Now is the time for NASA to blast into a new future — after slowing to a crawl
To ensure the future of spaceflight, NASA must stop building rockets. That counterintuitive notion is borne out by the agency's sad post-Apollo history.
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
Boston Globe
36 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
It turns out weather on other planets is a lot like on Earth
Related : Advertisement But by leveraging the sheer amount of knowledge and data about our planet, scientists can get a head start on understanding the inner workings of storms or vortexes on other planetary bodies. In some cases, the models provide almost everything we know about some otherworldly atmospheric processes. 'Our planetary atmosphere models are derived almost exclusively from these Earth models,' said Scot Rafkin, a planetary meteorologist at the Southwest Research Institute. 'Studying the weather on other planets helps us with Earth and vice versa.' Satellite photo of the Baltic Sea surrounding Gotland, Sweden, with algae bloom swirling in the water. The churning clouds near Jupiter's pole appear like ocean currents on Earth — as if you're looking at small edges and meandering fronts in the Baltic Sea. European Space Agency Vortexes on Jupiter If you looked at the churning clouds near Jupiter's pole, they appear like ocean currents on Earth - as if you're looking at small edges and meandering fronts in the Baltic Sea. 'This looks so much like turbulence I'm seeing in our own ocean. They must be covered by at least some similar dynamics,' Lia Siegelman, a physical oceanographer at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, recalled the first time she saw images of vortexes from NASA's Juno mission, which entered Jupiter's orbit in 2016. Advertisement Working with planetary scientists, she applied her understanding of the ocean physics on Earth to the gas giant in computer models. Whether it's in air or water on any planet, she found the laws of physics that govern turbulent fluids is the same (even though the vortex on Jupiter is about 10 times larger than one on Earth). When cyclones and anticyclones (which spin in the opposite direction) interact in the ocean, they create a boundary of different water masses and characteristics - known as a front. She and her colleagues found the same phenomenon occurs in cyclones at Jupiter's poles, showing similar swirls. 'By studying convection on Earth, we were also able to spot that phenomenon occurring on Jupiter,' Siegelman said, even though Jupiter has relatively little data compared to Earth. Related : She and her colleagues also found a pattern never seen on Earth before: a cluster of cyclones in a symmetrical, repeating pattern near the poles of Jupiter. These 'polar vortex crystals' were observed in 2016 and have remained in place since. Despite never seeing them on Earth, she and other planetary scientists collaborated to reproduce these swirls in computer models - relying on 'just very simple physics.' 'Planetary scientists use a lot of the weather models that have been developed to study either the ocean or the atmosphere,' Siegelman said. 'By just knowing so much about the ocean and the atmosphere, we can just guide our analysis.' Advertisement This NASA handout photo shows beds of sandstone inclined to the southwest toward Mount Sharp and away from the Gale Crater rim on Mars. HANDOUT Dust storms on Mars If you plan to move to Mars, be prepared to face the dust storms. At their most intense, they can engulf the entire planet and last from days to months. The dirt can block sunlight and coat infrastructure. While scientists have observed many of these storms, they still don't know how to predict them. Dust storms operate similarly on Earth and Mars. Dust is lifted and heated, and rises like a hot-air balloon, Rafkin said. The rising air will suck in air from below to replace it. Air pressure drops near the surface, sucking in more wind that lifts the dust. As Mars spins, the angular momentum causes the dust storm to rotate. In reality, Martian dust storms are more similar to hurricanes on Earth in terms of their scale and circulation, said planetary scientist Claire Newman. She said the sources are different (Mars is a dust planet, whereas Earth is a water planet), but they have a similar effect on temperature and winds. But it's still unknown how these Martian dust storms form. On Earth, a winter storm with a cold front can lift the dust; scientists sometimes see similar dust lifting along cold fronts on Mars, but many storms just seem to pop up. Related : To predict a dust storm, scientists need to understand the circulation patterns on Mars - forecasting the cold front that can lift the dust, for instance. But it's something researchers don't yet understand. Wind measurements are scarce on Mars, aside from a few scattered measurement sites on its surface. With adjustments, Earth-based models can simulate the conditions that can lead to the uplifting winds and dust storms. 'Almost everything that we know about the circulation patterns on Mars come from models,' said Rafkin, adding that scientists 'have effectively no observations of the movement of the air on Mars.' Advertisement In this photo, sand blowing off fields creates a dust storm near Morton, Texas, in May 2021. Dust storms operate similarly on Earth and Mars. Jude Smith/Associated Press The models currently serve as the best way to understand dust storms on the Red Planet, unless more dedicated studies and stations are added, similar to Earth. 