Eric Thiel

There are certainly rumblings about the future of astronaut access to low Earth orbit. This often comes up in the context of commercial space stations, where having access to LEO is obviously imperative, but affordable access is really the distinction. In that respect, it doesn't matter how many certified crew vehicles you have, Dragon, Starliner, or otherwise, if the architecture inherently creates a cost barrier that limits demand. Take a look at where we are at today.. - There are five outstanding and proven SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft still under contract for missions over the next few years. - There are several Boeing Starliner crewed spacecraft that will be modified to address the design issues identified in the PIT report and ultimately certified to launch on ULA's Vulcan. We hope to launch the next uncrewed mission in the months ahead. - Lockheed's Orion, of which I saw the crew and service modules for Artemis III, IV, and V under development this past Friday at KSC. That visit in itself deserves a long-form post about how hard the NASA teams, our contractors, and partners are working to meet this moment for the nation. That amazing fact aside, we have Orion. It is a crew-certified spacecraft and will fly in LEO next year. Certainly not a vehicle optimized for LEO or affordability, but the capability is there. There is no doubt a long future ahead for Orion on a variety of launch vehicles and paired w/ transfer stages. - Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing landers to return astronauts to the lunar surface, not to mention affordably delivering mass to the Moon in support of the Moon Base. These programs also have a path to support future crewed LEO needs, be that inherent in their existing plans or paired with other spacecraft. - Other companies, including Blue Origin, have made public comments about internally funding the development of additional crew vehicles. If there is really considerable demand for even more astronaut access to LEO and beyond, then private companies should be able to build the business case and raise the capital. NASA will always be willing to provide subject matter expertise and test facility support for these types of company-funded efforts. And if the capability is there at a lower cost, it is hard to imagine we wouldn't become a customer. In short, there has never been a time when the United States had so many crew-certified spacecraft options available, with others in development, and so much investment moving in the direction of lower costs to make missions to Earth orbit, the Moon, and beyond more routine. I would just caution folks against jumping right to NASA funding the business case for every good idea--like why not one more crewed spacecraft. The more NASA gets spread out trying to make everyone happy, the fewer exciting moments we will have like Artemis II and Roman, the fewer X-planes we will put in the sky, and the fewer astronauts we can afford to fly frequently to Earth orbit. The longer programs, like America's long overdue return to the Moon, take to achieve. We need to stay focused on delivering on the national space policy as quickly, safely and affordably as possible.

We’re getting America underway on nuclear power in space and ushering in the era of a Nuclear NASA. With the signing of an MOU with @ENERGY, we’re taking the next giant leap toward exploring the outer solar system and sending American astronauts to Mars. Fission power will help us travel farther, operate longer, and power more capable scientific instruments.

Back at it again with a long one, but can't help myself on the Space Academy topic. Interesting to read some of the policy experts who have taken skeptical, and in some cases negative, public positions on the need for a United States Space Academy. People are certainly entitled to their opinions. There are also those who believe we should not build a single spaceship or invest in technological progress until we solve every problem on Earth. That is simply not how you build a better future for our children. I suspect, for some, the objection has more to do with the politics than the merits. So let me address a few of the common concerns and offer some rationale. Global dependence on space is increasing at an astronomical rate. Weather forecasting, disaster response, precision navigation, communications, agriculture, national security and scientific discovery all depend on capabilities in orbit. Connecting the disconnected and expanding access to knowledge is itself foundational to solving many of the world's problems. The data we will be taking in, whether from Earth observation or instruments like Roman, will answer questions we do not even know to ask today. And there is no going back from the trajectory we are on. A decade ago, the FAA was overseeing barely more than a dozen commercial space launches per year. Today, nearly a dozen U.S. companies are operating or developing orbital launch systems, chasing economic opportunity measured in the trillions. But the upside is far greater than economics. Think about what we stand to learn scientifically, what technologies will have to be pioneered to explore out there, and how many of those breakthroughs will make life better back here. Our new national space transportation policy calls for the United States to support more than 1,000 launches annually by 2030. Some already believe that is off by an order of magnitude. America will certainly establish a permanent outpost on another world in the years ahead, and we are not alone in our ambitions. That outpost will become NASA's proving ground for where we go next. Mars. And then we continue on. It is our destiny to harness more of the energy of our star, unlock more of the energy potential in matter, and venture farther outward, in the same spirit as the explorers of centuries past who discovered the New World. And we have no idea how quickly that timeline could accelerate in a world transformed by artificial superintelligence, robotics, quantum technologies and additive manufacturing. All of it is unfolding in the context of a great power competition where falling behind could materially affect our way of life and the trajectory of civilizations. I do know the future will require a bright new generation educated and prepared for this environment. Many will serve in inherently governmental roles. They will need specialized education in disciplines that barely exist today, including nuclear power and propulsion for space applications, before having the opportunity to continue careers across government or the private sector. If you understand the increasingly important and contested environment above us, then a Space Academy is as timely and necessary today as the Space Force has already proven to be. So what are the objections? It blurs the line between peaceful applications in space and the military. This may be the weakest argument I have seen. NASA's history began with astronauts flying to space on ballistic missiles. Several Space Shuttle missions were, and remain, classified. NASA Aeronautics flies repurposed U-2 spy planes for high-altitude research and F-15s for high-speed research. Breakthroughs pioneered through NASA aeronautics have benefited civil aviation and national security alike. The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, under the Department of Transportation, graduates students who go into industry, government and the military. Some have even become astronauts. Three of the four Artemis II astronauts came from the military, as have many NASA astronauts throughout our history, and some have continued serving in uniform after their NASA careers. NASA's mission is as peaceful as it is patriotic. We explore for the benefit of all humankind, but we go there under our flag. That mission would be impossible without the Guardians standing watch over the domain as we venture outward. There is no contradiction in giving future civil, commercial and national security space leaders a common educational foundation, especially when our adversaries draw no such distinction themselves. What about the cost? Congressional leaders and Governors from both parties have been reaching out and assembling potential funding packages. It is interesting, I face questions during congressional hearings over whether we are investing enough in STEM education. We can absorb billions of dollars in canceled programs from mismanagement. But investing in the education of the next generation, in a domain increasingly central to our scientific, economic and national security future, is somehow uneconomical? We should look past the politics on this one. Go back to 1963, when the world was captivated by the possibilities of space, and remember another iconic JFK speech. He reminded us that we all treasure our children's future. Fittingly, he delivered those words at a university commencement. It is time for another great American academy. A United States Space Academy worthy of the extraordinary adventure ahead.