Closing Bell - Manifest Space: Space Policy Under Trump with Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine 11/20/24

Episode Date: November 20, 2024

President-Elect Trump is set to be back in the White House, with space policy set to change accordingly. Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine joins Morgan Brennan to discuss the future of the Artemis lunar program, space as the forefront of national security and geopolitics—plus, whether Bridenstine would consider rejoining the space agency.

The Honorable Jim Bridenstine served as NASA administrator under the first Trump administration. He established the Artemis program to send Americans and allies to the moon, this time to stay. While Artemis has progressed under President Biden, timelines have slipped. But Bridenstine, a former congressman from Oklahoma, expects the president-elect to accelerate those efforts, which could mean some contracting changes. One of the best things we can do is try to figure out what are all of the resources we have available to us right now. Because what we need to do is as quickly as possible get to the moon, and then as quickly as possible transition to Mars and or build the moon architecture with a thought for Mars. And because it is moon to Mars, it's both.

It's using one to achieve the other and we can go faster to Mars if we use the moon as the proven ground. And in my opinion, we've got to take advantage of everything that currently exists. And then as we move forward, figure out what is the best solution going forward. So I think, yes, there will be a lot of people coming up with different ideas and concepts of how to get to the moon

and maybe different architectures and capabilities. But I also think that the starting point should be how do we get there as soon as possible? And then how do we build sustainability so that when we do get to the moon, we get to stay? And then when we go to Mars, how do we build as much of the moon program to make Mars possible? That's got to be the key enabler. So I think there will probably be changes.

Now a member of several corporate boards and a space investor himself, his aptly named Artemis Group recently invested in propulsion startup Phase 4, Bridenstine is very focused on the geopolitical implications of space, especially when it comes to national security and deterring future conflicts. Whether it's on the national security front or on the intelligence front or on the civil front, the government continues to move in a direction where the government is buying services instead of owning and operating hardware. And I think for all of those different sectors within the government, that's a very positive thing for the commercial space industry.

And ultimately, those budgets need to grow and they need to grow again because we've got threats from around the globe that we need to be addressing. But it's also important to recognize that the intent of these policies is that these companies can go get customers that are not the government. And when that happens, it is no longer a zero-sum game. On this episode, the former NASA administrator on what a second Trump term will mean for space and whether he'd be open to joining that administration. I'm Morgan Brennan, and this is Manifest Space. I think it's actually really good for space policy.

We remember in the first Trump administration, we had space budgets that were increasing. We created the Space Force. We created the Artemis program to return to the moon and then go on to Mars. It was really a great era where we were bringing in international partners for big programs, bringing in commercial partners. Space Policy Directive 1 from President Trump was, we're going to go to the moon. We're going to go with commercial partners and international partners. We're going to use the moon to learn

how to live and work for long periods of time. We're going to take that knowledge to Mars. We're going to build an architecture as much as possible for the moon that replicates what we want to do at Mars. And so, and the budgets reflected that. So it was really, in my opinion, it was a great period for space. I would also say that when the Trump administration ended, you know, the budgets went flat, at least for NASA, the budget went flat. And then, and it's just, there's been not a lot of movement since.

So I think it's gonna be really good for the space industry and for commercial space markets. If you were approached to rejoin this administration, would you? I'm not gonna have those types of conversations here on your podcast, but certainly, you know, it's important to recognize that I want to be helpful to the Trump administration in some way.

And if they call for whatever reason, I'm happy to entertain those phone calls. But I am happy here in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I was in Congress for three terms and I served in the first Trump administration. And it's been really nice to be back here in Oklahoma as well. So I haven't been making any moves to do anything, but certainly I'm happy to help in any way. And of course, you're an investor now. You sit on a number of boards. So to be on this side of it, to be in the private sector and sort of gaming out policy implications with a new administration

coming in in the next couple of months, your thoughts on that? Yeah. So I think whether it's on the national security front or on the intelligence front or on the civil front, the government is, it continues to move in a direction where the government is buying services instead of owning and operating hardware. And I think for all of those different sectors within the government, that's a very positive thing for the commercial space industry.

