T-Minus Space Daily – "Is Space Becoming More Political?"

Podcast: T-Minus Space Daily (N2K Networks)
Host: Maria Varmazes
Guest: Kevin Kelly (Partner, Actum; former Senate appropriations staffer overseeing NASA/NSF)
Date: October 4, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode explores the question: “Is space becoming more political?” Host Maria Varmazes speaks with space policy veteran Kevin Kelly to understand how the space domain, historically bipartisan, is shifting amidst growing political, technological, and security pressures. Kelly brings decades of inside experience on Capitol Hill and in the space industry to break down changes in funding, strategic priorities, technological shifts, natural and adversarial threats, and the rise of private space actors—all of which are transforming how the U.S. approaches space as critical infrastructure and policy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Historic Bipartisanship to Political Fraughtness in Space Policy

• Traditional Unity:
  • Space historically united U.S. political factions, especially during the Cold War.

    “Space has famously, if not perhaps notoriously, been considered a bipartisan domain. Space was used to unite and unify the nation during the Cold War.” (Host, 00:55)

  • Kennedy’s Rice University speech is cited as a memorable symbol of unity.

    “Exhibit A JFK's speech at Rice University.” (Maria Varmazes, 01:10)

• The Shift:
  • Pressure points now include intense geopolitical rivalry, increased funding uncertainty, and strategic vulnerabilities, leading to more partisan debates.

2. Evolution of the U.S. Space Program and Natural Threats

• Personal Experience:
  • Kevin Kelly recounts his 1990s congressional oversight, including the Hubble “contact lens” optics fix, framing how the complexity and stakes have always been high.
  • The importance of learning from past crises in building today’s space policies.

    “[Senator Mikulski] joked about the most expensive contact lens in the history of optical science, which was the COSTAR fix for the Hubble Space Telescope.” (Kevin Kelly, 04:21)

• Our Increasing Dependence & Vulnerability:
  • Society is now critically reliant on space assets for GPS, communications, internet, and more.
  • Natural phenomena, like solar storms (coronal mass ejections), could devastate infrastructure.

    “In the 1850s, ... a coronal mass ejection ... destroyed, effectively, the Internet of the 1850s, which is the telegraph” (Kevin Kelly, 06:46) "If we in fact got hit by one of those direct [solar] storms..., it would cost the equivalent of like $2 trillion in terms of damage, because it would effectively fry the grid for a large portion of the Northern hemisphere." (Kevin Kelly, 07:20)

  • Warning times for space weather events have not kept pace with technological advances.

    "In the overall thoughts on our space weather system... it takes about 48 hours, usually, for a solar storm... to reach the Earth... How many minutes do you think we have in warning time today for that? We have 48 minutes." (Kevin Kelly, 08:21)

3. Geopolitical and Military Drivers: Rise of Strategic Competition

• Creation of Space Force:
  • Triggered by vulnerabilities in space assets and adversarial capabilities, especially from China and Russia.

    "With the creation of the Space Force, it's designed to deal with those strategic threats and ... dynamic space operations." (Kevin Kelly, 09:52) “...the Chinese today are now developing a way by which they can undertake dog fights with satellites.” (Kevin Kelly, 10:46)

• Changing Warfare:
  • Command of space-based assets now essential for military superiority—without it, conflicts like Russia-Ukraine could be repeated on a larger scale.

    “If you lose communications or you lose situational awareness from our space-based assets, you are fighting a war with one hand tied behind your back.” (Kevin Kelly, 11:58)

4. Funding Uncertainty & The New “Space Architecture”

• Unpredictable Budgets & Reliance on Commercial Sector:
  • Congress and the executive branch deliver mix messages: urgent strategic needs vs. budget cuts/uncertainty.
  • The U.S. is shifting from a few large (“Death Star”-like) government satellites to a larger number of small, replaceable commercial satellites.

    “Instead of having a few big assets in space, [we are moving to] this disaggregated constellation of many smaller satellites that, if we were to lose a few, you could replace them because they were less expensive.” (Kevin Kelly, 15:54)

  • NASA’s capacity as a direct operator has declined, with more responsibility shifted to private industry—and corresponding concerns about accountability and resilience.

5. U.S. Lunar Strategy & Repeat of the Moon Race

• China’s Ambitions and U.S. Response:
  • China is seen as potentially landing on the Moon by 2030; doubts persist over NASA’s ability to field a crewed mission by then but robotic missions may fill the gap.

