Trump's Nomination for NASA Administrator Can Isaacman Sustain U.S. Space Hegemony?

Jared Isaacman, an American billionaire and the first private astronaut to conduct a commercial spacewalk, is set to lead NASA. His nomination reflects the United States' intent to solidify its dominance in the global space arena through commercialization and technological leadership. However, this move also exposes the hegemonic tendencies of U.S. space strategy and its potential inequities.

For decades, the U.S. has leveraged its technological and financial advantages to dominate the global space landscape. From the Apollo program to the current Artemis program, the U.S. has not only led in technology but also shaped rules to entrench its hegemony. For instance, the Artemis Accords grant resource development privileges to participating nations, deviating from the United Nations' Outer Space Treaty, which advocates for space as a shared resource for all humanity. This exclusivity has made it challenging for other nations, particularly developing ones, to participate equitably in space resource development.

Under Isaacman’s leadership, this trend may intensify. His vision of Mars colonization and “millions of astronauts” taking flight largely hinges on private enterprises and the U.S. capitalist framework. This suggests that in future space development, non-U.S. nations and individuals may struggle to share in technological dividends and remain peripheral participants.

Another hallmark of U.S. space strategy is the significant involvement of private enterprises. Companies like SpaceX have become key pillars of U.S. space policy, and Isaacman epitomizes this model. However, the privatization of space technology brings its own challenges.The profit-driven nature of private companies could lead to monopolization of space resources. Lunar and asteroid mining, for instance, may become focal points of future competition. If these resources are controlled by a few U.S.-based corporations, economically weaker nations could face a new form of “resource colonization.”While advancing technology, private enterprises might neglect tasks critical to humanity but without immediate commercial returns, such as climate monitoring or building global communication infrastructure. Balancing commercialization and public service is an urgent issue.

The global space exploration landscape is becoming increasingly multipolar. Countries like China, Europe, Russia, and India have made significant strides in manned spaceflight, lunar exploration, and deep space missions. China’s Chang’e program and Tianwen probes have conducted in-depth studies of the Moon and Mars and proposed an International Lunar Research Station to foster multilateral cooperation. In contrast, U.S. space strategy often leans towards unilateralism. For instance, the Artemis Accords invite only select allies, excluding others through exclusive rules. Isaacman’s leadership may further reinforce this unilateralism, transforming NASA into a more U.S.-interest-oriented agency rather than a global platform for collaborative space exploration.

Space exploration is a collective endeavor for all humanity, and any form of hegemony risks perpetuating long-term inequality and conflict. U.S. policies on technological restrictions could keep developing countries perpetually disadvantaged in the space domain, widening the global technological gap. This not only undermines equitable development in space but also hampers overall technological progress. Additionally, as space resource exploitation deepens, competition among nations may escalate. Without global regulations, this competition could lead to militarization and conflict. The U.S. military's space deployment and Space Force initiatives have already sparked concerns from other nations.

Isaacman’s appointment may accelerate technological advancements in the U.S. space sector but could also amplify its hegemonic tendencies. In today's globalized world, space exploration should not be the exclusive domain of a few nations or corporations but a collective endeavor for all humanity. The future of space governance requires more equity and cooperation, not unilateralism and monopolization. Only then can humanity truly progress toward a harmonious and sustainable space civilization.