And ultimately those budgets need to grow and they need to grow again, because we've got threats from around the globe that we need to be addressing. But it's also important to recognize that, you know, the intent of these of these policies is that these companies can go get customers that are not the government. And when that happens, it is no longer a zero sum game, that markets can grow and they can grow fast and they can let the free market kind of drive the direction that the investments go and that the industry goes. And I've heard the argument made by folks within the dual use tech community that that ultimately means you can drive down costs and you can do more with less. That's exactly right. You want to increase access to space. You want to benefit the American

taxpayer so that the American taxpayer can get a lot more for their dollar. And the way to do that is to have companies serve both the government and commercial enterprise. And each one of those companies, while they're serving both, they also need to be competing against each other on cost and innovation to get additional contracts. So if you have multiple customers, not just the U.S. government, but multiple customers, and you're competing on cost and innovation, that's what really fundamentally changes the dynamics to increase access and drive down costs. So what would you like to see then from you know policy or a regulatory standpoint to enable more of that happening? So I think the the the I guess the biggest hurdle that we need to I guess jump over here is is the challenge that we see between china and taiwan um there's no

uh mistaking that china would like to annex taiwan they'd like to do it peacefully at first but of course if that doesn't work they want to do it you know basically aggressively and uh that's a big problem for the united states of america when we think about the most advanced microchips that exist, five nanometers and smaller, 90% of those are developed in Taiwan. It's a unique capability that is critically important for a whole host of strategic purposes. We think about how we're communicating right now, Morgan, and of course this is driven by microchips,

but so much American technology is driven by microchips, but so much American technology is driven by microchips that it's critically important for us to maintain Taiwan as an independent state that can serve markets around the globe. China would be interested in preventing that, and that would be devastating for this country. And so in order to prevent this aggressive annexation of Taiwan, we have to be able to penetrate the anti-access area denial capabilities of China. And a big piece of doing that is space. And that's going to require an all of the above strategy where we have national security space capabilities, but also commercial space capabilities. And that's what that dual use, you know, kind of capability is going to enable. Now it is, of course, not lost on me or so many other people that China is launching

anti-satellite missiles and they're launching co-orbital anti-satellite satellites. In other words, satellites that are designed to kill other satellites. They're also using jamming and spoofing and laser, you know, we call it dazzling, but using laser energy to confuse a satellite and directed energy to destroy or render a satellite inoperative. These technologies are proliferating. China is using them. They're using them with an intent to deny us the ability to

penetrate that anti-access area denial capability from space. And if we're going to be able to defend in space, we need to think differently about how we're going to fight and win in space. And that requires not just resilience in the architecture with thousands of satellites networked together, but it also requires maneuverability in space. And so it's important for us to be able to maneuver without regret or have what we call dynamic space operations to where, you know, a competitor today and maybe an enemy in the future can't track us as we're aggressively pursuing the ability of Taiwan to remain independent. So anyway, these are some thoughts. I think that's going to be largely driving space budgets

from the government for a while. And if we do it right, we will, Taiwan will remain independent, and we will avoid war. That perhaps speaks to an investment I think you made just recently, which is phase four. Yeah, that's right. So when I think about dynamic space operations, one of the challenges we have in this country right now is we have tried to complicate the targeting solution for the enemy. So instead of building massive Battlestar Galactica satellites that are unprotected, we need to bring those satellites from geostationary orbit down to low Earth orbit. We need to have thousands of satellites. They need to be networked together and they need to

