NASA's space station blues
WELCOME TO POLITICO PRO SPACE. I've been reading how rocket science pioneer Wernher von Braun first floated the idea for what would become NASA's International Space Station in 1952. Check out the wild illustrations.
What do you think the U.S. needs in a space station? Email me at sskove@politico.com with tips, pitches and feedback, and find me on X at @samuelskove. And remember, we're offering this newsletter for free over the next few weeks. After that, it will be available only to POLITICO Pro subscribers. Read all about it here.
The Spotlight
After two billion miles and nearly three decades, NASA is ready to trade in its old, leaky space station for a flashy new one.
The problem: NASA can't decide what it wants. A sleek research base? A bare bones structure? A hotel where tourists rub shoulders with astronauts? The indecision could bankrupt space companies, crank up tensions with Congress and leave astronauts without a long-term home in near-Earth orbit.
The International Space Station is essential for research that could lead to humans living in space, as well as thousands of other science experiments that inform everything from cancer treatments to robotics.
Tell you what I want: NASA is supposed to give companies a peek by late June at what it wants in a space station. The agency would like a commercially-operated one in orbit by 2029, and aims to crash the ISS into the ocean in 2031. These plans became even more critical this month after an air leak on its space station delayed the visit of four astronauts.
NASA, at the last minute, canceled a long-planned May event to discuss its goals for a new one, an ominous sign of the space agency's commitment to the mission. The meeting was supposed to help lay the groundwork for what NASA would ask for in June, but officials haven't rescheduled it.
The only language companies have to go on — such as 'solve Earth's challenges' — is vague at best.
Businesses that hope to make millions off space stations want clarity in order to lure investors and spend wisely. 'Companies can raise the capital necessary to build and launch a space station, but only if the U.S. government makes the plan clear,' said Jared Stout, chief global policy officer at space station company Axiom.
About your old ride: Congress is also worried. 'We're all anxious to see that [request for proposal] come out sometime this summer,' said a Senate Republican Committee aide, granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. 'We really do need to start seeing NASA make some serious moves here.'
Lawmakers are talking with NASA about the program to ensure it stays on track, the aide said. But if the space agency fails to make headway by early fall, when NASA faces a deadline to make clear what it wants, they may consider more serious levels of oversight. (Think hearings or rearranging funding.)
They may be waiting awhile. NASA is operating with only an acting administrator until at least the fall, and isn't getting much direction from the White House. That makes it tough for the agency to move forward with any major decisions. NASA didn't respond to our requests for comment.
Out of gas: The longer NASA waits, the fewer bidders it will have left. Space stations are expensive. Axiom estimates a four-module station costs $3 billion. NASA only forks out a few hundred million dollars each year in awards.
That means companies have to win over the handful of investors who have both the deep pockets and risk tolerance to bet on a space station, said Alex MacDonald, NASA's former chief economist. NASA's refusal so far to choose one or two companies is another potential problem for investors, he said, as it makes it less clear who to bet on.
The ISS can limp along for a bit longer. The station could even extend its service life past 2030, although a lack of spare parts will make it increasingly hard to run. Eventually, the bill will come due — and a bold experiment in living in space may grind to an end.
Spectrum
SKY HIGH DREAMS FOR BROADBAND: Elon Musk, who has had a tough month, may finally get a win. The Trump administration just handed satellite companies a victory in overhauling a $42 billion program meant to expand internet to underserved areas.
Give satellite a chance: The original version of the infrastructure grant program relegated satellite broadband to a lower status reserved for extremely remote regions.
The new rules, released June 6 and spearheaded by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, wipe out technology preferences. They put satellites on par with fiber, wireless and other tech. Lutnick stressed a desire to make deployments 'cheap.'
That could benefit Musk's satellite broadband offering, Starlink, and possibly Project Kuiper, a similar service from Amazon that's yet to sign up private customers. States have a say too, though, and can choose not to spend the money on satellites.
Funny timing: Another curious detail: The program's satellite-friendly revamp arrived right after President Donald Trump threatened Musk's government subsidies, seemingly undercutting the seriousness of the president's promise to hurt his former ally's business.
The administration wouldn't say whether the White House is considering further changes but stressed it's 'exploring all options' to deliver broadband effectively. Some states were scheduled to begin installing internet networks this year, but the overhaul bumped that into at least 2026. Lutnick said he hopes to release the money by year's end.
