Now is the time for NASA to blast into a new future — after slowing to a crawl
For the past 50 years, America's dreams of space exploration have been stymied by NASA's failure to build an affordable, reliable launch system.
Today, the private sector builds rockets faster, cheaper, and better.
Advertisement
5
Getty Images
Ending the agency's sclerotic rocket-building program will be the first of many challenges facing Jared Isaacman, President Trump's nominee to be NASA administrator, who is expected to be confirmed.
America's space program has slowed to a crawl in recent decades, hobbled by cost overruns and lax management.
This is a bad time for US space policy to stumble. China is launching missions at a record pace and vows to put its taikonauts on the moon by 2030. If China beats the US back to the moon, 'they are going to write the rules of the road up there,' warned Texas Congressman Brian Babin in January.
Advertisement
NASA's biggest obstacle to progress is its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and conjoined Orion capsule. This huge, Apollo-style program was intended to carry US astronauts back to the moon. Unfortunately, the SLS rocket is years behind schedule and billions over budget.
Unlike the reusable rockets being pioneered by SpaceX and other private-sector companies, the SLS is entirely expendable, meaning all the rocket's components must be discarded during each flight, at enormous expense. NASA's inspector general estimates each SLS/Orion mission will cost over $4 billion.
5 If China beats the US back to the moon, 'they are going to write the rules of the road up there,' warned Texas Congressman Brian Babin.
Michael Brochstein/ZUMA Press Wire / SplashNews.com
Advertisement
No wonder space analysts call the program 'a national disgrace.'
There's got to be a better way to get US astronauts to the moon and beyond. And there is. Two decades ago, innovative NASA leaders quietly launched a program that pays private space companies, principally SpaceX, so far, to ferry US astronauts and cargo into orbit using their own space vehicles. In essence, NASA's commercial program allows the agency to hire space vehicles much the way a sports team might charter a bus.
Congress went along with the commercial plan only grudgingly. The House and Senate insisted that NASA invest much more in the SLS/Orion project, whose enormous workforces just happen to be located in powerful lawmakers' home states.
5 Jared Isaacman, a former Polaris space mission commander, is set to be approved as the next leader of NASA.
REUTERS
Advertisement
NASA's commercial experiment, meanwhile, has largely been a success; SpaceX rockets carry astronauts to the International Space Station like clockwork, saving US taxpayers billions. And by giving private launch companies an initial market, NASA's commercial space program helped spawn a promising private spaceflight industry. Congress should stop fighting over SLS pork and let NASA embrace the capabilities these revolutionary vendors offer.
In his Senate confirmation hearing, Isaacman said he wouldn't shut down the SLS program overnight, but warned that the overpriced rocket is not the best 'long-term way to get to and from the moon and Mars.'
He said the SLS should be allowed to fly its next two planned missions, including a moon landing. That's the right call. It is unlikely NASA and its private partners could cobble together an alternative lunar plan in the short term.
5 NASA's Nova-C lunar lander launching from a SpaceX rocket in February 2025. NASA's reliance on private rocket launchers makes sense for the cost-challenged agency.
CRISTOBAL HERRERA-ULASHKEVICH/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
But once US boots touch lunar soil again, the agency should get out of the rocket-building business for good. SpaceX and other vendors will be able to send crews and supplies to the moon — and eventually to Mars — for a fraction of what NASA would spend using its own equipment.
Freed from the need to build expensive space vehicles, the agency will have more resources to devote to genuine exploration and technological research. Then, NASA should be restructured to focus on what it does best: basic R&D, mission planning, and space science.
To achieve all this, the new administrator will have to win over skittish NASA staffers, convince Congress to stop micromanaging NASA programs, and cope with curveballs from the White House. Apparently, without consulting their nominee, the Trump administration recently proposed 50% cuts in NASA's robotic science missions.
5 Thanks to developments such as the Tiangong Space Station, China's space sector is emerging as a rival to NASA.
Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0
Advertisement
Those programs need more budget discipline, but not a meat-axe. Isaacman told the Senate that such indiscriminate cuts would not be 'an optimal outcome.'
It won't be easy, but Isaacman has the right skill set to turn this legendary agency around. No other country can match what the US will accomplish in space if it combines the best of what NASA can offer with the genius of private enterprise.
The new administration has a golden opportunity to make that uniquely American formula work.