be able to maneuver. The challenge has been that the maneuverability of those satellites when it comes to electric propulsion has been dependent on xenon and krypton. So while we have complicated the targeting solution for the enemy, we have given the enemy control over the fuel supply because xenon and krypton largely come from China when Russia invaded Ukraine, the price of Xenon specifically went from $4,000 per kilogram up to, for a period, over $60,000 per kilogram. So we were spending more on the fuel than on the satellites themselves for a period of time. Now it's settled back down, I think, around $16,000 per kilogram. But the bottom line is we are still dependent on our competitors and potentially adversaries. We're dependent on them for the fuel for our space maneuverability when it comes to electric propulsion. So I have said we need to free ourselves from that dependency. Phase four is using a very unique

propulsion capability. It's called radiofrequency electric propulsion. It doesn't require, you know, an anode and a cathode, which means you can use fuels that are not xenon and krypton. And in fact, we've been using even water as a fuel and it works. And I can get to the technology if you want, but it is a stunning capability. It's an amazing technology. We're using plasma and or subatomic charge particles and permanent magnets to basically create the thrust that ultimately is going to be able to maneuver satellites without regret. In other words, we can maneuver and we can have a lot of fuel left over to continue to maneuver. So it's really about increasing efficiency and ending dependency on China and Russia.

And this little company, Phase 4, has some really amazing plasma physicists that are working on this problem and they've solved it. And so now we're ready to move forward and see what we can do to make them successful for our country. So when do you start to see some of these technologies, whether it is Phase 4? Or I mean, that also sort of points to the bigger issue, which is supply chain resilience. And we've seen that in the defense industrial base. We're seeing it with space as well. You know, how quickly can those supply chains get disentangled in some of these new capabilities like what phase four is developing actually make their way to reality or make their way to space? Yeah. So the supply chain problem at large is big. As far as the phase four element, that challenge has been solved.

Now we just need to grow this company and get those thrusters on satellites. But you're right. There's a bigger problem here where we have been dependent on our adversaries for a whole host of capabilities. That's why Congress passed the CHIPS Act. It was a great thing to do. I will tell you, it's not gonna, it's not gonna, you know,

we're trying to turn an aircraft carrier here and it's gonna take, you know, potentially decades. And so in the meantime, we need to look at what are the things that we can do today to change the, you know, the direction just a little bit. And what are the big things we need do today to change the direction just a little bit? And what are the big things we need to do to change the direction over time to where we aren't dependent on adversaries for supply chain? And yes, that's going to take time and we just need to acknowledge that. But we can't wait. It needs to start in a big way today.

I feel like so many of the conversations you and I have had over the years have been focused on civil space and our commercial space. And here we are, we're talking about national security. So it raises a key question, especially when you think about adversaries and how they're approaching space as a domain more broadly, what the implications of this and space from a national security standpoint, from a critical infrastructure standpoint, are going to mean for civil space efforts? Well, it's going to be largely driven by national security and it has to be initially, but it's going to open up the aperture for a whole host of commercial capabilities. Just for example, I'm a Navy pilot. You can tell by the pictures behind me. I flew combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we

used space in those days to support the warfighter on the ground or the warfighter in the sky or the warfighter on the sea. So space was an enabler. So we think about things like intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance. We think about missile warning, imagery, even creating mens rated coordinates or measured coordinates for targeting. We think about how we use space for missile warning. I mean, we've seen, you know, basically we saw Israel get attacked by Iran and all of those missiles got intercepted. Space based infrared is a key enabler of that. Nuclear command and control from space, over-the-horizon communications from space, GPS, which is important for not just precision-guided munitions, but a timing signal.

That timing signal is so important for a whole host of capabilities like networking in theater so that we know where the good guys and the bad guys are. There's a reason China is looking at space as a targeting opportunity, because they've seen how we fight and win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And so what they have done is they've said, hey, what we're going to do is we're going to deny the enemy. From their perspective, we would do that. They're going to deny us the ability to use space, and they themselves are going to use space for their own power projection capabilities. And so really what we're seeing now is this shift in thinking.

