Space Policy and Civilizational Future 🚀🛰️💫

@Andercot $80B is the annual spend by Disney

Meta could've built four moon bases but instead they spent $80 billion on this

Some thoughts on IGNITION and CLPS NASA just dropped the CLPS 2.0 DRFP and it’s bullish for the main providers (IM, Firefly, Astrobotic, Blue Origin). $10B Not-To-Exceed ceiling (4× CLPS 1.0), 10+5 year horizon, three flexible CLINs, and NASA’s new target of up to 30 robotic landings by ~2028. If the companies execute cleanly and Congress keeps the budget round, this is a massive multi-year revenue runway tied directly to building the lunar base . At the same time, NASA is quietly evolving CLPS from a “stimulate commercial space” experiment into a much more "NASA-like program". CLIN 002 (supply-based lander sales + Government purpose rights), enhanced insight (up to 8,000 NASA SME hours per order), CLIN 003 (studies & tech dev), and explicit support for classified/nuclear payloads all show one red thread: CLPS is now a coherent tool to accelerate the Artemis Surface Base, not just a payload taxi service. $LUNR $FLY @blueorigin @astrobotic @Int_Machines @FireflySpace

@danielmetzler All the best!

Exciting day!! Watch the Spectrum launch live at youtube.com/live/MsbZj8Pxm…

@MBB_theB @SciGuySpace @EQuesselaire It is high time ESA steps up and executes its own ambitious and independent exploration program! I think first the member countries have to be convinced and money has to flow to the industry

@AstroPolicy @SciGuySpace @EQuesselaire MSR? You mean the JMEP? Yes, ESA has been particularly unlucky by choices from its US and Russian partners (But now try with China, third time is the charm) A risk of these programs taking a long time. ESA also falls short by not executing on its own. Could have led Moonville.

It’s interesting to read critiques of the Moon base proposal, which seems like the smart path forward and could fit within NASA’s budget. The gist I’m hearing from critics is that this Isaacman priority is happy talk, will all fade away, and not happen. Then you realize these were the same people who: - Said Isaacman wouldn’t be renominated - Said he would was a political amateur - Said he couldn’t build a coalition to cancel EUS and put SLS on a path toward sunset -Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays) - Said he would never get Congress, which called it a “national priority,” to go along with canceling Gateway - Said he would never actually cancel Gateway These people are now saying Isaacman can’t get NASA and its contractors to execute on a plan that has administration and Congressional support. The reality is, from a policy and political standpoint, NASA is in a better place now than it has been for years. If the Moon Base fails that’s on NASA and private industry, not stupid policy. And believe me, I’ve seen a lot of terrible, pie-in-the-sky space policy over the decades. #JourneyToMars It’s a new era. I’m not sure everyone realizes this, but Isaacman and his team have eyes wide open to a lot of the major challenges facing NASA and they’re trying to fix them. They’re working long days. Weekends. It’s inspiring to see our government work like this, especially in an era when so much seems broken. I don’t know what will happen. Maybe this Moon base all will fade away. But I do know that NASA’s chance for success in the next couple of decades is a lot higher today than it has been for a long, long time. What we were doing was decidedly not working. This has a chance.

@TiagoHormigo @SciGuySpace @EQuesselaire The Argonaut is certainly complimentary and much needed independent European capability. I doubt gateway elements can be repurposed easily…we fall into the SLS repurposing shuttle parts trap again…

@AstroPolicy @SciGuySpace @EQuesselaire ESA also has Argonaut, which fits perfectly into this plan, and even the redirection of Gateway elements as well as the development of Lightship are compatible with the new plan. I would be surprised if there hadn't been a conversation with ESA prior to these announcements.

