Trump's America

by Newt Gingrich

  We must do all we can to drastically increase the speed and scale of innovation in our American aerospace sector and reallocate our federal resources to achieve new goals. For too long, the United States has lacked a focused mission when it comes to space. Exploration and observation is important, but it is not enough. The United States should do all it can to enable American industry to commercialize space and create a new economy.

  This means Congress should create a “Thinking Big Space Caucus” in the House of Representatives and the Senate dedicated to writing the necessary new laws and passing expanded appropriations to revive our dominance in space.

  Further, change on this scale requires leadership at the top, constant action, a willingness to fail and to correct mistakes quickly, and constant pressure to focus on a bold future. Finally, the federal bureaucracy must be taught—or forced—to change current activities so it can achieve that future.

  EMPOWERING INDUSTRY AND DEFENSE

  The world market for space activities is continuing to grow.

  The Space Foundation estimated the 2015 total worldwide activity in space was $323 billion.

  According to the Foundation, 76 percent of this activity was commercial ($243 billion). Meanwhile, U.S. government space spending was estimated at around $45 billion (defense and civilian combined).

  In a decade, commercial space will likely grow to over $300 billion. Of course, if the cost of getting to orbit collapses as much as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos suggest, there could be a dramatically bigger market. The economic activity of the American space industry might even reach $500 billion a year by 2024, according to one study.

  United States domination in this global market would carry with it enormous national security, economic, and prestige value. For the last 70 years, the United States has dominated the airliner business. This has provided huge foreign earnings, American jobs, and a technologically advanced manufacturing base of tremendous value to our national security.

  America must establish the same dominance in the world market for space activities. This will require expediting bureaucratic requirements, rethinking some of the export control regime, matching foreign subsidies, and having the president possibly discuss coordinating with allied countries to join U.S.-led space activities. All these efforts must be focused on empowering the American space industry. It’s a matter of economic success, but also of our future security.

  In 2015, General John Hyten, who was then the commander of Air Force Space Command, gave a speech often referred to as a “call to arms” for military space. His concern was that foreign nations are rapidly developing and deploying anti-satellite capabilities, ballistic weapons that cover vast distances by transiting space, and weapon systems that could carry the next war into orbit. Since then, North Korea has aggressively developed nuclear weapons and an ability to launch them through space at the United States.

  What if the response of the United States was to leverage the technologies already being developed in the commercial sector? What if we developed reusable launch vehicles able to reconstitute our communications and intelligence satellite constellations within hours? What if we enabled reusable hypersonic global aircraft, which could carry 100 special forces anywhere on the world in hours—or minutes? What if we took advantage of the myriad communication and observation satellite constellations currently being deployed by the commercial sector?

  We created the world’s finest Navy and Air Force by building on American commerce. This is how we won World War II and collapsed the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Building on the great engine of American industry is also how we will protect and maintain peace on the twenty-first-century space frontier.

  For instance, hypersonic flight could be the biggest breakthrough in technology and transportation of the next 20 years. It could also be a significant military breakthrough. Hypersonic aircraft that can achieve a speed beyond Mach 5 (roughly a mile per second) are already at the development level. I have spoken to several companies operating in this arena that are developing engines, weapons, and passenger vehicles, which could potentially reach anywhere on the globe in four hours.

  As this technology develops—and if it is provided an environment to develop—Mach 5 engines could become a stepping-stone to even more powerful propulsion systems. With enough investment and research, we could eventually develop reusable systems that could take off from runways and achieve Mach 25—the speed necessary to exit the Earth’s gravity well. This could render traditional vertical lift rockets obsolete for transporting all but the very largest payloads into space. This is conceivable in the not too distant future.

  However, I have no illusions: Reaching Mach 25 from a runway will require a robust research program, many years of advancements in engineering, and rigorous trial-and-error testing. The jump from the Wright Brothers’ tiny first airplane to the first militarily usable aircraft took about 10 years. A decade of robust research in hypersonics would yield enormous results.

  Hypersonic flight technologies are an especially good area to empower investment because hypersonic vehicles and weapons give the United States a wide range of military capabilities, which would allow us to dominate in virtually every combat arena.

  This technology also creates breakthrough potential in commercial aviation. A flight from New York to Singapore could suddenly be a short (four-hour) trip in a hypersonic aircraft. This would produce a huge positive impact for passenger and freight air travel alike.

  Hypersonic flight may also eventually become the most convenient and lowest-cost way of getting people and smaller cargos into space.

  For these reasons, research and development of hypersonic systems should be a major investment priority for both defense and commercial applications.