'We're basically applying these models to try and get a sense of what the environment is,' said Newman, 'before we send robots or potentially people there.' Rain on Titan The second-largest moon in our solar system, Titan is the only other known world besides Earth that has standing bodies of rivers, lakes and seas on its surface - consisting of liquid methane instead of water. That's partly why some scientists think it could be a future home for Earthlings, if we can just figure out the 750-million-mile journey and learn how to survive the minus-179 degree Celsius surface temperatures. But how did those lakes and oceans fill up? Even though it rains methane, the precipitation on Titan is very similar to that on Earth, Rafkin said. On Earth, take a chunk of air with water vapor, cool it off and the air becomes saturated to form a cloud. Those small cloud droplets can bump into one another or take in more water vapor to grow bigger. But eventually, the water vapor starts to condense into a liquid and brings rain. We've seen this process take place on Earth both naturally in the atmosphere and in labs enough times to understand the physics. But limited observations on Titan - effectively only visiting its atmosphere a handful of times - have caused scientists to turn to models. Using the same underlying physics, scientists can model the cloud-making process on this foreign body. And, the modeled clouds look a lot like the few they have observed in real life on Titan. Advertisement This November 2015 composite image made available by NASA shows an infrared view of Saturn's moon, Titan, as seen by the Cassini spacecraft. Titan is the only other known world besides Earth that has standing bodies of rivers, lakes and seas on its surface. AP 'If we try to model them and we get clouds, but they look totally bizarre and different than what we're observing, then that's an indication that maybe we're not representing the cloud processes correctly,' Rafkin said. 'But as it turns out, for the most part, when we model these things, we can produce clouds that look reasonably close to what we've observed.' Because of its incredibly dense atmosphere, Titan has storm clouds - two to four times taller than those on Earth - that are able to produce feet of methane rain. While scientists haven't observed such huge volumes, they have modeled the deluges based on the surface darkening as a storm passed - similar to how rain on soil or pavement darkens the surface on Earth. It's still a mystery where the methane comes from. But at least we know to bring a very, very sturdy raincoat if we ever visit Titan.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
How The Big Beautiful Bill Will Handicap Clean Energy
The Capitol Building, home of the United State Congress. Green Technologies At Risk In Current Mega Bill As it was written, the Big, Beautiful Bill (Mega Bill) passed by The House of Representatives in May would handicap certain green projects (solar, wind, and batteries) that are in line to receive tax credits made available by the Biden government. The handicap is hard to understand because in the U.S. over 90% of new energy projects in 2023 and 2024 was generated by solar, wind, and batteries. What is the handicap? The Mega Bill mandates that such projects must begin within two months of passage of the bill, and would have to be completed, and in service, by the last day of 2028, or the tax credits would be canceled. To see what impact this would have on green projects, one analysis looked at clean electrical projects that are currently in the interconnection queue, and due to go online during 2028 or later (it wouldn't be uncommon for projects slated to complete in 2028 to spill over to 2029, which would cancel the tax credits.) The total for all these at-risk projects in Figure 1 amounts to 600 GW (gigawatts). The largest three projects are CAISO of California at 183 GW, ERCOT of Texas at 128 GW, and MISO (Midwest and South) at 111 GW. Figure 1. The truth is, current electrical production in U.S. is 1200 GW, and this will need to grow rapidly to power new AI data centers. So, if all these seven green projects lost their tax credits and dropped out of the interconnection queue, it would represent a huge loss that is 50% of current electrical production in the U.S. This loss would be like tossing away 600 traditional power plants that added up to 50% of current U.S. electricity supply. Granted, a number of projects in Figure 1 would drop out of the queue anyway, due to other factors such as financial commitments that fall through. But still, a loss of remaining projects that would stand to boost current U.S. power by 30% or 40% or 50% would be an unforgiveable loss—especially since solar, wind and battery projects have all the market momentum in the past few years. Speaking of momentum, in 2023 and 2024 in the U.S., the vast majority (93%--94%) of new energy sources were solar, wind, and batteries. The only commercially proven competitor is gas-fired power plants, which are facing serious delays, and they cost more. What if projects that lost their tax credits were to go ahead to completion? They might, but it's obvious this would translate to higher cost of electricity for consumers. Mega Bill Changes Suggested By Senate. The House Mega Bill has gone to the Senate, and on Monday June 16 they have proposed some changes. UtilityDive reports that the harsh 'start by – complete by' House requirement to access the tax credits has been removed. In one box, nuclear, geothermal and hydropower can claim the tax credits so long as they start construction by 2033. But in another box, wind and solar can obtain only 60% of the tax credits and only if they break ground by 2026. Or 20% if by 2027. Or zero if after that. This is a serious handicap for the frontrunners, solar and wind, that have provided over 93% of new electrical capacity in 2023 and 2024. And it comes at a crucial time, because the U.S. needs to quickly boost its power capability by a massive amount to supply AI data centers. One positive: battery storage or BESS (battery energy storage systems) can access tax credits until 2036, although the credits will be tapered down, according to Canary Media. Also, some solar and wind projects would be able to keep the tax credits beyond the end of 2028—provided they exist on federal land, generate 1 GW or more power, and have obtained right-of-way approval from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). The next steps are: the Senate as a whole has to pass these changes, and then attempt to reconcile with the House. The timeline is short as the goal is to get the final version of the Mega Bill to President Trump's desk by July 4. Coming out of all the discussion and debate, it seems the Mega Bill wants to handicap wind and solar and batteries. But why? Reasons Why The Mega Bill Would Handicap Wind And Solar Energy. First, the Bill will cause electricity prices to rise. If cheap wind, solar and batteries are handicapped in preference to expensive almost-defunct coal power plants, commercially unproven SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and next-gen geothermal methods, then prices of electricity will rise. Table 1 lays this out, using the most recent LCOE data from Lazard. Table 1. Most recent LCOE estimates for various electrical sources. With tax credits and based on a utility scale, solar PV + BESS and wind + BESS are cheaper than geothermal with tax credits, and much cheaper than gas-fired power, nuclear, and coal. If the Mega Bill handicaps wind and solar in the race, electrical costs will zoom upwards. Second, the Bill seems to be unaware of green energy success in Australia. In the state of South Australia renewables plus batteries have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Solar, wind, and batteries have proven the stability and reliability of renewables commercially. The first grid-scale BESS was started in 2017 by Elon Musk in South Australia, and BESS are expanding rapidly in the U.S. as well as in Australia. