What Will A Second Trump Term Mean for Space Policy?

[yg1968]

This is the rationale for the lack of an alternate in the past. It's no longer valid. You cannot know what the price will be now unless you go out for bids now. I think that SpaceX could submit a bid for about $1B to take four crew from Earth to NRHO and return them.

Bolding mine.

Agreed. A reusable V3 Super Heavy with a stripped down disposable V3 Starship and a modified Dragon should be able to do that. The Dragon trunk would be the biggest required modification. It would need to become similar to an Apollo service module, able to sustain the CSM with power and water for 3-4 weeks, able to provide ΔV for TEI. Dragon would need a beefed up TPS and ability to launch abort without pulling the more massive trunk/SM with it.

That $1B is less than 23% of a single Orion/SLS flight. So as a redundant architecture, it is the White Elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about.

It's good to see the authorized SpaceX executives here, presenting their carefully thought-out proposals backed up by all the appropriate systems engineering and taking into account all the details instead of just hand-waving and glossing them over with words. Details such as acquisition, diversion and  allocation of engineering, manufacturing and corporate resources while maintaining the core businesses of developing a fully and rapidly reusable interplanetary settlement system, Starlink and the commercial launcher business; developing a pricing structure that takes all this into account while maintaining a responsible financial position that allows the company to continue operations and existence, etc. Oh, wait... 

Seriously, there' s a lot more that needs to be taken into account than the most obvious engineering. What makes this estimate even more futile is that SpaceX is privately held so we have no idea what its actual costs are so we can't know what the development costs for this type of project would be. Absent a bid from SpaceX we can't know what the price would be.

And frivolously, I find it interesting that the White Elephant in the room has a massive trunk.

Finally, White Elephant normally refers to something that is expensive, or that costs a lot of money to keep in good condition, but that has no useful purpose and is no longer wanted. I believe you meant just "the elephant in the room".

Given the fact that the sustainable HLS-Starship for Artemis IV cost $1.15B to NASA (including the cost for its development), a price of less than that for a commercial crew to NRHO mission seems reasonable to me.

[yg1968]

Trump team signs memorandum of understanding with Biden White House to formalize transition:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-team-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-biden-white-house-to-formalize-transition

Although this article doesn't discuss space, I would expect a NASA transition team to be appointed in the next few days.

[mlindner]

Elon Musk is transactional too, in that he isn't volunteering to spend less time at Tesla and SpaceX (and The Boring Company, and NeuraLink, and...) just for fun, he expects something out of the relationship too.

If one of them doesn't get what they want, then the relationship will chill. We've seen that happen many times with Trump.

You don't need to guess what Musk wants, it's written on his America PAC website. There is an alignement of interests over several subjects (deregulation, less government, freedom of speech, anti-woke, etc.). Musk doesn't expect specific things from Trump, he expects Republicans to be Republicans, that's all that they have to do.

Nitpick, but I wouldn't say "he expects Republicans to be Republicans". Republicans started trending toward not being Republicans around 2010 or so. (Democrats too for that matter.) We're in the middle of an absolutely tremendous party alignment switch right now that's been ongoing for the last ~15 years. Maybe even the biggest party alignment switch since the post civil war era. The meaning of the terms Republican and Democrat (when used to refer to the political parties) are in flux and don't have strong attachment to any specific political policies right now (though one could argue things are starting to solidify a bit). Anyone who feels politically homeless (myself included) right now can concretely understand what I'm talking about.

[mlindner]

Just look at all of the environmental laws that have been created over the past decades, and how successful they have been in rescuing Americans from industrial waste, air pollution, and a host of other negative issues.

Yes they have, but they've also done a whole ton of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", greatly slowing down the process for building much of anything in this country by locking it behind years of environmental review. Look I'm all for environmental protections but we need a happy medium and right now the pendulum has swung a bit too far in one direction.