  In addition to boosting research that enables the private sector, the military should be directed to maximize the use of services in space rather than paying for hardware. The military has a very substantial budget for space, and it currently maximizes old hardware systems which it can control.

  Shifting the military’s purchasing power toward paying for launches, research, or material manufacturing and other space-based commercial endeavors rather than large, expensive spacecraft would spur growth in the industry and help create a base for prolonged commercial activity. For example, the Wright Brothers built the first military airplane in response to a U.S. Army proposal. The contract they signed with the army enabled them to keep improving their aircraft.

  Further, if the Trump administration insisted that the military operate within the National Space Council, it would be a real sign of dramatic change. The scale of the military’s actual space activity can be tremendous. Consider the following example from the 1980s—when President Reagan was proposing the Strategic Defense Initiative for space-based missile defense.

  In 1987, in response to a question from Senate NASA authorizers Don Riegle and Larry Pressler, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote a fact sheet called “Space Funding: NASA’s Appropriations and DOD’s Funding Estimates for Space Programs.”

  The GAO looked at the period from 1981 to 1985 and came up with those years’ “space-only” numbers. (The NASA figures exclude spending for aeronautics, so they are different from the top line agency appropriation. The Department of Defense [DOD] figures were compiled from the armed services, Defense Agencies, SDI, and classified programs.)

  1981 NASA: $4.996B—DOD: $4.828B

  1982 NASA: $5.504B—DOD: $6.575B

  1983 NASA: $6.289B—DOD: $8.551B

  1984 NASA: $6.651B—DOD: $10.195B

  1985 NASA: $6.925B—DOD: $12.768B

  Clearly, if the Trump administration can engage the DOD in helping create a bigger commercial market in space, it could have a huge impact. Remember how important government subsidized airmail was in growing the American commercial airlines business.

  The latest National Defense Authorization Act proposal for a DOD “czar” on space may facilitate this step. However, as a prer
equisite for the appointment, any “czar” chosen should agree to transition toward more military purchases of services.

  MODERN SPACE REGULATIONS

  There are currently 58,622 employees of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Only 100 of these employees work on space regulatory activities. That represents 0.17 percent of the DOT workforce. Furthermore, these employees are buried within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

  Instead of waiting for the next budget cycle, as people retire DOT should transfer 100 more positions to space-oriented work to double the number of staff focused on space. Similarly, the president should consider reversing the Clinton administration’s decision to bury space regulatory activities in the FAA. Instead, the Secretary of Transportation’s office should directly handle space regulations. The administration already did something similar with the Office of Space Commerce. Vice President Pence directed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to move the space commerce office directly under his jurisdiction and appoint a new director of the office during the second National Space Council meeting in February 2018. This will help to enable a forgiving, streamlined, fast-fail, risk-taking approach that will allow industry to innovate and build an American commercial sector in space.

  To this end, the goal should be modernizing regulations for space—not reforming them. The difference is important. Modernizing requires regulators to consider the scale of launches over the next 20 years assuming the Trump-Pence goals are met. Modern regulations should account for commercial space activities, lunar colonization, missions to Mars, asteroid mining, tourism, and manufacturing in space. At the same time, terrestrial regulators should consider the robust increase in America’s capacity to defend itself once a fully functioning space economy is realized.

  This doesn’t simply require a few reforms of a system designed for a slow, small cottage industry of occasional launches. This requires conceptualizing many different approaches to making entrepreneurial and commercial space viable. Genuine innovators must not be crushed by government regulators. Commercial operations ought to have greater and greater autonomy as they prove more and more reliable. Eventually, we should get to a permissive, “file and fly” system for approving space launches, similar to what we have in the air travel industry. This scale of change means that regulatory modernization must be an ongoing process. There will not be a final breakthrough moment. Thought must be given to creating a flexible system that is capable of adapting at a rate that is inconceivable to most bureaucracies.

  This will also require convincing Congress to adopt new models of flexible regulatory evolution. This approach of continuous modernization must be broadened to include use of the electromagnetic spectrum, export controls, and other regulations which hinder our development in space. A continuous dialogue between users and the regulatory system must lead to continuous improvement in a timely way.

  Another way Congress could help bring more resources into the system would be to turn five smaller National Aeronautics and Space Administration centers into Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC). There are currently 42 such centers across the government. The five NASA centers that could fit this model are:

  • Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California

  • Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California

  • Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio

  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, New York

  • Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia

  These five centers could increase the entrepreneurship and flexibility of NASA activities and bring much needed private resources into the system. This FFRDC approach has worked incredibly well at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which collaborates with the California Institute of Technology, and could accelerate the tempo of development across the U.S. space sector.