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, despite what the Energy Secretary says, because BESS have solved this problem and electricity from solar and wind renewables with BESS is dispatchable. Third, the Bill assumes new investments in old energy (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) will be embraced by the U.S. population. However, global spending on low-carbon power has doubled in the past five years. Solar PV is the leader in this space, with investments that will reach $450 billion in 2025. Coal is too dirty when it burns, and in the U.S. the market share has dropped from 50% in 2011 to 11% in 2024. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but the market for new gas-fired power plants has dropped out in the past two years, due to cost and delays in permitting and supply chains. The cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies (Table 1). There is also the ubiquitous threat of being exposed to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. It has been reported that U.S. nuclear reactors that were decommissioned some time ago can be recommissioned, but at a heavy cost of around $1 billion per unit. Fourth, the Bill enables China to forge ahead with a green energy economy, while the U.S. goes backward. Energy from solar, wind, and batteries is cheap, and has a short new-build time. It will continue to provide jobs and grow the economy, and benefits include lower electricity prices and less pollution. A key advantage is already-commercialized power for data centers that will enable the U.S. to compete with China in the race for AI. The handicap and setbacks of a thriving clean industry in the U.S. would be China's gain. Fifth, the Bill will force job losses by handicapping green industries. If projects in the above list of seven in Figure 1 were to be canceled due to the Mega Bill handicaps, there could be serious job losses. To illustrate by results in 2024, one report quotes $80 billion invested in clean power in 2024, which supported 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. Another answer is that current tax credits would enable strong economic growth by 2035: almost $2 trillion of monetary growth and almost 14 million jobs. This amounts to a return on the federal investment by four-times. The green energy benefits and financial returns of wind and solar with battery storage apply to both Republican and Democratic states in the U.S.. But so do the losses, if Congress decides to handicap wind and solar renewables. The biggest losses may be soaring electricity costs in the U.S., and the U.S. bending to China's clean energy boom of surging solar and BESS projects that will reliably service their AI data center programs.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump Criticizes Windmills In Latest Attack Against Wind Energy
President Donald Trump blasted green tax breaks and windmills in a rant about his signature budget package moving through Congress, tacking onto his longstanding criticism of the turbines even as they have become an increasingly cost-effective form of energy. US President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in ... More Morristown, New Jersey, on June 21, 2025 as he returns to the White House from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Trump said in a Truth Social post he 'HATED' green tax credits in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' saying the cuts are largely a 'giant SCAM.' The bill, a massive measure currently in the Senate that will extend tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, will remove or limit tax credits for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency if passed, as well as create gradual, year-by-year cuts to wind and solar farm tax credits. Trump said windmills 'are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world' and are 'destroying the beauty of the environment.' The president also claimed, without evidence, windmills are '10 times more costly than any other energy,' taking issue with government subsidies linked to turbines. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts : We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here . What Has Trump Said About Windmills ? Shortly after taking office, the president said the government would not subsidize new windmill farms and added he doesn't 'want even one built' during his second term. Trump called wind turbines the 'most expensive energy' that only works 'with massive government subsidies, which we will no longer pay.' Trump could potentially impact windmill production on federal lands, but not on privately owned plots. Trump has also falsely claimed windmills kill whales, though there is no evidence supporting the claim about the mammals and offshore turbines. Not likely. The Department of Energy has said 'wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities,' though windmills in locations lacking wind could be an exception. Onshore wind turbines saw global costs of energy production fall by 68% in 2021, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, which noted onshore capacity increased four-fold from 2010 to 2021. The agency also reported onshore wind project costs fell by 13% while offshore wind projects fell by 9% in 2020. Key Background Trump once lost a legal battle in which he sought to block the construction of an offshore wind farm in view of a golf course project of his in Scotland. The president lost in court and was required to pay over $290,000 in legal fees to the Scottish government. His scrutiny of windmills is a change from his first term, when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he was 'very bullish on offshore wind,' adding the harnessing of the energy source was 'a big part of the Trump Administration's made in America energy strategy.' Trump's Tax Cuts Would Raise Deficit By $2.8 Trillion, New Estimate Suggests (Forbes) Trump Calls Windmills 'An Economic And Environmental Disaster' In Latest Rant Against Turbines (Forbes)