For example, one random idea on how to improve things, keep the regulations the same but allow construction to proceed on any project if the ones seeking licenses are confident that they are fully in compliance, and offer them a way to reverse mitigate if they're found not in compliance afterwards (or fine them if it's unrecoverable damage). You would of course preserve the existing pathways if companies want to play it safe. Also, allow companies to seek licensure directly without going through intermediate agencies (like the FAA should not be the environmental licensing authority for SpaceX's private launch pads). Ditto for preserving the existing pathways for those who want to play it safe.

[mlindner]

Musk always focuses his time and effort on the prime constraint in each of his businesses.  He has identified government overreach as the prime constraint for several of his businesses and has allocated his time and effort accordingly.  The boards should and probably do understand this.

Actually, they don't. What we assume is not always the reality. It has been an ongoing concern. Note the dates:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/21/business/tesla-shareholders-object-elon-musk/index.html

https://www.benzinga.com/news/24/05/38908182/teslas-board-is-desperately-trying-to-focus-elon-musks-attention-on-the-company

https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/how-hard-should-tesla-fight-for-elon-musks-attention-265bc451

From your first link:

The letter says that the investors signing the letter own $1.5 billion worth of Tesla shares, which represents well less than 1% of Tesla shares.

These are called activist investors. They're not the board or have any relation to the company in any way. They're outside unrelated parties attempting to make activist changes. They exist everywhere, and are rarely successful (usually only with companies that are failing where it's easy to buy up shares). Let's not misrepresent things please.

[mlindner]

Republicans and Musk aren't arguing for no regulations, they are arguing for less regulations. When the regulations are doing more harm than good...

This is the situation in a nutshell, because what a business calls "harm" is profits, but what an American citizen calls "harm" could be actual harm, or the destruction in value in common assets.

Oh come on. You're just being disingenuous here. Elon Musk isn't and has never been interested in lining his pockets. You've been around this subject long enough to know better.

[Coastal Ron]

...Musk doesn't expect specific things from Trump, he expects Republicans to be Republicans, that's all that they have to do.

Nitpick, but I wouldn't say "he expects Republicans to be Republicans". Republicans started trending toward not being Republicans around 2010 or so.

Right, Republicans of the past may have had some alignment with Musk, since Republicans have always been pro-business, but there is a reason why the only living former Republican President prior to Trump did not publicly endorse Trump - nor did many prominent Republicans that were in prior Republican Administrations.

Democrats too for that matter.

Since I was young the joke has been "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat!", and to some extent that is still true in that Republicans have focused on business, while Democrats focused on people. Trump is a populist, which has confused both parties.

We're in the middle of an absolutely tremendous party alignment switch right now that's been ongoing for the last ~15 years. Maybe even the biggest party alignment switch since the post civil war era. The meaning of the terms Republican and Democrat (when used to refer to the political parties) are in flux and don't have strong attachment to any specific political policies right now (though one could argue things are starting to solidify a bit). Anyone who feels politically homeless (myself included) right now can concretely understand what I'm talking about.

Yes, it is interesting times, which present problems for those seeking significant changes, because they may not truly understand what the electorate really wants.

For instance, immigration and small business are tied together in ways that are hard to separate, and people really don't want the Religious Right to be mandating what religion their children are indoctrinated with in school.

Even the issues that Musk is supposedly pushing, like deregulation, can come back to bite Republicans if the public sees the harm in the changes. The same with Musk's D.O.G.E. effort, where he even admitted that people would lose jobs if his proposed changes are implemented. And if government services start failing because of changes, the electorate will make their feelings known...

[Coastal Ron]

Republicans and Musk aren't arguing for no regulations, they are arguing for less regulations. When the regulations are doing more harm than good...

This is the situation in a nutshell, because what a business calls "harm" is profits, but what an American citizen calls "harm" could be actual harm, or the destruction in value in common assets.

Oh come on. You're just being disingenuous here. Elon Musk isn't and has never been interested in lining his pockets. You've been around this subject long enough to know better.

Don't pretend that Elon Musk does not gain personal value from deregulation. And while I continue to think (hope!) that what Musk does with SpaceX ultimately does result in making humanity multi-planetary, I do believe that his efforts with everything else in his personal portfolio is an attempt to increase his personal wealth and influence. Just look at what he has done with Twitter (no X.com).