Now or never: Some Republicans don't want to wait. 'I would rather have our money now,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), a member of GOP leadership, told John.
Advocacy groups and Democrats, meanwhile, worry who will actually benefit. 'It feels like they're just stalling things to reward some of their wealthy friends,' Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), the top Democrat on the telecom subcommittee, told John.
In the States
MUSK VS CALIFORNIA: One of Musk's favorite foes is under new leadership — and already girding itself for battle.
California's Coastal Commission, which set off a row with the SpaceX founder last year when it rejected the company's plan for increased rocket launches, elected new leaders last week to help oversee the agency tasked with protecting the state's coast.
That includes new chair Meagan Harmon, who hails from Santa Barbara County, home of Vandenberg Space Force Base, and vice chair Caryl Hart, a former parks director who also served as chair during the agency's SpaceX decision.
As our own Camille von Kaenel reports, Hart acknowledged last week that 'this is a challenging time' for the commission, which both Trump and California Gov. Gavin Newsom also criticized over its SpaceX decision.
See you in court: SpaceX launched a legal challenge against the agency, alleging 'naked political discrimination.' The case is still pending before a Trump-appointed judge.
A Republican state lawmaker had tried to pass a bill to side with SpaceX and reverse the Coastal Commission's decision. But that Assembly member, Bill Essayli, has since been promoted by Trump to become a U.S. attorney for California's central district.
His bill, to let SpaceX launch up to 14 more Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg each year, died after no other Republicans took it up, our own Tyler Katzenberger reports.
That means the original decision stands, for now. Former Commission Chair Justin Cummings nodded at the hurdles ahead for the agency last week when welcoming the new leaders.
'This coming year is not going to be easy, and probably won't be easy for the next few years,' he told them.
The Reading Room
Satellite industry derides cuts as national security threat: POLITICO
New NASA Boss May Not Take Over Until Next Year, Acting Head Says: Bloomberg
Private Space Stations Are Racing to Be the Next 'It' Destination: The Wall Street Journal
Varda to launch its first in-house built spacecraft for on-orbit manufacturing: SpaceNews
Report Proposes Fixes For The Aerospace Talent Gap: Payload
Event Horizon
MONDAY:
The Center for Strategic and International Studies holds a fireside chat with Air Marshal Paul Godfrey.
TUESDAY:
The Mitchell Institute holds a discussion with Dr. Kelly D. Hammett of the Space Force.
WEDNESDAY:
The 2025 SmallSat & Space Access Summit runs from Wednesday to Thursday.
SpaceNews holds a discussion on geospatial intelligence.
Photo of the Week
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
11 minutes ago
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security at 90: Where the program stands and how to fix it
Social Security is a vital source of income for millions of Americans, but after 90 years, the program faces significant financial challenges that could reshape it for future generations. If Congress fails to act, retirees could see their monthly checks cut by 23 percent in less than a decade — slashing thousands of dollars from the average person's annual benefits. Lawmakers are unlikely to let that happen, but so far, they've opted to kick the can down the road, avoiding politically unpopular solutions and complicating eventual fixes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) signed Social Security into law on Aug. 14, 1935, as a way to give 'some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.' Here's what to know about the state of the program 90 years later: How many people receive Social Security? Nearly 70 million people received Social Security benefits in July, with the average check totaling $1,863. Retired workers made up the largest share — roughly three-quarters, or about 53 million. The program also supports other groups: Nearly six million people received survivor benefits last month, while more than eight million collected disability insurance. Most people aged 65 and older receive the majority of their income from Social Security, making it a vital lifeline for millions of adults — and children — who would otherwise fall below the poverty line. Without Social Security benefits, 37 percent of older adults would have had incomes below the official poverty line in 2023 — instead, only 10 percent did, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. More Americans now expect to rely on Social Security than in the past. In a recent Gallup poll, 37 percent of non-retirees said it will be a 'major source' of income in retirement — up from 28 percent two decades ago. When Social Security benefits could be cut Social Security isn't going away, but in less than a decade, millions of Americans could see their monthly retirement checks shrink if Congress doesn't intervene. The program's retirement trust fund is expected to run out by 2033, at which point Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of promised benefits. For