18 hours ago
Houston, we have a problem: Scrapping the space station harms the US
American astronauts have been in low-Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station for nearly a quarter century.
Their continuous presence in space has led to innovations such as cochlear implants that help deaf people hear, technology that makes our phone cameras sharper, better water filtration and so much more that benefits us back here on Earth.
Unfortunately, President Trump's budget effectively decommissions the space station, despite years of potential usefulness still ahead.
In its own words, the administration plans to 'focus on maintaining minimal safe operations and very limited research essential to Moon and Mars exploration until [the station's] retirement in 2030.' That includes exploring reduced cargo and crew flights as today's transportation capacity won't be needed in a minimal operations environment.
Such a move may seem penny-wise, but it is absolutely pound-foolish. The nation has invested billions of dollars into this national asset and transportation options to take astronauts to and from the platform. Additionally, the station generates substantial economic benefit domestically and soft power internationally.
In fact, according to the International Space Station National Lab, the nonprofit organization that runs science aboard the station, startups who have flown their experiments to the station have secured nearly $2.2 billion in funding after their flights. This figure highlights the incredible value science and technology development performed on the station is generating today.
Beyond these near-term returns, the space economy, of which low-Earth orbit remains a core component, is expected to be worth up to $2 trillion in total by 2040. But the U.S. will not be able to fully realize its potential in this new economic frontier without its own astronauts and labs in orbit.
Plans call for commercial successors to the International Space Station, which requires a broad range of customers beyond NASA. Shutting down regular access to the station for technology demonstrations now will make it challenging for non-government customers to close their business cases as commercial stations aren't expected to be operational for a few years.
This would amount to a death spiral in a strategically significant domain.
Discerning readers may question why the federal government needs to invest, given the commercial interest in low-Earth orbit. This investment is necessary because the United States isn't the only game in town and the pipeline for industries in space is still quite nascent.
The nation is engaged in a great power competition with China, which is heavily investing in their low-Earth orbit capabilities. China already has its own space station, Tiangong, in orbit and offers other nations access to it to conduct their science experiments and technology demonstrations.
Scientists and countries are already choosing to send their experiments to the Chinese station instead of the International Space Station, given the advanced facilities and reduced level of competition for flights.
Moreover, Beijing released a road map that will likely establish China as the global leader in space by 2050, or sooner, if the U.S. persists in the direction charted by Trump's budget request.
Beyond these economic benefits, Tiangong also bolsters China's reputation internationally and earns Beijing diplomatic goodwill. The U.S. currently benefits similarly from the international exchanges that occur on the International Space Station.
But if the U.S. stops conducting robust research aboard its station, as intended by the Trump administration, it will leave international goodwill on the table for China to pick up on the cheap.
In other words, the Trump administration appears intent to inflict significant geopolitical and economic harm on the U.S. to save a few pennies in the overall federal budget.
