(Image Source)
On January 3rd, 2021, the 117th Congress will be gavelled into session, and the Congress that sits that day will have a significant impact on NASA and the future of American space exploration. Existing partisan tensions, upcoming leadership changes, and the prospect of broader political shifts will all inform NASA’s mission and priorities. How these relationships play out will prove pivotal to NASA and the development of America’s future in space in 2021 and beyond.

The Current State of NASA

NASA is currently under the leadership of Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who was confirmed in April of 2018 by a razor-thin party-line vote (50–49), with Republicans in favor. At the time NASA had been without a full time Administrator for well over a year amid significant partisan infighting over climate change and whether Bridenstine (who is not a scientist or astronaut by profession) was qualified for the job.

Bridenstine has surprised most of his critics and proven to be an adept Administrator, carving out a more prominent and muscular role for NASA than many of his predecessors. A recent must-read profile by Eric Berger highlighted Bridenstine’s ability to balance the competing interests jockeying around him and build momentum towards two seemingly impossible tasks.

The first is NASA’s Artemis Program, an incredibly ambitious program to land the next man and the first woman on the Moon by 2024. The program is controversial, but is advancing, with almost $1 billion awarded recently to 3 commercial companies for development of the Artemis Human Landing Systems. House Democrats immediately voiced concerns, and NASA’s own Advisory Committee doesn’t believe the 2024 deadline is attainable. It is a monumental task to push for at this time, and Bridenstine has NASA in 110%.

The Moon landing push now coincides with a second initiative of almost equal weight and complexity. The Artemis Accords would establish an international legal framework for lunar surface activities, and carve out a path for companies to own the resources they mine. Combined with an April 6th Executive Order from President Trump, and previous rhetoric confirming the Administration does not view space as a “global commons”, the Artemis Accords are NASA’s push to codify the next generation of international space law in their image.

There are also multiple missions underway at Mars, including the July 2020 launch of the Perseverance rover, and the final completion of the multi-billion dollar James Webb telescope.

Yet it is the Moon push that has grown to dominate most of NASA’s work under Bridenstine. He views Artemis as a central component to NASA’s relevancy to the country and our foreign policy. He sums up his view of NASA’s work recently:

“It became apparent to me, as members of Congress were calling, that we need to be more engaged in the national strategy apparatus,” he said. “From a strategic perspective, we need to be engaged with our inter-agency partners and with our international partners in a very robust way.”
— NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

For now the trajectory of NASA is clear, set on sending astronauts back to the Moon by 2024 and updating the current international legal regime to match. How, or if, this work proceeds through 2021 will ultimately be decided by the outcome of the 2020 election.

Congress: A Tale of Two Chambers

Space policy in Congress since the 2018 elections has undergone a split focus, with newly ascendant Democrats shaping NASA policy in the House of Representatives and Republicans maintaining their hold on policy in the Senate. A great overview of the specific members in leadership and a complete committee by committee breakdown in both chambers can be found in this overview provided by the American Astronomical Society.

The House of Representatives

Laura Forczyk’s article The House Battle for Artemis masterfully explores the latest dynamics in the House, detailing the machinations of the most recent budget cycle. House Chairwoman Eddie Bernice-Johnson (D-TX) took her gavel promising greater oversight of NASA, and tension surrounding the Trump Administration’s Artemis program has been increasingly pronounced. Democrats have been critical of the Moon push, and favor a Mars-centric approach. Forczyk highlights this dynamic:

“… (we found a) slight bias among key Democratic members of Congress toward sending astronauts to Mars with little support for a lunar return. Most key members of Congress preferred a Moon-to-Mars approach, as did Reps. Bill Posey (R), Brian Babin (R), and Ami Bera (D). Reps. Ed Perlmutter (D) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) strongly support a human mission to Mars without expressing strong support for a Moon-to-Mars approach.”

This preference for Mars, combined with broader skepticism about commercial lunar landers, is the foundation for an increasingly contentious relationship with the Administration surrounding Artemis. This previously beneath-the-surface disagreement boiled over in early May after NASA announced almost $1 billion in awards to 3 companies to develop the Artemis lunar landers. Chairwoman Johnson and Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairwoman Kendra Horn (D-OK) released a statement criticizing the awards, although their Senate counterparts did not echo that criticism. Horn has worked previously for the Space Foundation and has voiced skepticism of commercial lunar landing systems in the past. The nature and consequences of this flare up from Johnson and Horn is generating uncertainty as to how the House will proceed.