Great to see this proposal. The US regulatory process was too cumbersome and disconnected. The core issue? Current rules cover launch and radio, but "novel" missions—like lunar mining or orbital factories—lack a clear home. The "mission authorization" should be consolidated under a single federal lead. Recommended reading in the background of this policy warontherocks.com/2023/08/space-… #spacepolicy

@realhomerhickam @NASAAdmin Some preemptive congressional advocacy is needed in advance of the FY27 funding cycle. I think the Planetary Society’s advocacy efforts really helped move the needle and restore the FY26 funding @exploreplanets

@NASAAdmin is going to need all of us who care about the movement of humanity into space to support him as the same crowd that took away our last lunar ventures will be howling their usual hate and negativity. We need to be steady in our support which should be couched in practical terms. For the president, the moon should always be presented as real estate to be developed. For Congress, it should be presented as jobs and technological development that will create more jobs. My hope is that our lunar outpost will be ultimately much like our outposts in Antarctica. We will build it and open it to countries and companies with the proviso they pay to utilize our facilities. I see it as an anchor from which others venture into the lunar plains and mountains. In effect, like St. Louis was for the early American pioneers.

I’m my experience, there are two types of people: those who take action and those who don’t. The latter will be fine sipping cocktails on a beach, the former will—by their intrinsic nature—have to find something to do irrespective of their wealth. I strongly suspect that most SpaceX workers fall into the former category!

What I worry about is a generation of talented experienced engineers being too rich to work.

RT @ac_charania: The emphasis during the announcement of the @NASAMoonBase strategy yesterday on Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) and speci…

@EQuesselaire @SciGuySpace Europe has offered launch to NASA before, via Ariane6, but it’s not a good deal in general, due to the cheapness of US launch providers in comparison. I hope the various European commercial launch developments ISAR Aerospace. Rocket Facotry Ausberg etc can succeed

@AstroPolicy @SciGuySpace That's why it'd be interesting to know more about this aspect 🙂. I'm not saying Europe should run after contract money but maybe offer more substantial, down to earth capabilities. Lifting stuff to orbit?

@NASASpox @ABC I really hope Congress and Senate representatives follow suit 🚀

@ABC: “NASA is all-in on the moon and plans to… build a permanent settlement… sooner rather than later.” 🌖🚀🧑‍🚀

The goal is not just to reach the Moon, but to stay. 🌘

@RKLBMan $LUNR 🚀🚀🚀

Ask your favorite AI model what stock benefits the most from NASA's announcements yesterday. What ticker comes back?

I particularly feel for ESA: first MSR was cancelled, and the ERO is almost fully built sitting in a warehouse in Toulouse, and now Gateway is gone, with multiple contracts underway in European industry. ESA will face a costly headache to unpack that mess. Some countries will advocate for joining the base, but there is political resistance to contributing European cash to US CLPS providers.

@EQuesselaire I’m still working on that angle but my sense is that most of the IPs will ultimately be pretty happy with surface opportunities.

Isaacman has arrived at an opportune moment: commercial space is now providing an innovative and multiply redundant field of possibilities; China is a near peer and provides tangible political urgency; and SLS delays are in stark contrast to the well-oiled cadence of SpaceX. He has a window of opportunity and several policy streams in his favor. To use a political science metaphor, he is showing that he’s a “political entrepreneur” in being able to grasp these streams together. Let’s hope he doesn’t drop it on the execution!

Today marks 20 years since the first Falcon 1 flight! Here is every since SpaceX flight in these 20 years, chronologically and to scale:

Holy shit, we’re finally building a Moon base! arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/…

@Malky0010 @CJHandmer I think that partners have been doing some strategic rethinking in the past year, since the President’s budget request canceled everything and now even with restored funding plans are changing. I hear more “autonomy”…

@AstroPolicy @CJHandmer Honestly, "international partners" deserve this for being basically subcontractors of NASA, instead of developing their own national and supranational space programs. You want to be NASA subcontractor, then NASA (= US gvn) gets to call the shots.

How do you spend a billion dollars on an arm? Without checking that the underlying project is technically sound?

@FSlazer @CJHandmer All the Artemis partners were invited to the event yesterday—let’s see if they commit to the Lunar base. As most of them have zero capability to actually reach the Moon, I don’t see a way to both have a lunar science / space program and not be partnered with NASA somehow.

@AstroPolicy @CJHandmer If the Gateway elements cannot be transitioned to support the new plan, good luck getting international partners to support US exploration projects. These are very big and important investments for these nations