Space Policy Edition: What the Congressional Midterms Means for Space Science

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This episode examines how the 2022 U.S. election’s unresolved balance of power could shape space science policy, especially NASA/NSF funding, committee leadership, and science advocacy. Casey Dreyer and Bethany Johns stress that science usually retains bipartisan support, but narrow margins, committee turnover, and political extremism could complicate authorizations, appropriations, and regulation of satellite megaconstellations.

Main Topics: Post-election congressional uncertainty: The hosts and Bethany Johns discuss the unresolved House/Senate balance and why a narrowly divided Congress makes it hard to predict space policy outcomes until committee assignments and leadership are finalized. Bipartisan support for science and its limits: Johns argues that astronomy, planetary science, and NASA generally receive support from both parties, but the broader political climate and polarization increasingly affect how science is treated in policymaking. Congressional committees and the real levers of power: The conversation explains how House Science, Senate Commerce, and appropriations committees shape NASA/NSF policy, and why committee chairs, seniority, and staff matter more than public election results alone. 2023 priorities for astronomy and space science: AAS priorities include funding for future telescopes, technology maturation for the next major observatories, and support for STEM workforce development tied to the Chips and Science Act. Satellite megaconstellations and space science impacts: They discuss the rapid growth of telecom satellite constellations, their effects on dark skies, radio astronomy, debris risk, and how the issue sits at the intersection of commerce, regulation, and science. Staff expertise and behind-the-scenes policymaking: The episode highlights the permanence and influence of committee staff and how much of science policy is shaped through drafting, negotiations, and office-to-office relationships rather than floor votes alone. Advocacy strategy for mixed-control government: Bethany outlines a dual approach: pursue long-term policy solutions through Congress while also working directly with industry to reduce immediate harms like satellite brightness and radio interference.

Key Arguments: Science and space policy are usually bipartisan, but the degree of support depends on which party and which ideological wing gains committee control. A narrowly divided Congress increases the importance of committee chairs, seniority, and staffing because those actors control calendars, hearings, and bill language. Appropriations matter as much as authorizations; a program can be authorized but still underfunded if appropriators do not prioritize it. The real policy battleground for science is often not the election outcome itself, but the composition of committees and the retirement/turnover of key members. Satellite megaconstellations are primarily a commerce/regulatory issue, even though they directly affect astronomy and planetary science. The Chips and Science Act and STEM workforce issues show that science policy gains traction when tied to economic competitiveness and job creation. Polarization and anti-expertise trends since the pandemic are a major concern because they can weaken public trust in science and complicate evidence-based policymaking.

Data Points: Election outcome status at recording: House and Senate not yet called - Used to explain why the episode focuses on implications rather than definitive partisan control. Expected Senate control: Very narrow Democratic control (predicted) - Bethany and Casey discuss likely but uncertain post-election control. Expected House control: Very narrow Republican control (predicted) - Set up as the likely governing split at the time of recording. Committee/process timeline: January or February 2023 - Final committee leadership and congressional setup may not be known until then. Planetary Society job opening deadline: First week of December 2022 - Application window for Director of Government Relations. Planetary Society day of action: September 2023 in-person; spring 2023 light action event - Advocacy calendar discussed as part of society planning. Chips and Science Act duration: About 3 years - Bethany notes the legislation took a long time to move through Congress. Projected satellite count: Over 400,000 satellites - An estimate of what large constellations could add in the coming years. Constellation application size: As large as 10,000+ - Bethany cites FCC licensing applications for individual constellations. NASA/NSF committee issue: House Science and Senate Commerce - Described as the primary authorizing committees for NASA and NSF. Public trust context: Pew Research polling - Referenced as a source comparing trust in science and trust in Congress. Timeline of committee leadership change: Late January of a new Congress - Public committee membership lists usually appear around this time. Historical appropriations example: 10 years - John Culberson’s support for planetary science is cited as a decade-long case study.

Pivotal Quotes: "science usually gets the best of both parties" — Bethany Johns: Explaining why astronomy and related sciences tend to attract bipartisan support. "the majority party gets to set the calendar. It gets to set the focus of committee work" — Casey Dreyer: Describing why narrow majorities still have outsized influence in Congress. "Money is policy, right? The dollars are ultimate policy priority." — Casey Dreyer: On why appropriations often matter more than authorizations for science programs.

Implications: Space and science advocates should focus less on election headlines and more on committee composition, appropriations, and staff relationships. Mixed control likely means incremental gains, tougher budgeting, and more need for bipartisan, commerce-aware advocacy on issues like telescopes and satellite regulation.