Wie könnte sich die NASA unter Trump verändern? Hier ist, was diskutiert wird

Privatization and commercialization of space flight will only make sense in LEO

There’s not much money for capitalism to make any further than leo because that’s where the science happens and unfortunately that doesn’t make the share holders bigger profits that they demand

Putting humans on the moon will easily cost 100 billions of dollars, over the course of years, which needs governmental support because even the wealthy won’t pay to cover the costs

Compared to a rover it costs 10-50 times more money to put humans on the moon, not much profit to he had there

I expect NASA will be asked to outsource and privatize many functions. But OTOH, NASA is already commercializing a lot of operations:

Commercial Crew Program

[https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/commercial-crew-program/](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/commercial-crew-program/)

Commercial Resupply Services

[https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-resupply-services-overview/](https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-resupply-services-overview/)

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)

[https://appel.nasa.gov/knowledge-resource/commercial-orbital-transportation-services-cots-critical-knowledge/](https://appel.nasa.gov/knowledge-resource/commercial-orbital-transportation-services-cots-critical-knowledge/)

Lunar Commercial Payload Delivery

[https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/](https://www.nasa.gov/commercial-lunar-payload-services/)

Communcations Services Project

[https://www.nasa.gov/communications-services-project/](https://www.nasa.gov/communications-services-project/)

Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development Program

[https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/low-earth-orbit-economy/commercial-destinations-in-low-earth-orbit/](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/commercial-space/low-earth-orbit-economy/commercial-destinations-in-low-earth-orbit/)

Lunar Communications Relay and Navigation Systems (LCRNS)

[https://tempo.gsfc.nasa.gov/projects/LCRNS](https://tempo.gsfc.nasa.gov/projects/LCRNS)

> Establishing the goal of sending humans to the Moon and Mars, by 2028

Completely impractical.

> Canceling the costly Space Launch System rocket and possibly the Orion spacecraft

Should have been done many years ago.

> Consolidating Goddard Space Flight Center and Ames Research Center at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama

Horrible idea. You will lose *tons* of great scientists, engineers, and other employees who would rather quit than live in Alabama. California is a big draw, and Maryland/DC is also a place many people would like to live in.

> Retaining a small administration presence in Washington, DC, but otherwise moving headquarters to a field center

Horrible idea for the same reason as above. Also, it’s a horrible reason for the same reason that industry hubs exist. Having a hub (like Silicon Valley for tech or DC for government) allows for experts and experienced professionals to move between organizations and spread knowledge, skills, and best practices. It also greatly increases the human capital available to hire from. If you move HQ to a field center, then you’re greatly limiting your pool of qualified workers in the area, so you’re either stuck hiring a bunch of sub-optical people or trying to convince people to hundreds or thousands of miles away to move to you, which is even harder if you stick them somewhere undesirable like Alabama.

Trump tried with with parts of the USDA in his first administration. Here were the results:

> Instead of attracting employees as [Secretary] Perdue promised, the move quickly decimated the workforce, trashed employee morale, shunned employee input and slashed the number of Black employees at the agencies. Productivity temporarily also dropped sharply, but that metric and workforce size have largely recovered, at least in numbers.

> Yet the Trump administration relocations, USDA press secretary Marissa Perry said Wednesday, “resulted in a significant loss of institutional knowledge, talent, and diversity on staff that will take time and intentionality to fully rebuild.”

> …

> As a result, the agencies now have a workforce of “mostly recent hires with significantly less experience” than previous employees, the report said. By the end of fiscal 2021, about two-thirds of Economic Research Service staffers and 79 percent of National Institute of Food and Agriculture employees had two years or less with the agencies. Before relocation, more than 80 percent of the employees in both agencies had more than two years experience at their respective agencies.

> …

> Productivity also took a heavy hit, albeit temporarily. The number of journal articles by research service writers fell from fiscal 2018 through 2020 by more than half, from 159 to 74. The institute needed 30 days more to fund competitive grants in fiscal 2019 than it did the previous year. “This slower processing time coincided with the loss of staff,” GAO said. No payments were made to National Institute grantees by March 31, 2020, a sharp contrast to previous years, when between one-third and 100 percent of grants were paid by that point. Seven of eight budget staffers left the agency in fiscal 2019.

> …

> The lack of employee engagement was reflected by steep drops for the agencies in the Partnership for Public Service’s Best Places to Work in the Federal Government rankings, which are based on the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The Economic Research Service’s Best Places’ score, an estimate of staff morale, fell from 67 in 2018 to 37 in 2019, and the National Institute’s slumped from 45 to 20.

It failed so bad when they tried with the Bureau of Land Management in the Department of the Interior that they decided to move back to DC.

> During the Trump administration, the Interior Department also moved an agency headquarters west and received similarly negative reviews. In July 2019, Interior announced the Bureau of Land Management headquarters would move to Grand Junction, Colo. In March 2020, a GAO headline declared, “The agency’s reorganization efforts did not substantially address key practices for effective reforms.” Interior is reestablishing the Bureau of Land Management’s main office in D.C.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/20/trump-relocations-usda-kansas-city-gao-report/

Basically, it’s an attempt by the party that hates government to ruin government.

> Rapidly redesigning the Artemis lunar program to make it more efficient

Good luck.

I expect more shady deals to Elon without proper review