Czars versus councils: Organizing space in the new administrationby Jeff Foust
|
| “We need to take a whole-of-government approach because there are so many things that we can do from space, with space, that we’re not harnessing properly and would create a lot of efficiencies,” said Hanlon. |
But, like in many other topics, the second Trump Administration is shaping up to be different than the first. The new administration has not announced any plans to continue the council (which was retained during the Biden Administration, although with less public activity.) Vice President JD Vance, who would lead the council, also has not said anything about continuing the council or anything else about space policy. Many in industry think that the new administration will not continue the council but instead focus on implementation of the space policy directives from the first term.
The National Space Council, though, is more than an organization for promulgating policies. Its advocates argue that it also serves as a critical coordination body, particularly in an era where civil, commercial, and national security space are intertwined. Both the Defense and NASA rely increasingly on commercial space capabilities, for example, while companies see both opportunities working for government agencies but also regulatory and contractual challenges.
The need for some kind of “whole-of-government” approach to space came up during a panel discussion at the recent SpaceCom conference in Orlando. While the panel was focused on cislunar space—“Rules of the Road that Will Enable a Robust Cislunar Economy”—the discussion more broadly tackled the issue of how to coordinate space policy topics.
“We need to take a whole-of-government approach because there are so many things that we can do from space, with space, that we’re not harnessing properly and would create a lot of efficiencies,” said Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi.
That approach, she said, would take on issues such as regulatory reform and developing a “mission authorization” system to oversee novel commercial space activities. It could also address topics like space infrastructure and orbital debris mitigation and remediation. “Finally,” she said, “we can never pay too much attention to cybersecurity.”
Others endorsed the need for some kind of government coordination. “It’s really important that we have some whole-of-government thought and approach to how we are supporting activities that may, in one moment, be considered commercial or civil but have dual-use and significant value on the national security side,” said Caryn Schenewerk, president of CS Consulting.
“The interagency process becomes very complex, particularly with novel activities,” said Adam Routh, defense and space research lead at Deloitte. His research found that up to 46 separate federal-level organizations are involved in space in some way. “There are more questions than answers.”
How, then, should that whole-of-government coordination take place, particularly in the absence of a National Space Council? Hanlon advocated for a “space czar” within the federal government, possibly as a Cabinet-level position.
| “It’s clearly obvious,” Autry said of the FAA’s commercial space office, “that this business is important enough to our nation that it deserves a high level of attention.” |
“Somebody who is able to see that holistic approach, that whole-of-government approach, and see what the different silos are doing and making sure that they are able to work in concert with each other, at the very least,” she said of the space czar concept.
That could also involve the creation of a Department of Space, she added, a proposal floated from time to time to elevate space into the Cabinet. “If we are going to consider that, this is the administration, this is the time, to consider that.”
Greg Autry, associate provost of space commercialization and strategy at the University of Central Florida, offered a warning about creating a Department of Space, stating that such an entity should not include both NASA and regulators. “That is not an appropriate cultural fit because exploration and regulation are two very different activities,” he said.
“We’ve been talking for many years about what it would look like to have a one-stop shop” for commercial space issues, said Schenewerk. That would not require a space czar or a Department of Space but instead a portal for companies to make it easier to get through the regulatory process.
“Should we be trying to do something that seems hard but could be really impactful, like having a portal, one portal, that entities go through to have their consolidated review of their activities,” she said, like launch and reentry licenses, commercial remote sensing licenses, and mission authorization. “We could use technology to streamline consideration and diminish duplication and seriously create a system that fosters startup companies.”
The panel endorsed other organizations changes, like moving the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, or AST, out of the FAA and back into a standalone office under the Secretary of Transportation. That’s where the office was located when it as created 40 years ago until it was moved in the mid-90s into the FAA.
“It’s clearly obvious,” Autry said, “that this business is important enough to our nation that it deserves a high level of attention.” He also backed moving the Office of Space Commerce, currently part of NOAA, to under the Secretary of Commerce.
There is support for at least those organizational changes in Congress. Speaking at the 27th Annual Commercial Space Conference last week in Washington, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, backed moving AST out of FAA.
“We’ve all seen AST struggle with licensing new vehicles and grapple with the iterative vehicle development process,” he said, which he blamed on a broader FAA culture that put safety front and center. “That risk intolerance does not easily lend itself to a timely, streamlined approval of space launches.”
“It is time to seriously consider whether we should begin moving the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation out of the FAA, perhaps into a new model administration,” he concluded.
| “We’ve been talking for many years about what it would look like to have a one-stop shop” for commercial space issues, said Schenewerk. |
Meanwhile, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate earlier this month would formally authorize the Office of Space Commerce’s efforts to develop a space traffic coordination system, one currently in beta testing. The bill included a provision that would elevate the office into a Bureau of Space Commerce, led by a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary rather than by a presidentially appointed director as the office is managed today.
Cruz and others at the conference, though, did not bring up the broader coordination issues among government agencies. That would not be solved by moving AST and the Office of Space Commerce, and might create challenges of their own: launch companies will still need to work with the FAA on access to airspace, for example. And a one-stop shop for commercial space regulation is unlikely to be a company's single stop, since the FCC will continue, as an independent agency, its existing practices for spectrum licenses.
Hanlon said at SpaceCom that the solution might be to simply continue the National Space Council. “What I envision that we need is just some sort of an umbrella. making sure that we’re not stuck in these silos and reinventing the wheel over and over again.”
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.