    “I don't think we're going to be there by 2030 ... But that doesn't mean we still can't beat the Chinese to the moon with a robotic infrastructure.” (Kevin Kelly, 19:05)

• Risk to Bipartisanship and Program Continuity:
  • Growing political divides threaten the space program’s historic stability.

    “What I'm concerned about is that we not lose the bipartisan heritage that has been the strength of the space program ... that has gone on since the space program was begun in the Eisenhower administration.” (Kevin Kelly, 19:49)

6. Appropriations, Commercial Balance, and Program Viability

• Balancing Government vs. Commercial Roles:
  • The challenge lies in determining which functions must remain governmental vs. those that can be commercialized, especially where business cases don’t naturally exist (e.g., advanced weather satellites).
• NASA’s Science Under Threat:
  • Deep cuts to NASA’s space science portfolio could hollow out long-term capability and national talent.

    “Deep cuts ... would essentially kill off most of the space science program. It would cut it by half. ... It's a going out of business strategy.” (Kevin Kelly, 23:53)

  • Need for programmatic transparency, especially in complex projects like Artemis with its multi-vendor, high-complexity architecture.
• Consistent, Bipartisan Support Needed:
  • Space policy requires durable, bipartisan buy-in and stable funding to succeed, attract talent, and serve both national and scientific objectives.

7. Innovation, American Ingenuity & Future Prospects

• Seeds of Innovation:
  • Programs like NASA’s CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services), and private actors (SpaceX, Intuitive Machines), show efficiency and innovation but are not without risks if over-relied upon.

    “For all the criticism ... look at SpaceX, what they've done with launch cadence with the Falcon 9 is remarkable and people thought that they would never be able to do it.” (Kevin Kelly, 29:59)

• Lessons from the Past (Discovery Program):
  • Heritage of cost-capped, science-driven missions returning value and restoring confidence in U.S. capability when well managed.
• The Call for Unity:
  • Kelly’s closing plea is emphatic:

    “There has to be consistency in funding and in the commitment to bring us together in a nonpartisan way ... because that's the only way, first and foremost, that ... you'll attract the talent that we need in industry and government to actually face these big challenges and these big threats. ... In space, there's more that unites us than divides us.” (Kevin Kelly, 32:52)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Increased Vulnerability to Space Weather:

  "It takes about 48 hours ... for a solar storm, if it were to come off the surface of the moon_to_ reach Earth. ... We have 48 minutes [of warning]."
  (Kevin Kelly, 08:21)

• On the Transformation of Military Space Operations:

  “...the Chinese today are now developing a way by which they can undertake dog fights with satellites.”
  (Kevin Kelly, 10:46)

• On Funding Volatility:

  “It's very dynamic and it's a lot of uncertainty and there's a lot of risk that goes with that. And the question is, do our leaders have a plan in place that over the next five or 10 years will build out an architecture...?”
  (Kevin Kelly, 14:06)

• On the Challenge of Maintaining Bipartisanship:

  “...we not lose the bipartisan heritage that has been the strength of the space program, both on the national security side and on the civil side ... that worries me greatly.”
  (Kevin Kelly, 19:49)

• On American Ingenuity and Industry:

  “The seeds of American ingenuity are there across the board. ... But there has to be consistency in funding and in the commitment to bring us together in a nonpartisan way, because that's the only way ... you'll attract the talent ... to actually face these big challenges and these big threats. ... In space, there's more that unites us than divides us.”
  (Kevin Kelly, 29:58–32:52)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:55 – 02:35: Kevin Kelly’s background and historic space politics
• 05:56 – 08:41: Origins of political urgency in space, critical dependencies, and natural threats
• 09:52 – 13:10: Space Force rationale, adversary threats, changing military doctrine
• 14:06 – 20:29: Shifting U.S. space architecture, budget debates, and future lunar campaigns
• 23:26 – 29:03: Appropriations, public-private balance, program viability, and science at risk
• 29:58 – 33:22: Kelly’s final thoughts on innovation, industry, and bipartisan unity

Summary Takeaway

This episode makes clear: the politics of space are no longer just about national pride or competition with adversaries—they now encompass urgent security needs, resilience against natural and human threats, technological revolutions, and the transformation of how the U.S. funds and manages space activity. The stakes are existential for national security and scientific leadership alike. As budget turbulence and strategic rivalries intensify, Kevin Kelly warns that only consistent, bipartisan collaboration—and a renewed commitment to American innovation—can unify and safeguard the nation’s future in space.