Latest news with #JohnHendel
Politico
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
NASA's space station blues
With help from John Hendel, Camille von Kaenel and Tyler Katzenberger 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@ 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 ( 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
Politico
10-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
The UK tries to shape the AI world order — again
With help from John Hendel Not that long ago, with the world panicking about potential runaway AI, the U.K. stepped up to lead on reining in the new technology. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak convened an AI Safety Summit in Bletchley Park — the first major global AI policy summit anywhere — featuring former Vice President Kamala Harris touting the risks of algorithmic bias in the technology. What a difference an election — or two — makes. With President Donald Trump's White House all-in on accelerating AI technology and dropping safety regulations, and a fresh Labour government in the U.K. anxious to keep good relations with the United States, a new AI world order is quickly emerging — one that Britain wants to help build. During his recent visit to the White House, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer previewed a tech-focused deal between the two nations — in language that seemed very tuned to a pitch Vice President JD Vance had just made at the Paris AI Action Summit. Now, our POLITICO U.K. colleague Tom Bristow has gotten a peek at a British government document with new details of London's ideas for a trade pact with the U.S. It offers a look at how a new global AI consensus could take shape — with much less worry about safety, and much more concern about security and tech dominance. What's in the document? The paper outlines the pitch the U.K. plans to make to the U.S., and it echoes rhetoric used by Vance and Trump that countries must choose whether to side with or against the U.S. on tech policy. It talks about combining British and American 'strengths' so that Western democracies can win the tech race — language that British Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has increasingly started to use in recent weeks — and signals ever-closer alignment with the U.S. on tech. The document outlines Britain's ambitions for an 'economic partnership' on technology. It pitches the case by pointing out that the U.S. and U.K. are the only two allies in the world with trillion-dollar tech industries, and emphasizes the importance of Western democracies beating rivals to cutting-edge breakthroughs. It leans into 'moonshot missions' in three areas relevant to national security — AI, quantum and space — as an initial phase of the deal, but doesn't go into detail. It also mentions collaboration on R&D, talent and procurement without going into the terms. British officials see it as a long-term play, with this document reflecting its early pitch. What is not in there? Britain's pitch avoids mention of thorny issues like tariffs and regulation. Tariffs could come to a head as soon as Wednesday, when 25 percent steel and aluminum tariffs are due to come into effect. U.K. negotiators are pressing for a last-minute exemption. Also not in it: There is nothing in the document on nearer-term wins like a data deal, a digital trade agreement or specific investments. But by discussing procurement, the British pitch document opens the door to deals between the U.K. government and U.S. tech firms. Both Scale AI and Anthropic are hiring U.K. staff to sell their technology to the public sector. And a national rebrand: Republicans and friendly Big Tech executives have attacked the U.K. and Europe's content moderation regulation as 'censorship'. In late February, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio sent Britain a sternly worded letter over its Online Safety Act. Activists in the U.K. fear London will water down the law to secure a deal with the U.S., despite the government insisting it is not up for negotiation. To sidestep the issue, Britain is pitching its legislation to the White House as a move against pedophiles, terrorists and online criminals rather than anything to do with freedom of speech. (While the pitch document has little to say about the Online Safety Act, the law is already making an impact in Britain: from Monday, companies will be required to remove illegal content or risk high fines. Kyle, the tech secretary, told LBC radio Monday he's already thinking of additional legislation and pushed back against suggestions that the U.S. might force the U.K. to water down its tech legislation. 'Our online safety standards are not up for negotiation,' he said.) Have we seen this before? The pitch echoes some of the Atlantic Declaration that Sunak and former President Joe Biden signed in June 2023. That agreement resolved to 'to partner to build resilient, diversified, and secure supply chains and reduce strategic dependencies.' The latest iteration drops clean energy and health from the agenda. Where do we go from here? Nothing in the deal is final or public, and it may take months for London and Washington to find agreement. Some British observers are getting nervous their government may roll over too fast to American tech interests. Last week the BBC wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the U.K. antitrust regulator, asking it to intervene so Apple and Google have less of a chokehold on app stores and cautioning that the companies' use of AI could bite into the BBC's bottom line. The complaint came days after the CMA closed an inquiry into Microsoft and OpenAI's partnership. And the deal could spell trouble for Brussels. Alongside his note to London, House Judiciary Chair Jordan also sent a howler to the EU over its Digital Services Act, which he called 'censorship'. Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr blasted the DSA last week in a speech before Barcelona's Mobile World Congress. Trump has threatened to hit the U.K. and the EU with retaliatory tariffs for tech regulation he believes might unfairly target U.S. tech companies. Brussels tech chief Henna Virkkunen defended the EU's regulation, saying it was 'content-agnostic'. But if the U.K. offers to slim down its tech rules to please Washington, Europe will be left to make its defense alone. CALL WAITING Robert Heinlein's old adage that 'the moon is a harsh mistress' proved especially true for Nokia this month. The telecom company's Bell Labs division has been attempting to make the first cellular phone call on the moon as part of a partnership with NASA but sadly fell short during a recent lunar mission. 'Unfortunately, Nokia was unable to make the first cellular call on the Moon due to factors beyond our control that resulted in extreme cold temperatures on our user device modules,' Noka wrote in an update over the weekend. Still, Nokia 'delivered the first cellular network to the Moon and validated key aspects of the network's operation,' the company added. It argued the mission entailed 'important steps toward proving that cellular technologies can meet the mission-critical communications needs of future lunar missions and space exploration.' NASA gave a fuller breakdown of the lunar mission on Friday. POST OF THE DAY THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@ and Christine Mui (cmui@
