Episode Details

Please note that we experienced unidentified audio problems for this program including callers using our toll free line. We sincerely apologize for this unfortunate audio problem.

In this space policy discussion, host David and guest Michael Listener, a space attorney, addressed recent developments including potential changes to COMSTACK, budget concerns, and the Trump administration's approach to commercial space through executive orders. They explored international competition with China, regulatory challenges for lunar nuclear power, and the philosophical differences between US and European space law approaches. The conversation also covered practical ways citizens can influence space policy, though both speakers acknowledged the difficulty of accessing decision-makers without connections or expensive lobbying efforts. I also reminded listeners that the show is a nonprofit needing support, we acknowledged our sponsors and provided instructions for donors to support us as we are a listener supported program.

Our guest, Michael Listener, space attorney, discussed recent developments in space policy with us. Michael explained that the reported dismissal of COMSTAC was from an executive order issued by the Trump administration, suggesting it might be a better move to start with fresh membership rather than completely eliminating the committee. Michael noted that COMSTAC only offers recommendations and cannot make policy decisions. Regarding budget cuts for science and space programs, Michael believed the administration likely has legal grounds for overriding Congressional budget decisions, noting that such actions will probably be challenged in court.

I asked Michael about China potentially reaching the moon before the US, emphasizing the importance of establishing precedent and rules in space. Michael said there might probably be a bipartisan "political feeding frenzy" in Congress if China beats the US to the moon, though he doubts this would lead to sustained focus on space given today's news cycles. Michael also expressed concern about the SLS rocket program being locked into law through the CHIPS Act, describing it as "expensive and really unsustainable." He noted significant philosophical differences between US and European approaches to space law, with Europeans favoring top-down regulations while the US prefers developing laws as activities evolve.

I experienced technical difficulties with the toll free phone during a call with AJ. AJ talked about the allocation of funds in a bill, specifically whether Trump could accept only certain parts (4 and 5) but not others. Michael suggested that the money was likely already appropriated so they would be stuck with it.

We discussed the Trump administration's interest in space, particularly commercial space, citing a recent executive order that aims to reduce regulation, simplify environmental reviews for spaceports, and elevate the office of commercial space to report directly to the Secretary of Transportation. Michael acknowledged that while space is a priority for the administration, they have many other pressing issues to handle. I also addresses a question about NASA leadership, stating that having a dedicated administrator would be more advantageous than an acting administrator who splits time between NASA and another agency. When asked about how ordinary citizens can influence space policy, Michael suggested contacting representatives directly or getting involved with an NGO.

We further discussed the challenges of influencing policy, noting that it often requires connections to decision-makers or hiring expensive lobbyists. Michael said the he liked writing articles to gain attention, occasionally working with congressional offices, though with mixed results. When asked about anti-space program sentiment, Michael indicated that while there are people who believe space funding could be better spent elsewhere, this isn't an organized mo