Space Policy Edition: The Biggest Policy Moments of the Decade (with Marcia Smith)

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode reviews major December 2019 space policy developments: the unresolved U.S. budget and continuing resolutions constraining NASA, ESA’s newly approved 3-year budget and major commitments to Hera, Mars Sample Return, and Orion/Gateway, and a decade-end reflection with Marcia Smith on the biggest policy shifts since 2010. The discussion argues that policy surprises, congressional power, and unstable funding have shaped the 2010s and will heavily determine the 2020s.

Main Topics: U.S. NASA budget limbo and continuing resolution: Matt and Casey explain that NASA is operating under a continuing resolution because Congress had not passed a FY2020 budget, preventing new program starts while keeping existing programs alive and blocking cancellations of missions the White House wants to end. ESA ministerial budget and mission approvals: ESA member states approved a strong three-year budget and backed key programs, including Hera, Mars Sample Return contributions, and elements of Orion/Gateway support, giving Europe stable long-term planning compared with NASA’s uncertainty. Planetary defense and the Hera mission: ESA’s Hera mission will follow NASA’s DART impact on Didymos to measure the effect on the asteroid’s moon, improving real-world planetary defense understanding and validating asteroid deflection techniques. Mars Sample Return international partnership: ESA committed over a billion euros to Mars Sample Return, including an Earth Return Vehicle and a fetch rover, creating political and technical interdependence with NASA and strengthening the mission’s stability. Decade review of space policy with Marcia Smith: Smith and Dreyer assess the most consequential policy moments of the 2010s, including Obama’s Constellation cancellation, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, the end of shuttle, sequestration, and Trump/Pence’s return-to-the-moon directives. Public-private partnerships as a risky new model: The conversation questions whether NASA’s reliance on public-private partnerships truly reduces cost or expands markets, noting mixed evidence from commercial cargo, commercial crew, and past failures like X-33 and Landsat commercialization. Moon-versus-Mars and policy by surprise: A recurring theme is that major space direction changes were announced abruptly, from Obama’s asteroid goal to Pence’s 2024 Moon mandate, creating confusion, backlash, and long-term program instability.

Key Arguments: NASA cannot start new programs during a continuing resolution, so delays in appropriations directly slow Artemis, Mars Sample Return, and other initiatives. ESA’s ministerial outcome is unusually strong because it locked in a stable, multiyear budget and supported nearly all proposed programs. Hera and Mars Sample Return gain value from international integration, making cancellation harder and increasing mission resilience. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act was a major congressional assertion of authority, preserving SLS, Orion, and commercial crew direction despite presidential changes. Sequestration and budget instability caused lasting damage to NASA science and planning, with effects that continue into the 2020s. Public-private partnerships remain promising but unproven as a business model because NASA is still usually the main customer. Abrupt policy shifts—Obama’s cancellation of Constellation and Pence’s 2024 Moon directive—illustrate how space strategy can be driven by surprise rather than consensus. The next decade will be defined by whether agencies can execute on many promises made during the 2010s while operating under uncertain future budgets.

Data Points: U.S. government fiscal year start: October 1 - NASA and other agencies were still operating without a full FY2020 budget. Current continuing resolution end date: December 20, 2019 - The stopgap funding extension was set to expire then unless Congress passed another measure. ESA three-year budget: €12.45 billion - Approved at the ESA ministerial meeting for the next three years. Approximate dollar equivalent of ESA budget: $13.8 billion - Used for comparison against NASA’s yearly budget. ESA budget increase: about 10% - Functional increase compared with previous planning. Hera mission cost: roughly €400 million range - Described as a relatively modest mission for planetary defense support. DART launch target: 2021 launch, 2022 impact - NASA’s impactor mission on Didymos’ moonlet. Hera arrival: 2026 - ESA’s follow-up mission timing after DART. Mars Sample Return ESA contribution: over €1 billion - ESA committed to the Earth Return Vehicle and fetch rover. Gateway habitat funding: around €300 million - ESA funding to begin habitats for later lunar Gateway use. Commercial crew expectation in 2010 authorization: ready by end of 2016 - Initial congressional timetable for SLS/Orion/commercial crew ambitions. Commercial cargo split: 80-90% NASA funding - Bill Gerstenmaier’s estimate of government share in the program. Space shuttle-to-Russia gap originally expected: 4 years - Planned interval before U.S. crewed launch capability returned. Actual shuttle-to-commercial crew gap at time of discussion: 8 years - Shows how long NASA relied on Soyuz seats. Obama administration budget loss: significant inflation-adjusted decline - NASA lost purchasing power during the era of sequestration and budget pressure. NASA budget growth in recent years: about 4% per year for five years - Described as the recent growth trend before the 2020s.

Pivotal Quotes: "We're not going back to the moon, been there, done that, and instead we're going to go to Mars." — Marcia Smith: Describing Obama’s 2010 reversal of Constellation and change in human spaceflight direction. "This is a very smart move politically." — Casey Dreyer: On ESA’s integrated Mars Sample Return commitment making the mission harder to cancel. "I don't care where we go, just go somewhere." — Marcia Smith: Expressing frustration with repeated moon-versus-Mars debates and policy indecision.

Implications: The 2020s will be shaped by whether governments can convert ambitious commitments into sustained funding and executed missions. International partnerships may stabilize flagship programs, but policy volatility and unproven commercial models remain major risks.