Reforming NASA

This is a response to the following article:
spacenews.com/nearly-4000-nasa-employees-opt-for-voluntary-buyouts/

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the demographics of those that have left NASA according to the article above. It mentions a significant portion of senior personnel leaving, but it would be good to see the roles and experience in an accurate breakdown. Considering NASA has been plagued by budget overruns and management challenges, this may or may not be a good thing. The performance NASA has been less than lackluster, so this may be a blessing in disguise. We have to keep in mind that the main push of NASA recently has been the Artemis program and returning man (woman?) to the moon, of which it seems we are falling behind China, and even India in this space (pardon the pun). This raises concerns about the future of the American Space program and liberal democracies place in a space-faring future. The geopolitical implications are significant. We can not have the likes of Russia and China dominating all of the prime spots on the moon, or being the first to start asteroid mining.

If NASA was supposed to be the world leader in space exploration, it might be a good thing that their funding is cut, but the question then becomes, what was cut and where will those funds go? If we are really losing top talent from NASA that are specialized in fields that are necessary for space exploration, maybe the many private corporations will pickup these talented individuals. While I do believe that the federal government should be funding and creating strategic direction for the future of space, we can also agree that the wrong people could be in place to do so, which will only exacerbate the failing NASA's programs. Strategic reforms are needed. A coherent national space strategy should be developed that breaks past NASA and military thinking.

It is important to measure the future of a space faring nation against the the Space Development Theory of Dr. Joshua Carlson as stated in his book [[Spacepower Ascendant]]. This breaks the development of national space strategy into different phases (they don't necessarily need to be concurrent but generally are); Exploration, Expansion, Exploitation, and Exclusion (Sovereignty). The issue with NASA is that it solely focuses on the exploration phase of Space Development Theory (SDT from here on out). If the exploration phase is not leading to expansion, exploitation, or exclusion then the value of the exploration is a sunk cost. We are simply throwing good after bad. The American people deserve a space program that actually benefits them. At this point in time, the molecular makeup of Pluto and studying its orbit to determine whether it is a planet or not is not a good use of resources.

This is why NASA should be focused explicitly on supporting commercial operations in space. Space companies should help guide the direction of NASA for mutual benefit of the American people. It could help to answer questions about orbital periods of asteroids and chemical compositions for mining operations, same with the moon. While projects like Voyager and the James Webb telescope help us to answer deep scientific questions, what is the real value they provide in return? NASA should act in a similar capacity to the FAA and NOAA, providing more regulatory guidance, traffic management, and operating information for commercial operations. NASA could also act as a more focused DARPA for space operations, or even be absorbed by DARPA, providing highly beneficial research for space exploration that would guide commercial company operations and strategies.

It is not a stretch to say that the American people have lost interest in NASA and landing some people on the Moon 60 years after we already did that is not going to spark any additional interest, and that is okay. NASA can fall into the background and act as a critical component for future space-faring operations as another (metaphorical) 3 letter agency.