As to businesses in general, my original statement still stands, especially for large publicly held companies that have CEO's that are driven more by stock incentive plans than in being good for the public at large. Tobacco, oil, and chemical companies are just a few examples that have been proven to have little regard for the health and well being of average Americans, which exactly why we have a government with elected leaders - to regulate businesses that won't be good on their own.

[mlindner]

Republicans and Musk aren't arguing for no regulations, they are arguing for less regulations. When the regulations are doing more harm than good...

This is the situation in a nutshell, because what a business calls "harm" is profits, but what an American citizen calls "harm" could be actual harm, or the destruction in value in common assets.

Oh come on. You're just being disingenuous here. Elon Musk isn't and has never been interested in lining his pockets. You've been around this subject long enough to know better.

Don't pretend that Elon Musk does not gain personal value from deregulation. And while I continue to think (hope!) that what Musk does with SpaceX ultimately does result in making humanity multi-planetary, I do believe that his efforts with everything else in his personal portfolio is an attempt to increase his personal wealth and influence. Just look at what he has done with Twitter (no X.com).

As to businesses in general, my original statement still stands, especially for large publicly held companies that have CEO's that are driven more by stock incentive plans than in being good for the public at large. Tobacco, oil, and chemical companies are just a few examples that have been proven to have little regard for the health and well being of average Americans, which exactly why we have a government with elected leaders - to regulate businesses that won't be good on their own.

I think an argument could be made that he stands to gain personally from deregulation, but it's simply incidental of being successful in a situation where regulation was what was primarily holding your companies back from further success. Looking at it from the perspective of he's doing it for personal gain is just ignorant and is a take I would expect from some random on Reddit, not from this forum and not from someone who's been here a long time. Secondly, the deregulation he's seeking isn't the type of regulation one would seek if one were primarily interested in lining ones pockets. There's all sorts of things from corrosive regulation that kills off automotive companies and forces people to use Teslas to anti-competitive laws that kill off up and coming launch companies. Or rules that the government must sole source all launch contracts (which would result in SpaceX taking all of them). To even implementing a retainer fee like ULA used to have.

As to Twitter, I think it's pretty clear that he did not buy it for personal wealth. He lost dramatic amounts of money on it. And yes he did it for influence, but only influence in the sense of removing a source of overt outside control (and this is a very long subject) that he also felt was an increasing risk to the future of his companies, but this is a topic not related to this forum that I won't dwell on.

As to CEO incentives, Elon Musk has never been someone driven by stock incentive plans so I'm not sure how that is relevant. Leadership being driven by perverse stock incentive plans with strange requirements is in fact something Elon Musk has railed against in the past. (That's why the Tesla stock incentive plan was focused on revenue growth rather than just profit growth or just stock price growth.)

[spacenut]

Musk's ultimate goal is Mars.  He lives frugally.  If he makes money, it is usually poured back into SpaceX to build the Starship/Superheavy and get it working.  Same with Starlink.  Profits are poured back into Starship/Superheavy.  Reusable rockets help cut costs in order to make a profit, but still cost less than other companies in cost/kg. 

He wants less regulation or common sense regulation to not hold him back in his Mars goal.  However, all business, especially small business benefit from less regulation. 

[mlindner]

...Musk doesn't expect specific things from Trump, he expects Republicans to be Republicans, that's all that they have to do.

Nitpick, but I wouldn't say "he expects Republicans to be Republicans". Republicans started trending toward not being Republicans around 2010 or so.

Right, Republicans of the past may have had some alignment with Musk, since Republicans have always been pro-business, but there is a reason why the only living former Republican President prior to Trump did not publicly endorse Trump - nor did many prominent Republicans that were in prior Republican Administrations.

