Comparing Harris and Trump on space policyby Jonathan Coopersmith
|
| Trump prefers to “go it alone”; Harris’s approach is “together, we can—and will—do great things.” |
Significant differences do exist between the two candidates, though not necessarily the way Walker implies. Harris bests Trump in three areas of growing national and international importance: emphasizing greater cooperation and coordination among all the sectors involved in space exploration; using our needs in space technology as a stimulant for preparation of the high-tech workforce our nation needs for many purposes; and leveraging space technologies to monitor and address the existential threats posed by climate change.
Although the United States has dominated, and there are competitive and even military aspects to what one might still call the space race. Space is increasingly an environment that requires multilateral coordination on rules and norms, if not always cooperation on specific missions. Failing to develop clear “rules of the road” for commercial operations, especially on the Moon, can create uncertainty and hinder development.
While the Trump Administration originated the Artemis Accords, non-binding principles to guide civil space exploration and exploitation, in fact 38 of the 47 countries currently signed on to the Accords joined during the Biden Administration, reflecting the priorities and achievements of the National Space Council under Vice President and now candidate Kamala Harris.
Harris has encouraged and worked for international cooperation and coordination in areas ranging from banning debris-generating anti-satellite (ASAT) tests in space to developing standards for commercial development of space both in orbit and on celestial bodies like the Moon and asteroids. Trump prefers to “go it alone”; Harris’s approach is “together, we can—and will—do great things.”
A less photogenic, but nonetheless critical, area is workforce development. Whether a young American wants to become an aerospace technician or computer chip designer, she or he will require STEM education and specialized training. A burgeoning space sector provides a growing opportunity that incentivizes young people to get the right training, which will benefit our nation in all its endeavors. All the Biden Administration’s high-tech initiatives such as the CHIPS and Science Act have included an emphasis on STEM education and training. As a demonstration that Harris “gets” this key issue better than Trump, in 2022 she helped launch the Space Workforce Coalition.
| The biggest threat to NASA’s budget is the growing federal deficit. In this context, NASA’s Artemis program to return to the Moon may become its own worst enemy. |
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two candidates lies in their different approaches to climate change and its intersections with space technology. The Trump Administration tried to kill NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 and other Earth-oriented missions and reduced funding for NOAA’s environmental satellite programs. In contrast, the Biden Administration supported greater space monitoring of the environment. Ignorance and denial do not equal strength: accurate understanding and effective action are the best ways to respond to climate challenges. Imagine handling hurricanes and wildfires without satellites managed by public agencies that do not have to earn a profit!
With her appreciation of the benefits from closer international and national cooperation and coordination, Harris is better positioned than Trump to understand and address the challenges NASA and the military will surely face.
The biggest threat to NASA’s budget is the growing federal deficit. In this context, NASA’s Artemis program to return to the Moon may become its own worst enemy. The program has fallen behind its ambitious schedule and experienced huge cost overruns. What will be sacrificed to make the numbers work? While both candidates (and Congressional leaders) have not yet fully acknowledged the seriousness of the fiscal situation, a nonpartisan group of economists calculated Trump’s proposals will expand the national deficit by $7.5 trillion compared with Harris’s $3.5 trillion. That’s a lot more financial pressure not to spend money on the full range of NASA priorities and missions.
In military space, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated the growing importance of military operations in orbit and the threats posed by adversaries to GPS and other satellites. While international cooperation is essential for global navigation (and the resultant benefits), so too is the development of alternative technologies in case GPS is jammed, spoofed, or otherwise downgraded. Building on the creation of Space Force under Trump, the Biden Administration has expanded cooperation with NATO allies into space.
In short, our country would significantly benefit more from a Harris Administration’s space foci on international coordination and cooperation, dealing with—not denying—climate change, and providing training for future jobs.
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.