After NASA’s Human Spaceflight Chief abruptly resigned earlier this month, Congresswoman Horn was quick to criticize the Administration more broadly and call for greater oversight. The bad blood between House Democrats and the Administration surrounding NASA does not seem likely to dissipate anytime soon.

While much of space policy in the House has been bi-partisan, that work has been overshadowed by the deepening rifts over Artemis. Senate Democrats have not vocally echoed the concerns of their House counterparts, revealing differences in the Democratic approach and reflecting the more bi-partisan nature of space policy in the Senate.

The Senate

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation & Space for 3 terms now (6 years), which will be his last under Senate Republican rules. His tenure on the committee has been marked by bi-partisanship, introducing the 2019 NASA authorization bill jointly with former Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), and introducing the 2020 NASA authorization bill jointly with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA). This bi-partisanship is increasingly rare in Congress, and there is no guarantee it persists.

The Committee has sought to draw attention to the issues of space debris, asteroid risk, and solar storms, including it in the 2019 authorization and holding a hearing this February on the subject. The Senate committee has also generally favored the Administration’s Moon-centric approach, endorsing NASA’s Artemis Moon-to-Mars architecture. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee (which oversees the Aviation & Space Subcommittee), spoke very favorably about the NASA awards Congresswomen Johnson and Horn so sharply criticized.

It is also impossible to discuss space policy in the Senate without discussing Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL). The Senator is the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee ($$), with a track record of strong support for NASA’s next big rocket, the Space Launch System, on which NASA has spent billions (and is developed in his home state). His influence on NASA policy in the Senate is ubiquitous, and he will be one of the loudest voices shaping space policy in the Senate as long as he is in office.

This dynamic will likely continue to play out through the 2020 budget process. House Democrats will likely remain skeptical of Artemis and seek greater oversight of NASA, while the Senate will remain more collaborative and supportive of the Administration.

The 2020 Election Landscape: A Tale of Two Chambers (Again)

We are less than 6 months from the November, 2020 elections, which will have a profound impact on NASA and the future of American exploration and settlement of the Solar System. The 3 major variables at play are: control of the House of Representatives, control of the Senate, and control of the White House. The party that controls these organs will be able to execute their vision for NASA and space exploration.

Democrats currently control the House of Representatives 232–197, with Republicans needing to net a total gain of 21 seats to hit the 218 seat majority threshold (vacancies play with these exact #s a bit). There is a strong lean in most prediction models towards Democrats holding the House in all but the best of years for Republicans. Republicans of course are contesting a wide array of seats, but fundraising by incumbent Democrats and favorable political terrain (mostly in suburban districts) keeps Democrats as favorites to retain control, if not overwhelmingly so.

In regards to space policy, most of the major House players are expected to return. Representatives Johnson, Bera, Lucas, and Babin all serve in safe districts and do not face a substantive threat to re-election, so they will be in Congress in 2021. Representative Horn was a shock winner in the 2018 Democratic wave, and will be among the top targets for Republicans this fall. All major election handicappers rate her election as a Toss-up, a designation that will not change through Election Night this November. It appears most, if not all, of the House players impacting space policy will be returning next year regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race.

Whether or not Congresswoman Horn returns will determine whether or not Democrats have a leadership shuffle at the top of the committee. Her return would continue her skeptical presence regarding increased commercialization atop the committee, whereas her defeat would elevate someone new. However, substantial deviation from the current policy would not be expected.

A look at the Senate map reveals a much more contested, murky picture.

By quirk of the Senate election cycle, most of the Senators on the Subcommittee on Aviation & Space are not up for re-election this year. One, Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO), is in serious political jeopardy, and in some forecasts even an underdog for re-election. Yet apart from the increasingly likely departure of Senator Gardner, the risk of turmoil in the Senate stems not from a projected churn in membership, but higher level leadership changes.

A Change in Chairperson

The first change is the end of the Chairmanship by Senator Cruz. His term has been marked by both bipartisan NASA legislation with prominent Democrats, as well as general agreement with President Trump and his Administration’s Moon-centric Artemis program. His leaving due to term limits after only 6 years on the job will have a negative impact on Subcommittee policy making. The Legislative Effectiveness Project has found term limits on Committee Chairpersons often cut them off at the peak of their effectiveness, forcing a new Chair to start over again rather than allowing a Member to continue gaining and leveraging their experience. The Senate Subcommittee on Aviation & Space will undergo such a leadership cycle next year, regardless of the outcome of the 2020 election.

