It’s no secret that SpaceX’s Elon Musk has an outsized influence on the second Trump administration, especially with regard to space policy.
Musk has expressed his desire to redirect NASA to a neck-or-nothing lunge toward Mars, leaving all other priorities, including a return to the moon, on the back burner. This desire seems to have had an effect on Trump, who mentioned Mars but left out the moon in his inaugural address.
Recently, Musk advocated deorbiting the International Space Station in 2027, three years early, in order to free up money for Mars. According to Ars Technica, his statement caused consternation and no little anger in Washington. Another space player has taken notice, for obvious reasons.
“The space station has key supporters in Congress, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), in whose state the orbiting laboratory is managed. Cruz has long been an advocate of the space station,” the story says.
How did Cruz react to Musk’s suggestion? Cruz did not say anything on the record initially, but “a key source said Cruz was ‘furious’ with the sentiment from Musk.”
Ars Technica suggested that the Musk statement may complicate the confirmation of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and private space traveler, as NASA administrator.
A decision to end the International Space Station early would anger the space station’s international partners, who rely on it for their own space research, and also throw a monkey wrench into commercial efforts to replace the orbiting lab with private facilities.
ABC News notes that the space station “is very important in conducting scientific research, developing technologies, promoting STEM education and fostering diplomatic relationships. Deorbiting the station prematurely could end important innovations and studies pertaining to future space missions.”
A pivot away from the moon to go directly to Mars would cede Earth’s nearest neighbor to the Chinese. A Chinese moon would have a catastrophic effect on America’s standing in the world, especially if NASA gets bogged down in a difficult effort to get humans on Mars and, just as important, allow them to survive and thrive on the Red Planet.
Traditionally, the NASA administrator has been the point man for articulating and even crafting space policy. President Trump nominated entrepreneur and private space traveler Jared Isaacman to become chief of NASA. Isaacman has been going the rounds in Washington, preparing for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Cruz.
Recently, Isaacman set forth his vision of a space future that included both the moon and Mars but focused on creating the technology and capabilities necessary to extend human civilization across the solar system.
The technology that Isaacman intends to develop includes, “propulsion, habitability, power generation, in-situ resource utilization and manufacturing” which would unlock “mission optionality from the Moon to Mars and beyond.”
Isaacman also proposes to “create systems, countermeasures, and pharmaceuticals to sustain human life in extreme conditions, addressing challenges like radiation and microgravity over extended durations.”
These ambitions would require NASA and the commercial sector to operate in Earth orbit, on the lunar surface and ultimately on Mars.
Isaacman can use the hearings to publicly articulate his vision for a space future, more expansive and compelling than an all-out Mars effort at the expense of everything else. He can thus sell it to both the public and members of Congress.
Once confirmed, he can explain his approach to President Trump and, just as important, to Musk, with whom he has business and personal ties.
Musk has given benefits to human civilization that are beyond evaluation. His Falcon rockets have lowered the cost of space launch, opening vast opportunities for NASA, the military and the commercial sector. The Starship promises to open the moon, Mars and beyond to human activity.
Musk’s dream of a settlement on Mars is a beautiful, world-changing prospect. But he is mistaken in believing that dream must be pursued at the exclusion of all else. Besides forgoing the economic and scientific opportunities to be found in Earth orbit and on the moon, such an approach would skip the steps that must be taken before humans are sent to Mars to live and work.
The development of technology to preserve human health on the ISS and commercial space stations and resource extraction technologies on the moon will lead to a more sustainable and successful Mars effort.
Isaacman seems to understand that fact. Will Musk?
Mark R. Whittington is the author of, “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