And it really started about a year ago when Chance Saltzman mentioned competitive endurance in space. But the idea is from this point forward, it's not just about resiliency. It's not just about avoiding first mover advantage. Now it's really about counter space activities. How do we use space to defend space? And how do we use space to offensively go after space? And that is the new dynamic that is at hand. But through all of these different technologies, you can imagine how it's going to have implications on commercial markets. The more we're imaging the earth commercially, you know, we saw the images from Capella, for example, you know, when Russia

invaded Ukraine, we saw images from Capella, the train of vehicles that were stuck on a highway in Ukraine. And, you know, those, that Capella, those Capella images, or Maxar did the images during the day. Those were all commercial images that the whole world could see. And that has big implications for commercial industry. Maybe you want to know how many cars are in a parking lot. Maybe you want to know, you know, how full, you know, the oil tanks are in Cushing, Oklahoma, for example. So there's a lot of capability that's going to come from that, just from being able to buy and sell imagery from space. But all these technologies are going to create new and different types of enabling capabilities for commercial industry. You were very instrumental in commercializing low Earth orbit as well.

And I've had a number of folks come on this podcast who are very focused on things like commercial space stations and on orbit manufacturing and on orbit activities. And so I wonder how you think that market now evolves. and on orbit manufacturing and on orbit activities. And so I wonder how you think that market now evolves. Yeah, so number one, it should be understood that there is a day in the future if we don't do things right now. There's a day in the future where China is on the moon and the United States is not. There's a day in the future where China has a space station

in low earth orbit and the United States does not. And these are not outcomes that I think the United States should go along with. We should try to change that trajectory quickly. So instead of building a new international space station, we need to build commercial space stations. The government needs to step up and be a customer, one customer of many. but in many cases, they're going to provide a lot of the resources for the development of these commercial space stations. But those commercial space stations need to go get customers that aren't the U.S. government. And the value there, Morgan, I know we've talked about this in the past, the value there is microgravity. How do we create new, you know, pharmaceutical crystals that you can't create here on Earth to treat diseases that have never been treated before, different types of cancer?

How do we make the drugs that currently exist even better when it comes to the treatment of cancer? That's happening right now on the International Space Station. We need to transfer that to commercial space stations. The way it stands right now, if we don't make changes today, there's going to be a day when all of that technology goes to China. And again, that's just more transfer of power from the Western Hemisphere to the Eastern Hemisphere that I don't think we should be subscribing to. So we need to make the right investments to have commercial space stations. It's pharmaceutical crystals. It's advanced materials. It's

semiconductors. It's creating artificial retinas for the human eyeball, for example, so people who have macular degeneration don't have to go blind. It's enabling things like regenerative medicine. We're now 3D printing human tissue in space. You can only do that in the microgravity of space. We've done it with heart tissue. We've done it with veins. We've done it with nerves. And we just brought home a meniscus from the International Space Station. And we can do it, Morgan. We can use your stem cells, your skin. We can turn your skin cells into stem cells, and we can create tissue that matches Morgan perfectly. Your body does not reject your own tissue. And we can do that. And today it's tissue. In the future, it's organs. And it's not just 3D printing of tissue in space. It's also growing tissue in

space. The value of microgravity is that in microgravity, things can grow in three dimensions. If you try to do it on Earth, it just goes flat. We can't escape gravity here on Earth. But in space, it opens up all kinds of new and different opportunities for technological advancement, both medicinal and on the, when you think about material sciences. So what we want to do is we want to make sure that those continue, that that continues. The risk is that the International Space Station goes away in 2030,

maybe 2031, and that there's no replacement. And that's what's going to give China the ability to control those markets, which we don't want to give them the ability to do. Certainly, they have the right to go and seek them, but we don't want to just cede that territory. And so, look, I think on the civil side and on the commercial side, we're at the very tip of an iceberg of understanding the value of microgravity. And if we don't continue down this path, our greatest competitor on the planet has an option to really, you know, take all of the investment that we've made and turn it into a benefit for them. I think a lot of folks or a lot of Americans maybe don't even realize that the Chinese already have a space station on orbit. They built it very, very quickly and they already have astronauts on board.