today's average retired worker, that would mean a cut of about $460 a month — more than $5,500 a year. That said, experts caution against claiming Social Security benefits early out of fear that the program may not be around in the future, as doing so results in permanently lower monthly checks. Federal lawmakers are expected to act before the cuts take effect, but the main concern is that the longer they wait, the more complicated the fix will become. Social Security is so widely supported that, until now, politicians have largely avoided moves that could prove unpopular with voters. The last major overhaul came roughly 40 years ago when the federal government gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67. When that happened in 1983, Social Security insolvency was just months away. Why Social Security is facing a financial shortfall The program's financial shortfall largely stems from the nation's changing demographics, which have resulted in fewer workers supporting more retirees. In 2010, there were 43 million people age 65 and older, and by 2024, that number had grown to 59 million, according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. At the same time, the number of workers contributing to the program has fallen — from 2.9 covered workers per beneficiary in 2010 to 2.7 in 2024 — a ratio projected to decline further to 2.3 by 2044, the foundation said. That imbalance is a concern because Social Security is primarily funded through a payroll tax, which accounts for about 90 percent of the trust fund's income. Fewer workers mean less payroll tax revenue. The good news is that the demographic shift isn't a surprise, giving policymakers time to prepare. The bad news is that it's not easily reversed, and major policy changes may be needed to shore up the program for generations to come. Something else to keep in mind: Despite raising the income cap over time, a smaller share of wages is now subject to the payroll tax compared to the '80s and '90s. The portion of wages and salaries covered by the payroll tax has fallen to about 82 percent, down from 90 percent in 1983, according to the Tax Foundation. Part of that is due to a rise in employer-provided benefits, like health insurance, which is tax-deductible, and thus faces neither the income nor payroll tax, the Tax Foundation said. What can be done to fix Social Security? Lawmakers have a few options: increase Social Security revenue, reduce costs or, most likely, some combination of both. Democrats want to raise more money by making high earners pay Social Security taxes on income above the current cap. For 2025, the tax only applies to the first $176,100, so any earnings above that aren't taxed. Gradually increasing the payroll tax rate is another way to raise revenue. Right now, the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent total — split evenly between employees and employers at 6.2 percent each. The combined rate has been steady since 1990. While raising taxes is rarely popular, polling suggests boosting revenue is generally more acceptable to the public than cutting benefits. A 2024 Pew Research survey found that wide majorities of both Republicans (77%) and Democrats (83%) do not support Social Security benefit reductions. President Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Social Security benefits and even suggested eliminating federal income taxes on retirement checks — though that move would worsen the program's financial shortfall. Like his predecessors before him, Trump has offered little concrete policy direction for fixing Social Security. Tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to root out widespread waste, fraud and abuse fell short of expectations and sparked significant confusion. Earlier this year, Brookings released a bipartisan blueprint for fixing Social Security. The proposal included tax-based revenue boosts like increasing the maximum taxable ceiling and raising the payroll tax from 12.4 percent to 12.6 percent. It also suggested benefit reductions, like increasing the retirement age for high earners, among other changes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump, DC residents face off in federal takeover
Happy Thursday. Isn't August recess glorious? 🌞 In today's issue: DC residents heckle authorities World readies for Trump-Putin summit Trump: 25 percent chance Putin meeting unsuccessful Wholesale inflation spikes Taylor Swift breaks the internet 🚓 The new militarized zone: President Trump 's Washington, D.C., takeover has begun. FBI Director Kash Patel said 45 arrests were made in the nation's capital overnight. '29 immigration-related, 16 tied to the violent crime surge, and 3 firearm seizures,' Patel posted on X. And a group of protesters heckled law enforcement officers near the 14th Street NW corridor, where agents had set up a vehicle checkpoint. Protesters held up signs that read, 'Go home, fascists' and 'Get off our streets,' according to The Associated Press. Some details about the 14th Street checkpoint: NOTUS's Anna Kramer reports, 'Police have set up a checkpoint and appear to be stopping every single car on 14th st NW, between W+V. Some cars are being pulled over after being stopped. Some police are wearing 'HSI police' vests (Homeland Security Investigations)' 📸 Photos National Guard vehicles were spotted near the National Mall early Thursday, per NewsNation. Trump ripped into D.C. last night: He bashed the city as one of the 'highest rates of crime in the world,' arguing it is higher than the mayor says it is. And this morning, he promoted a U.S. Marshals Service post highlighting their night operations in the District. You know how I said Trump can only take over D.C. police for 30 days?: Well, Trump signaled Wednesday that he would ask Congress for an extension beyond those 30 days. ➤ HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT THE MAN WHO THREW A SANDWICH?: A man allegedly threw a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent Sunday. Well, he was charged with a felony for the incident. 