In a special article, Sky News asks how Trump might make his dream of returning the U.S. to the Moon a reality:
"Why, despite all the technological advances since Apollo 11 astronauts went to the moon on a single Saturn V rocket, do 21st-century astronauts have to essentially change trains in order to get back again? The answer isn't really rocket science, it's politics.
The rocket NASA built to serve the [Artemis] programme, the Space Launch System (SLS), is phenomenally expensive … As axe-wielder-in-chief, Elon Musk is widely expected to have an eye on SLS. But his direct involvement would be controversial as his SpaceX firm would be a leading contender to build an alternative rocket.
The future of America's moon mission may also lie in the hands of another tech billionaire and friend of Elon Musk: Jared Isaacman, Trump's pick for NASA administrator.
Isaacman is a keen supporter of the new, more innovative entrants in the US space market like Space X, Rocket Lab and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin.
He also has the unique qualification of being the first civilian to have performed a space walk – on a mission using SpaceX hardware last year that he commanded and paid for.”
In Space News, Dr. Robert Brüll, C.E.O. of advanced materials company FibreCoat, argues that E.S.A.’s ‘fair contribution’ is unlikely to reinvigorate Europe’s space ambitions by itself:
“At present, many space startups, especially those making defense products or products with dual-use applications, are still viewed with suspicion by government and public agencies in Europe. They’re often seen as untested, unproven and therefore not worthy of sizable investment. That’s a problem, because many space startups develop technology or products with defence applications; the two areas often overlap.
"Growth-stage companies, equally, struggle. Lack of available funding causes companies to stagnate. Because Europe has exceptional education and research institutions, producing world-class talent and technology, the continent has become a hunting ground for the United States and Asia, which will back talent and support innovation so that they flourish. European talent ends up supporting the space industries elsewhere at the expense of our own.
Another key reason for this is Europe’s lack of programs like the U.S.’s DARPA, which provides significant funding to startups working on critical, high-impact technologies. This financial support is crucial for startups, as it not only supports growth but also attracts additional venture capital and debt funding. Addressing this gap could be vital to reinvigorating Europe’s space ambitions and fostering a thriving ecosystem for innovation within the continent.”
In BBC News, Pallab Ghosh explores whether Jared Isaacman, the new NASA administrator, is the right man for the job:
“In the past, the heads of Nasa have come from a variety of backgrounds: some, such as the previous incumbent Bill Nelson, have been former astronauts; others, such as Michael Griffin (in charge from 2005 to 2009) came from a government background, and before him Dan Goldin was an entrepreneur, striving to lower costs.
Despite their disparate backgrounds, those who have led Nasa have all been company people, charged with defending the space agency and its values. And yet Mr Isaacman, along with Mr Musk and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, is among a new wave of billionaires who have been challenging the old order in space. They have accelerated the pace of innovation and are aiming to dramatically reduce the cost of human space travel.
On the day of his nomination in December, Mr Isaacman posted a statement on X that gave an early glimpse into his vision. ‘This second space age has only just begun,’ he wrote. ‘There will inevitably be a thriving space economy – one that will create opportunities for countless people to live and work in space… At Nasa, we will… usher in an era where humanity becomes a true spacefaring civilisation.’”
In Bloomberg, Aaron Kirchfeld, Siddharth Philip, Pamela Barbaglia, and Daniele Lepido report that plans for a new European space and satellite company to rival SpaceX are progressing:
“Airbus SE has hired Goldman Sachs Group Inc. for advice on an effort to forge a new European space and satellite company that can better compete with Elon Musk’s dominant SpaceX, according to people familiar with the matter.
The talks to create a space and satellite business with French aerospace company Thales and Italy’s Leonardo SpA are at an exploratory stage and its full portfolio of services hasn’t been set, the people said, asking not to be identified because discussions are confidential.
Rome-based Leonardo has hired Bank of America Inc. for the plan, which has been dubbed Project Bromo, some of the people said. Paris-based Thales is also speaking with advisers, the people said. The two companies already have joint ventures on products for satellites and space telecommunications.”
In Space News, Anna Laura Villicaña argues that, after DeepSeek shook Wall Street, the U.S. space industry should reconsider regulations if it wants to lead in commercial space:
“This regulatory dilemma is not unique to AI; the space industry has long struggled with similar challenges under restrictive export control regimes. The same logic that applies to AI — where excessive restrictions risk backfiring — applies to space technologies, where rigid regulations like the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have made it difficult for American companies to collaborate internationally or maintain a leading role in the commercial space race.
The DeepSeek case serves as a timely warning: if the U.S. continues to impose overly restrictive policies on space technology, it risks ceding ground to foreign space competitors just as in AI.
A clear example of this can be seen in synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging satellites. SAR technology, which enables high-resolution imaging through cloud cover or darkness, is subject to strict ITAR controls in the U.S., severely limiting its export and international collaboration. However, foreign competitors, such as Finland’s ICEYE, have successfully commercialized SAR satellites without similar restrictions.
As a result, while U.S. companies face regulatory barriers that slow innovation and market expansion, foreign companies like ICEYE are gaining a competitive edge in the global space industry. Although export regulations such as ITAR are key to protecting national defense technologies, it’s also fair to say that the complex regulatory framework makes it difficult for the U.S. to maintain its leadership in the commercial space industry.”