Although NASA wants to send Astronauts to Mars several decades in the future, the actual preliminary work to do so has been lax.

In an interview with Space.com, the Director of space policy at the Planetary Society noted that Trump “is inheriting a space program that has this nascent ambition to go to Mars but doesn’t have hardware actually flying yet.”
This medicine you may book through the online pharmacies. brand viagra canada Now that we have more adequate knowledge, it’s a high time to adopt better habits viagra prices in usa and thoughts. This has always proved to be the best and most effective when generic levitra no prescription dealing with erectile dysfunction. Enable men to enjoy firmer, bigger and longer lasting women viagra australia erection .
Given the slow pace of development of human-rated spacecraft development NASA, including the rockets to take them off Earth, a reflection of its de-emphasis during the Obama Administration, the new Administration may turn to the private sector for the necessary hardware.

Bruce Dorminey, writing in Forbes, quotes former Pennsylvania Congressman and Trump adviser Bob Walker: “The specifics of [Trump-era] missions will be determined within the overall goal of human exploration of the solar system, but clearly, the long–term, overall goal of Trump space policy anticipates human exploration far beyond low-Earth orbit and even beyond Mars… President-elect Trump made space policy a major part of his final campaign message and Vice President-elect Pence has been very enthusiastic about the role he would assume as head of the new National Space Council…The council would help keep space issues front and center during the Trump Administration.”

Walker, as quoted by Dorminey, believes Trump’s space goals include:

“Setting the goal and beginning technological implementation of human exploration of our solar system by the end of this century; Re-direction of NASA budgets toward deep space science; Creation of an aggressive program for development of hypersonic technology; [and] Begin negotiations to assure the viability of the International Space Station (ISS) beyond 2028.”

The method in which space policy is set under the Trump Administration may differ significantly than that of his predecessor. The new White House may reconstitute the National Space Council, which would be led by Vice President Michael Pence. According to Neel Patel, writing in Inverse “Jim Muncy, a space lobbyist who leads the consultancy PoliSpace, says he’s spoken with Pence and that the now Vice President-elect is “really looking forward to the space council.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.