Who Republicans would select to replace Cruz remains to be seen after 6 years of Cruz holding the post. In 2014, after Republicans seized the Senate and the Subcommittee last saw a leadership change, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) was rumored to be in the running to take the gavel before Senator Cruz was ultimately appointed. Shelby will have an out-sized role in determining the Republican successor to Cruz on the committee.

If Republicans continue to hold the Senate, it is reasonable to expect the next Subcommittee Chairman would not be a substantial departure from Senator Cruz. Senator Shelby approved of Senator Cruz, and will inevitably approve of whatever Republican Senator is next in line. Adherence to the existing Artemis program will be likely as well, regardless of which individual Republican steps forward.

However, there is no guarantee the bi-partisan nature of the committee as it was under Senator Cruz will continue. Different Senators have different personalities, and in these increasingly partisan times it is possible a more rigidly ideological or rabidly tactical Senator would take the gavel and lead to increased friction on the committee.

There is also no way to predict which individual Republican will angle for the post until the November elections are resolved. The Committee selection process is ridiculously dense to the uninitiated, and while Republicans typically defer to seniority (years in the Senate), there are exceptions, and the process has been likened to musical chairs.

Regardless of the results on November 3rd, the change in Republican leadership atop the Aviation & Space Subcommittee offers increased uncertainty for NASA and the broader space community, even if party control remains the same. The increasing likelihood of the entire chamber flipping offers even greater uncertainty.

A Change in Party

A growing chorus of analysts say the map has shifted in Democrats’ favor in recent months, even though it is now a toss-up rather than Republican favored. To be clear, this is not a statement that Democrats are likely to take the Senate, simply an acknowledgement that their odds have increased and the possibility cannot be discounted.

Republicans currently hold a 53–47 majority, with the map now generally considered a genuine tossup, with Democrats claiming recent momentum in key races. A series of states (Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, Colorado, & Maine) feature highly competitive races, with Democrat Doug Jones in Alabama in serious trouble. Most of these states also promise to be Presidential battlegrounds between President Trump and former Vice President Biden.

If Democrats win this November, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee is Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). She has also co-sponsored NASA authorization legislation with Senator Cruz, and has strongly advocated for NASA and specifically STEM education. She partnered shortly with Senator Cruz after taking office in 2019, and has notably and consistently brandished a bi-partisan, centrist image (to both applause and criticism). It would be reasonable to project that she would govern in a similar bipartisan fashion to Senator Cruz. This, however, is not the most significant change if Democrats take the Senate.

Yet a shift in Senate control from Republican to Democratic would bring the chamber in greater alignment with the House on every political priority. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would almost certainly become Majority Leader, and he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been allies for decades. Given this realignment it is almost certain, regardless of who is Chairwoman(man) of the Senate Subcommittee, that a Democratic Senate would be more in line with House Democrats regarding NASA and broader space policy.

A Democratic takeover would also remove Senator Shelby as Chairman of the Appropriations committee, and his staunch support for the SLS with it. The ranking Democrat (and likely successor) is Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a Senator without a major space profile (although he does fondly remember the Moon landing).

At this point, the most likely result of a Democratic Senate takeover would most likely be a continuation of bipartisanship on the Aviation & Space Subcommittee, but a broader alignment with the House Democrat’s space policy agenda, with a stronger Mars focus and increased hostility to Artemis.

The Senate Holds the Key

The likelihood of continued Democratic control in the House, coupled with the return of the major space policy players, would guarantee a seat at the table for their policy agenda. This would include greater oversight of NASA operations, skepticism towards increasingly commercial systems, and a refocusing of exploration objectives on Mars.

The Senate is likely to undergo far more turmoil, injecting far more uncertainty into space policy. While it seems reasonable to hope for continued bi-partisanship on the relevant Senate subcommittee, the broader changes are more jarring. Continued Republican control likely means a continued focus on the SLS and Artemis. A Democratic takeover opens the door to increasing pressure to harmonize the Senate space policy agenda with the House.

Whatever Presidential candidate takes office on January 20th, 2021 will inherit this dynamic. The differences between the two candidates could not be more stark, with President Trump offering the America-centric lunar program described above, and Joe Biden offering, well, nothing.

There is also the potential that the Senate will need to confirm a new NASA Administrator, even if President Trump is re-elected. There is much more work to be done understanding these different versions of Presidential space policy and how they intersect with the potential policy preferences of Congress.

Regardless, one thing is certain. The 2020 Congressional elections will have a profound impact on shaping American space policy in 2021 and beyond.