  EXECUTING CLEAR STRATEGIC VISION

  A small working group should outline the key areas that must be developed to implement the Trump-Pence vision of a dynamic American future in space. It is important that this comprehensive visionary outline be developed as quickly as possible because it will shape much of what the Trump administration will be able to achieve in space—as well as lay the foundation for future activity in the next term.

  The past mismatch between words and budgets, combined with resistance from bureaucrats, lobbyists, and congressional special interests explain why most former presidential goals for space have remained merely words and led to virtually no change.

  Only by explaining and then imposing a clear road map into space—then exciting the American people and growing support in Congress—can real change occur that will turn “big thinking” into “big actions.” If this isn’t done quickly, the machinery of government and bureaucracy will force near-endless delays.

  To that end, if we are going to think big and act big, we need a much stronger, more dynamic National Space Council. The National Space Council should be more like the National Security Council—in both staffing and clout. It must be able to spur real change in government, provide real leadership for the private sector, and maximize presidential and vice-presidential communications efforts. This will enable the National Space Council to excite the American people, grow a grassroots pro-space movement, build a network of space activists and companies, and develop a strong legislative caucus in the House and Senate to sustain the legislation and appropriations necessary to think big and act big in space.

  The National Space Council needs full-time, dedicated employees. These should not be loaned from other areas of government. The Council also should have sufficient funds to pay for travel, conferences, public events, and grants. The Council must be able to plan, monitor, and empower a wide range of actions. While that is a big jump from the current operation, it should be remembered that the U.S. government spent $31.458 billion on space in Fiscal Year 2016 (not counting classified programs). Surely, in that context, this proposal for the National Space Council is modest. However, it is a necessary down payment on thinking big and acting big.

  Finally, the newly empowered Trump administration National Space Council must remember the adage: “you get what you inspect, not what you expect.” Someone must be in charge of each zone with a clear set of metrics for success. If the National Space Council is going to be the vice president’s operating arm for space, it must have the resources and authority to force movement. If the National Space Council is going to be primarily a policy developing agency, then other people must be tasked and held accountable. Since 1969, there have been a lot of good speeches and intentions about space—which disappeared into the bureaucratic, lobbying, parochial interest swamp.

  Breaking through that will require hard work and real accountability.

  But this work will be worth it. In 20 years, if the United States is as dominant in space as it has been in the sea and in the air, America will be at a tremendous economic, political, and security advantage. And the future of the human race in space as a free people will be dramatically more likely.

  CHAPTER SIXTEEN

  THE COMEBACK IS NOT GUARANTEED

  Once again America finds itself in a period of turbulent, intense creativity and conflict with no guarantee about the outcome.

  We have been here before, and—as long as we remain a free, dynamic, entrepreneurial society—we will be here again in the future.

  The key for Trump’s America in 2018 and beyond is to recognize we are in the fight of our lives against a well-financed, heavily organized, extremely militant coalition of people who despise us and the country for which we stand.

  Doing nothing guarantees America is taken over by this militant left-wing, establishment coalition that will use mob violence, news media propaganda, and government power to coerce the rest of us into submitting to their worldview.

  This struggle is profound and deeply felt. It is a countrywide cultural civil war. We should expect the fight to be remarkably intense. This is
not a time of compromise. This is a time of winning or losing. Each of us must decide if the America we love is worth fighting for. Our individual decisions will add up to victory or defeat.

  Fortunately, this is not a new experience. We can learn a great deal about today’s struggle by studying American history. One of the amazing things about the American story has been our ability to reinvent ourselves again and again. The depth of the struggle which produced the Jacksonian Revolution may be the most useful parallel to the rise of Trump and Trump’s America.

  America’s government started as an orderly Federalist system dominated by southern aristocrats and Yankee gentlemen of wealth. That group dominated society and government from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 through the election of 1820.

  However, as Gordon Wood has reported in numerous books, the flexibility and openness of American society undermined the power of the wealthy establishment. Inventors were creating the steamship, the cotton gin, the assembly line production of guns, and a host of new goods and services. Meanwhile, there were rural farmers and blue-collar urban workers who had contempt and hostility—instead of respect and affection—for the establishment.

  The tension between the dynamic America that was growing and the orderly America that wanted to keep its stability and control grew greater and greater. That tension found an explosive spark in the form of Andrew Jackson. General Jackson won the battle of New Orleans in 1815, beating the British and restoring American pride. Jackson then went on to become a two-term governor of Tennessee.

  In 1824, Jackson put together a unique coalition of rural farmers and urban working men during his run for the presidency. He was as favored in Philadelphia working-class precincts as he was in rural small towns. His aggressive campaign seemed to pay off with 99 electoral votes and 153,544 popular votes.