James B. Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the former editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. This article is based on his Manhattan Institute report, 'U.S. Space Policy: The Next Frontier.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
37 minutes ago
- USA Today
Lawmakers keep pushing for release of Epstein files: 'Will not be buried for decades'
Though lawmakers are on their annual one-month summer break, they are continuing to demand answers and records on Jeffrey Epstein. WASHINGTON - Though lawmakers are on their annual one-month summer break, the controversy surrounding convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein hasn't left their minds. Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing for the release of all the Epstein files after a Justice Department report found that Epstein died by suicide and did not have a 'client list,' despite previous suggestions by Attorney General Pam Bondi. Members of Congress from both parties say they'll force more public debate on the issue when their recess ends after Labor Day. 'The Epstein case will not be buried for decades,' Missouri Republican Rep. Eric Burlison wrote in an Aug. 10 post on X. 'We are demanding records, taking depositions, and putting officials under oath. The American people need to get the truth.' The Epstein controversy has created a schism between President Donald Trump and his MAGA base. His supporters have pushed back on the Republican administration's attempt to close the book on Epstein after Trump and his backers helped to heighten expectations of blockbuster revelations. Kentucky Rep. James Comer, who heads the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, subpoenaed longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell to sit for a deposition at the Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee on Aug. 11. But Comer ended up postponing the testimony, writing in a letter to Maxwell's attorney that the House panel will wait until after the Supreme Court considers her request to overturn a sex-trafficking conviction and 20-year prison sentence. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, D-California, have also been leading efforts that could force a House floor vote on a bill requiring the government to release all the Epstein files. They need 218 signatures to make that happen and plan to hold a press conference on Sept. 3 with victims of Maxwell and Epstein to drum up more support for their efforts. 'The survivors deserve justice and the public deserves transparency,' Khanna wrote on X. Trump's longtime friendship with Epstein has been under scrutiny for years. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that the future president sent a lewd letter to Epstein for his 50th birthday as part of a leather-bound book with dozens of other messages, the Journal reported. Khanna and Rep. Robert Garcia, D-California, requested the book in a letter sent to lawyers of Epstein's estate on July 25. The New York Times also reported that former Epstein employee Maria Farmer told law enforcement in 1996 that she encountered Trump in Epstein's office and Epstein told Trump "No, no. She's not here for you.' Some Democrats have claimed that Trump's recent action deploying the National Guard in D.C. to crack down on crime are an attempt to distract from the Epstein controversy. 'He needs to get his base talking and thinking about something besides his refusal to open up the Epstein files because he's mixed up in them,' former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a video clip shared on X. But Vice President JD Vance has defended Trump in multiple interviews, arguing that the president wants full transparency on the issue. 'President Trump has demanded full transparency from this. And yet somehow the Democrats are attacking him and not the Biden administration, which did nothing for four years,' Vance told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures' in an interview aired Aug. 10.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Minneapolis Democratic socialist Omar Fateh vows to protect illegal immigrants from 'hostile' Trump admin
Democratic socialist and Minneapolis mayoral hopeful Omar Fateh says his first priority in office would be protecting illegal immigrants from President Donald Trump's "hostile federal government." Fateh made the statement during an interview with KARE 11 News in Minnesota, doubling down on his identity as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, but denying his policies are "radical." "Day one, if you were elected, what would be some of your top two or three priorities for the city?" the reporter asked in an interview aired Friday. "The first I would say would be a hostile federal government, with not only Donald Trump in office, but he essentially has a trifecta with both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court. A lot of our neighbors, especially our undocumented residents are very concerned," Fateh responded. The candidate went on to say public safety would be his second priority, but he declined to endorse the Democratic Socialist platform of abolishing the police entirely. "That's not going to happen, absolutely," Fateh said of abolition. "What we envision is a public safety system that works for everyone, and that means we have an accountable police force and a police force that is an important part of our public safety system, but making sure that when we call 911 we get an appropriate response." Fateh argued that half of 911 calls in Minneapolis "don't need to be responded to with armed officers." He argued funding should be directed toward social workers and others who can respond to such calls instead. Fateh secured the endorsement of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, the name for the Democratic Party in Minnesota, in July. The party endorsed him over incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey, also a Democrat. Frey is running for a third term and has decided to stay in the race. Some have dubbed Fateh the "Mamdani of Minneapolis," referencing New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Both are the children of immigrants, with Fateh hailing from Somalia and Mamdani from Uganda. Fateh has previously pledged that, if elected mayor, he will raise city's minimum wage, increase the supply of affordable housing, and combat what he calls police violence. Similar to Mamdani, Fateh calls for replacing some of the police department's duties with community-led alternatives. He also wants to issue legal IDs to undocumented immigrants.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How The 2025 Budget Act Accelerates Social Security's Insolvency