Republicans endorsed each other because of party "religious" affiliation. Nothing more, nothing less. Not because of political agreement. And as I said, The Republican party has shifted substantially which makes many current "Republicans" people who would not have been strong Republicans in the past. This same type of party "religious" affiliation is what caused every single Democratic party leader and major politician to immediately endorse Kamala Harris rather than suggest running a primary or even cast any kind of doubt on the possibility of her not being the best choice.

Democrats too for that matter.

Since I was young the joke has been "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat!", and to some extent that is still true in that Republicans have focused on business, while Democrats focused on people. Trump is a populist, which has confused both parties.

I think we're getting too far off topic, but the "centrist point" of the demographics of who the average Democrat voter is have shifted dramatically. Today the median Democrat voter is richer and more educated than the average Republican voter. 30 years ago that was reversed with the median Democrat voter being poorer and less educated than than the median Republican voter. This is directly observable in the statistics. The Republican party is no longer the party of business. If anything the Democrat party is now (though specifically the California Silicon Valley/New York City style of business). See the attached image.

We're in the middle of an absolutely tremendous party alignment switch right now that's been ongoing for the last ~15 years. Maybe even the biggest party alignment switch since the post civil war era. The meaning of the terms Republican and Democrat (when used to refer to the political parties) are in flux and don't have strong attachment to any specific political policies right now (though one could argue things are starting to solidify a bit). Anyone who feels politically homeless (myself included) right now can concretely understand what I'm talking about.

Yes, it is interesting times, which present problems for those seeking significant changes, because they may not truly understand what the electorate really wants.

For instance, immigration and small business are tied together in ways that are hard to separate, and people really don't want the Religious Right to be mandating what religion their children are indoctrinated with in school.

That is certainly true, but Trump's campaign, especially among young voters was almost religiously absent to the point of catering toward populist atheists, and I think it would be a mistake to attribute religion as the primary voting characteristic of Trump voters. Religious voters have become a significantly smaller part of the American "right wing". (For example the the primary brunt of the push back on trans issues I don't believe comes from a religious perspective at all but more a "four lights vs five lights" perspective.)

Even the issues that Musk is supposedly pushing, like deregulation, can come back to bite Republicans if the public sees the harm in the changes. The same with Musk's D.O.G.E. effort, where he even admitted that people would lose jobs if his proposed changes are implemented. And if government services start failing because of changes, the electorate will make their feelings known...

I think any attempt at making predictions beyond these next 4 years before the president has even taken office would be error prone in the extreme.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/TimFernholz/status/1861800235435217283

[laszlo]

...Secondly, the deregulation he's seeking isn't the type of regulation one would seek if one were primarily interested in lining ones pockets. There's all sorts of things from corrosive regulation that kills off automotive companies and forces people to use Teslas,,,

Like Musk's DOGE proposal to eliminate the Federal EV tax credit which Teslas no longer qualify for due to their sales volume but which still help out competing EV start-ups?

[RedLineTrain]

Did Joe and Kamala Fumble Space?

That's a passable retrospective on the election from a spacer viewpoint.  It is meaningful to our discussion here to the extent that this election was the only one in my living memory where space was mentioned more than in passing.  The catch of the booster at Starbase was part of the campaign in that it provided a demonstration of American excellence right before the election.

Trump discusses space quite a bit as far as presidents go. He is the father of the Space Force. He appointed a very fine NASA administrator in his first term. His VP was very active in the revival of the National Space Council. I have quibbles with each of these aspects of his first term, but am cautiously optimistic that his second term can be a bit more forward-leaning.

[mlindner]

...Secondly, the deregulation he's seeking isn't the type of regulation one would seek if one were primarily interested in lining ones pockets. There's all sorts of things from corrosive regulation that kills off automotive companies and forces people to use Teslas,,,

Like Musk's DOGE proposal to eliminate the Federal EV tax credit which Teslas no longer qualify for due to their sales volume but which still help out competing EV start-ups?

Teslas still qualify for the Federal EV tax credit. The sales volume requirement was removed years ago.