How does the moon factor into this? I mean, you established Artemis. We've seen it slip. There's been some delays. Do you expect that to kick into high gear now? And how does that speak to how important the moon is to this broader, larger, longer term strategy? So one of the big challenges in the last administration is they kept all of the programs, but they flattened the budget. And that's really led to a whole

host of challenges at NASA that are going to have to be remedied here in quick order. Now, they tried to keep as many programs as possible and just keep slipping them. At the end of the day, they had to cancel a bunch of them. And the question is, is it possible to get this on the right track? I will tell you, the answer is yes. It's not going to be easy. It's definitely doable. And I think what you're going to see, just like we did in the first Trump administration, you're going to see an enthusiasm here because it is about American greatness and American pride. And, you know, we want the future to be about children learning in textbooks, not just about Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing on the moon, but we want them learning in textbooks that, you know, America and its allies, and believe me, we've built the largest coalition in the history of the world when it comes to the Artemis program, but America and its allies

were also the first to land on Mars. And the whole moon to Mars program, the first element being Artemis and then Mars, that all needs to be reinvigorated. And it's going to require hard work, but I think it's definitely doable. Do you think that some of the contracting and some of the I guess that are in place for Artemis are going to have to be rethought? There are aspects that are these public private partnerships and use of commercial space, especially where the actual landing on the moon part is concerned or the infrastructure around the moon, but you still have some of these more traditional contracts where the actual carrying of astronauts to space is concerned. Yeah. So from my perspective, one of the best things we can do is try to figure out what are all of the resources we have available to us right now, because what we need to do is as quickly as possible get to the moon and then as quickly as possible transition to mars and or

build the moon architecture with a thought for mars and because it is moon to mars it's both it's it's it's it's using one to achieve the other and we can go faster to mars if we use the moon as the proven ground and um and in my opinion we've got to take advantage of everything that currently exists. And then as we move forward, figure out what is the best solution going forward. So I think, yes, there will be a lot of people coming up with different ideas and concepts of how to get to the moon and maybe different architectures and capabilities. But I also think that the starting point should be how do we get there as soon as possible? And then how do we build sustainability so that when we do get to the moon, we get to stay? And then when we go to Mars, how do we build as much of the moon program to make Mars possible? That's got to be the key enabler.

So I think there will probably be changes. I think the starting point should not be throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the starting point should be if we want to go fast to make our presence there now, what do we need to do? And then as we go forward, what do we need to do to be sustainable? In other words, how do we stay? Those, I think as we go forward, what do we need to do to be sustainable? In other words, how do we stay? Those, I think, are the ways to think about it. So having Elon Musk, who is the CEO and founder of SpaceX, in the mix with this administration, what do you think that enables? Well, certainly, I would imagine he's going to have ideas on how to move things forward and maybe do things a little differently. I also think it, you know, I hear

a lot of chatter about how much influence he's going to have and those kinds of things. And it's true, he'll have certainly a lot of influence with President Trump, and that's not a bad thing. But I also think, you know, there's also a lot of people need to recognize that, you know, Congress is the one that funds all of these things. And Congress has been creating the policies and putting the policies into law. And, yes, a lot of those policies will be driven by a vision that comes from the executive branch, for sure. But we have a ship of state that is also hard to turn. And I know Elon has done an amazing job of finding ways around that ship of state. And I think that's going to be good for the long term. I do know that there's a lot of people that are seemingly very worried about it.

And I would tell them, I don't think it's that much of a concern. And in fact, it could be very good for the country. All right. Jim Bridenstine, thank you so much. Appreciate the time and insights as always. That does it for this episode of Manifest Space. Make sure you never miss a launch by following us wherever you get your podcasts and by watching our coverage on Closing Bell Overtime. I'm Morgan Brennan.