The Social Security actuary projects the 2025 budget law Congress passed in July will accelerate insolvency of the program's retirement trust fund from early 2033 to late 2032. That may seem like a modest change, but it has enormous political implications. It means the program will go insolvent during the term of the president who succeeds Donald Trump. That soon. And it means that, without congressional action, scheduled benefits would automatically be cut for all recipients by roughly one-fifth right in the midst of the 2032 election campaign. My Urban Institute colleagues Rich Johnson and Karen Smith estimate that once the trust fund becomes insolvent, monthly benefits for a median income retiree would drop by nearly $500 in 2022 dollars and 3.8 million more seniors would fall into poverty. Fortunately for both Social Security and Medicare finances, the budget bill did not repeal income taxes on Social Security benefits, despite the Administration's persistent claims. Without that revenue, their prospects would be much more dire. Taxing combined income But how did the budget bill weaken the trust fund's health? Bear with me. It is complicated. The Social Security trust fund is financed by payroll taxes, the interest it earns on the government bonds it purchases, and from that tax on Social Security benefits. Up to half of Social Security benefits are taxable for single filers with income between $25,000 to $34,000 and for joint filers making $32,000 to $44,000. Up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits are subject to income tax for single filers making at least $34,000 or joint filers making $44,000 or more. And here is the important part: Income for the purposes of this benefit tax is defined as 'combined income,' which includes half (or 85 percent) of your Social Security income plus Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), which is Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) plus tax-free bond interest and a few other relatively rare income sources. How the new law weakens Social Security The budget law reduces trust fund income because it reduces taxable income, pushes some people into lower tax brackets, and lowers marginal tax rates. Several provisions lower the tax rate on benefits. First, the new law extends the rate cuts and lower tax brackets created by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act but were due to expire at the end of this year. Second, the budget law creates a temporary $6,000 senior deduction for taxpayers aged 65 or older. It phases out starting at $75,000 for singles and $150,000 for joint filers and is gone entirely at $175,000 for singles and $250,000 for couples. Combined, these provisions reduce the tax on Social Security benefits. In the short run, that helps some older adults, especially those making between about $80,000 and $130,000 annually. But in the long run, it could be very bad for Social Security recipients, both the 55 million getting benefits today and those working-age people who hope to receive promised benefits when they reach old age. Insolvency Social Security's actuaries estimate all the budget law's changes will drain nearly $170 billion from the Social Security trust fund between 2025 and 2034. And that will be enough to speed up the Old Age and Survivors Insurance fund's insolvency date into 2032. The projected insolvency date often fluctuates based on short-term economic trends. But three current factors could accelerate insolvency even more: President Trump's tariffs, which may already be slowing the economy; his efforts to deport masses of immigrants, who contribute to Social Security by paying payroll taxes even though undocumented immigrants cannot collect benefits; and the real possibility that Congress will extend the new senior deduction, which is due to expire in 2028. Benefit reductions would have severe consequences for older adults, especially those with low incomes. Ironically, many will get little or no benefit from the tax cuts. For example, a widow with income below $17,000 under the pre-July 4 law already owed no income tax for 2025. That higher senior deduction and continued rate cuts do her no good. But she will be harmed substantially to the degree these changes result in a quicker automatic across-the-board cut in Social Security. That income loss may be exacerbated by other Trump Administration initiatives that will increase Medicare costs or limit health care access. Most retirees deduct their Medicare premiums from their Social Security benefits and higher premiums or other health care costs will leave them with less money to pay daily expenses. For now, few politicians are willing to support the tax increases and benefit reductions that will be necessary to at least delay Social Security's pending insolvency. And President Trump insists he won't touch Social Security, though the budget law he pushed clearly did, and in the wrong direction. If the Social Security actuary is right, Trump's successor won't have the option to ignore Social Security. Unless the next president 'touches' it with substantial reforms, the retirement system will fall far short of paying promised benefits. At the very least, lawmakers could stop making matters worse.