[laszlo]

...Secondly, the deregulation he's seeking isn't the type of regulation one would seek if one were primarily interested in lining ones pockets. There's all sorts of things from corrosive regulation that kills off automotive companies and forces people to use Teslas,,,

Like Musk's DOGE proposal to eliminate the Federal EV tax credit which Teslas no longer qualify for due to their sales volume but which still help out competing EV start-ups?

Teslas still qualify for the Federal EV tax credit. The sales volume requirement was removed years ago.

I stand corrected, thank you. But canceling the credit would still impact startups significantly more than established manufacturers so there's at least an appearance of conflict of interest which does no favors to any aspect of the incoming administration's policies, especially space-oriented objectives that appear to favor SpaceX.

[Coastal Ron]

...Secondly, the deregulation he's seeking isn't the type of regulation one would seek if one were primarily interested in lining ones pockets. There's all sorts of things from corrosive regulation that kills off automotive companies and forces people to use Teslas,,,

Like Musk's DOGE proposal to eliminate the Federal EV tax credit which Teslas no longer qualify for due to their sales volume but which still help out competing EV start-ups?

Teslas still qualify for the Federal EV tax credit. The sales volume requirement was removed years ago.

I stand corrected, thank you. But canceling the credit would still impact startups significantly more than established manufacturers so there's at least an appearance of conflict of interest which does no favors to any aspect of the incoming administration's policies, especially space-oriented objectives that appear to favor SpaceX.

The electric vehicle (EV) market is a good analogy for commercial space, in that sometimes government incentives can (or must) be used to create demand and incentives for a market to be started.

U.S. Government launch services is a good example of this where the U.S. Government explicitly wanted more than just ULA for launching U.S. Government payloads to space. In this case they could not have anticipated how helping SpaceX to become a launch provider would allow SpaceX to dominate the global market, but that is the thing about markets, is that they are not necessarily just national, but can be international.

The EV market is similar from the standpoint of the market needing help early on, and Tesla benefited not only from market stimulus like rebates, but also from a $465 million loan to Tesla in 2010 that may have been critical to keeping the company alive. For EV's the U.S. Government is not the primary user of EV's, but has been investing for two reasons:

1. As part of the global effort to address climate change.

2. Because the electric vehicle market is a global market, but America wants American companies to be competitive.

Tesla would not have been able to expand to building electric vehicles in China and Germany if they had not succeeded in America first, and it could be argued that they no longer need government assistance to be a global competitor. However the same cannot be said for every other American electric car manufacturer, so arguing to remove government incentives for them means that they will be less competitive both domestically and internationally.

Trump is not known for looking outside of American borders, and his views on global trade are all over the place. But if the goal is to create strong American industries that can compete internationally, then removing domestic incentives for electric vehicles could end up making every domestic electric vehicle manufacturer in the U.S. not named Tesla less competitive globally.

In other words, removing the support and incentives that helped Tesla, would not allow for an American competitor to Tesla to emerge, and would reduce America's manufacturing overall. THAT would allow foreign companies a chance to dominate the EV market, and we already know that Chinese EV manufacturers, WHO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT, are pushing out into markets that U.S. companies need internationally.

We'll see what happens...

[yg1968]

As NASA increasingly relies on commercial space, there are some troubling signs:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/as-nasa-increasingly-relies-on-commercial-space-there-are-some-troubling-signs/

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1859596641910542378

[Coastal Ron]

As NASA increasingly relies on commercial space, there are some troubling signs:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/as-nasa-increasingly-relies-on-commercial-space-there-are-some-troubling-signs/

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1859596641910542378

I think the key part of the article, and the gist of the situation NASA is in, is:

With zeal, from 2018 to 2020, Bridenstine infused commercial space into the new Artemis Program to return humans to the Moon. Beyond the cost-plus contracts for the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft (awarded years earlier), nearly all new contracts for the lunar program were to be based on a fixed price.
...
The problem is that NASA has gotten away from the guiding principles that led to success with the early cargo and crew programs.