📹 Watch the video – warning, there is some sharp language. ➤ TIDBIT — SEN. MULLIN SAYS HE DOESN'T 'BUCKLE UP' IN D.C.: Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told Fox News on Wednesday that he doesn't 'buckle up' when driving around Washington, D.C., for fear of being carjacked. ➤ RELATED READS: Washingtonian: 'My Life Is Not a Political Football': How Community Leaders in DC's Neighborhoods With the Most Crime Are Reacting to Trump's Takeover The Washington Post: Congress tried to control D.C. police in 1989. The results were disastrous. Politico: Donald Trump Took Over DC's Police. Why Is the City's Mayor So Zen? Alaska will be the epicenter of the universe tomorrow: All eyes are on the 49th state, where President Trump 's high-stakes summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to happen Friday. Trump has described this meeting as the start of the peace process with Ukraine. If not, Trump says Russia will face 'consequences.' How does Trump think it will go?: He told Fox News's Brian Kilmeade that he believes there is a '25 percent chance' Friday's meeting is *not* successful. If the meeting *does* go well: Trump floated a follow-up summit involving Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He said he has three potential locations in mind, including Alaska. What to expect: Trump and Putin will have a one-on-one meeting, followed by a joint press conference, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News this morning. Other preparations happening today: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in London to discuss expectations for the Alaska meeting. ➤ RELATED READS TO FEEL PREPARED: The New York Times: Why Putin Thinks Russia Has the Upper Hand The Washington Post: Even before Alaska summit, Putin is redrawing global order to his liking The Atlantic: Vladimir Putin Could Be Laying a Trap CNN: Ahead of summit, Trump questions what's changed about Putin The Wall Street Journal: The Secret Channel Russia and Ukraine Use to Trade Prisoners of War Wholesale prices, comin' in hot: 'Wholesale prices increased in July at the quickest pace since February, as economists are keeping a sharp eye on inflation data amid President Trump 's trade war,' reports The Hill's Tobias Burns. 'The 3.3 percent yearly increase — which blew past economists' expectations — puts the Federal Reserve in a tough position, as the central bank faces pressure on both sides of its mandate to keep prices low and employment as high as possible.' Combine that with the July jobs report: 'The surprisingly weak July jobs report showed that employment conditions are worsening, but upward-moving prices mean the Fed will have to negotiate stagflationary concerns in the short term.' What does this mean for interest rates?: The New York Times's Colby Smith reports that 'the Federal Reserve is poised to lower interest rates in September. But signs of stickier inflation could limit how much relief officials can ultimately provide to borrowers.' Read: ❤️🔥 THE TALK OF SOCIAL MEDIA Taylor Swift broke the internet: Taylor Swift made her podcast debut Wednesday, appearing on her boyfriend Travis Kelce and his brother Jason Kelce 's 'New Heights' podcast. She rarely does media appearances these days, so it was fascinating to hear her talk candidly for nearly two hours about her life. Here are some of the moments getting the most attention: ❤ She revealed the track list of her new album: It's coming out Oct. 3 and will have 12 songs. 📹 Watch her announce the songs ❤ She posted photos on her social accounts: 📸 Photos from the album ❤ She explained the backstory of buying her masters: It involved her mom and brother meeting with the private equity firm that owned them. 📹 Watch ❤ How she and Travis met: 'This dude didn't get a meet and greet [at her concert] and he's making it everyone's problem,' Swift joked. 📹 Watch the clip ❤ Comparing her job to Travis's: 'On paper, we actually have a very similar job. Our job is to entertain people for three-plus hours in NFL stadiums,' Swift said. 'When I'm there it's called a dressing room. When Travis is there, it's called a locker room. For me, it's called a rehearsal, for him, it's called a practice. For him, it's called his coach, for me, it's my mom.' Tidbit: Jason Kelce posted seven minutes after the podcast premiered: 'Oh my god, there's already 976k watching this live, what in the actual f—.' 15 minutes later, he updated that figure to 1.2 million. ^ As of 12:30 p.m., the podcast had 10.3 million views on YouTube. this broke the record for the 'New Heights' podcast.
