U.S. in space – USA Gov Policy

The federal agency that may experience the most significant refocusing under the Trump Administration is also one the smallest: NASA.

With a budget comprising just one-half of one percent of Washington spending, the lowest level since 1960, NASA was repurposed by Mr. Obama to focus on Earth science in support of his climate change agenda.

While robotic interplanetary probes, largely planned before the outgoing President’s arrival, were allowed to survive, the manned space effort was virtually eliminated.

Mr. Obama prematurely cancelled the Space Shuttle program, then defunded what had been planned to be its immediate manned spacecraft replacement, the Constellation system. Another follow-up, The Orion, progressed at a slow pace, with no prospect of placing U.S. astronauts into orbit until well into the next decade. NASA currently has to pay exorbitant amounts to rival Russia to put American personnel in space.

Spaceflight Insider noted that candidate Obama claimed he was one of the “agency’s biggest fans and even co-opted the space agency’s crewed program-of-record at that time (Constellation) when he used the phrase, ‘Moon, Mars and beyond.’ Upon election, he worked to cancel that very program. In fact, had it not been for the actions of Congress, he would probably have set NASA’s efforts to send crews beyond the orbit of Earth back decades.

In a review, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reported that “Space policy experts agree that NASA faces short- and long-term challenges, including new budget pressures, aging infrastructure, the rise of competing spacefaring nations, and the lack of a strong national vision for human spaceflight. An independent assessment conducted by the National Research Council in 2012 questioned plans for not pursuing a return to the moon: ‘[The] lack of national and international consensus … undermines NASA’s ability to establish a comprehensive, consistent strategic direction.’ The report also noted that a crewed mission to Mars ‘has never received sufficient funding to advance beyond the rhetoric stage.”

The mothballing of American manned spaceflight was seen as a betrayal. During his first campaign for office, Mr. Obama, in a speech to NASA workers, promised that he would support placing U.S. personnel in space on American craft . Following the election, he moved to eliminate the manned space program.

Restoring the space agency to its glory days, along with the economic, scientific and prestige benefits that engenders, fit precisely with President-elect Trump’s “Make America Great Again” emphasis. In comments reported by the Planetary Society he stated:

“I will free NASA from the restriction of serving primarily as a logistics agency for low-Earth orbit activity—big deal. Instead, we will refocus its mission on space exploration. Under a Trump Administration, Florida and America will lead the way into the stars…A cornerstone of my policy is we will substantially expand public private partnerships to maximize the amount of investment and funding that is available for space exploration and development. This means launching and operating major space assets, right here, that employ thousands and spur innovation and fuel economic growth.”
With improved energy, higher confidence and enhanced stamina tadalafil 5mg online he consider him young. However, viagra 100 mg https://regencygrandenursing.com/life-at-our-facility/respite-care men should be responsible in taking this medication. Today, a large cialis prices check out now fraction of males throughout the world. After two or three hours of the procedure, real-time images are provided through the Sonablate 500 of all the areas in cialis soft tabs and around the prostate.
Space News provided a summary (excerpted below) of the Trump Administration’s space plans:

A “commitment to global space leadership”
A reinstitution of the National Space Council, headed by the vice president, to oversee all government space efforts to seek efficiencies and eliminate redundancies.
Human exploration of the solar system by the end of the century
Shifting NASA budgets to “deep space achievements” rather than Earth science and climate research.
Development of small satellite technologies that in particular can provide resiliency for the military, and also develop satellite servicing technologies.
Seek world leadership in hypersonics technology, including for military applications.
Hand over access to and operations in low Earth orbit to the commercial sector.
Start discussions about including more “private and public partners” in operations and financing of the International Space Station, including extending the station’s lifetime.
Require that all federal agencies develop plans for how they would use “space assets and space developments” to carry out their missions.

The growing role of the private sector, which began both as necessity and opportunity during the Obama Administration, would continue.

The Washington Post and others have reported that Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) a leading space exploration supporter and former Navy pilot is being considered to lead NASA.

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.