Some of the new commercial programs have skipped the COTS development phase entirely and have gone directly into the services phase—even though the contractors are still developing their hardware. NASA also appears to be funding a far lower share of costs than it did during the cargo and crew programs. Additionally, many of the new programs do not have any near-term customers except the government, so NASA is not one of many customers—it is the only customer.

And perhaps most importantly, NASA is loading the companies down with requirements. NASA is adding requirements, changing them, and burdening contractors with thousands of requirements rather than hundreds.

“They have shoved a cost-plus contract into a fixed-price environment,” one senior government source said. “Instead of a lean contract, there are thousands of requirements for something that has no other customers.”

Having worked for government contractors, and having experienced Cost Plus and Firm Fixed Price contracts for products and services, it is clear to me that the current so-called "Commercial" approach being used for the Artemis program is not going to produce the desired results.

And I bolded above the most important part, which is that so-called "Commercial" approaches don't work if the U.S. Government is the only customer.

I know many people THINK that some sort of tourism industry will pop up for sending rich people to the Moon, but that hasn't panned out for sending rich people to space so far, which is a good indication that this market does not yet exist. And there is no industrial needs that are satisfied by going to the Moon, so who in the private market space is supposed to want to go to the Moon after NASA goes there?

As to the upcoming Trump II Administration, it was the Trump I Administration that started NASA down this path, so it seems unlikely that they will want to make any big changes. Though one big potential change is that Trump vowed to reach Mars by the end of his 2nd term in office, and none of the Artemis hardware is SPECIFICALLY designed for such an effort.

The next NASA Administrator will have a lot on their plate...

[yg1968]

Having worked for government contractors, and having experienced Cost Plus and Firm Fixed Price contracts for products and services, it is clear to me that the current so-called "Commercial" approach being used for the Artemis program is not going to produce the desired results.

And I bolded above the most important part, which is that so-called "Commercial" approaches don't work if the U.S. Government is the only customer.

I know many people THINK that some sort of tourism industry will pop up for sending rich people to the Moon, but that hasn't panned out for sending rich people to space so far, which is a good indication that this market does not yet exist. And there is no industrial needs that are satisfied by going to the Moon, so who in the private market space is supposed to want to go to the Moon after NASA goes there?

As to the upcoming Trump II Administration, it was the Trump I Administration that started NASA down this path, so it seems unlikely that they will want to make any big changes. Though one big potential change is that Trump vowed to reach Mars by the end of his 2nd term in office, and known of the Artemis hardware is SPECIFICALLY designed for such an effort.

The next NASA Administrator will have a lot on their plate...

I disagree that there is no market for LEO. For commercial crew, SpaceX has shown with the Axiom missions and Inspiration 4 and Polaris missions that there is a good market for private missions. As mentioned in Walter Isaacson's book, SpaceX has even refused certain private missions ($500 Million from a mixed-martial arts fights promoter). I find that the CLD program has a lot of promising proposals.

I think that a market for CLPS will emerge once that CLPS missions are successful. For example, Canada has a lunar rover that it needs a ride for but it is unlikely to put it on a CLPS lander that hasn't yet been proven.

For HLS, it seems that SpaceX has plans for a private lander with as many as 100 seats and for a Moonbase Alpha for private and government customers.

I admit that I have some concerns with the spacesuits program since it needs another provider. I get the impression that this is one of the programs where NASA has too many requirements. NASA essentially mandated an EMU type of suit. I think that it's telling that SpaceX decided not to bid for the spacesuits program, even though they have plans for a spacesuits. My guess is that SpaceX decided not to bid on the spacesuit program because the spacesuits would end up being unaffordable which is not what they wanted.

I also have concerns with the LTV. NASA essentially mandated that it be a science rover but I don't know if there is customers for that. My guess is that the LTV will be too expensive for private astronauts to rent. However, there may be other organizations interested, it's hard to say (universities and other governments perhaps?). In any event, ideally NASA needs to pick 2 LTV providers, not just one. 

Having said all of that, I still think that a fixed-price/service contract is better than cost-plus even when NASA is the only customer. An example of that is CRS (commercial resupply services).