Space Policy Directive 1

Space Policy Directive 1
Name	Space Policy Directive 1
Issued	2017
Issuer	Donald Trump
Related legislation	National Space Policy (United States)
Agencies	National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense (United States), United States Space Force
Status	active

Space Policy Directive 1

Space Policy Directive 1 was an executive direction issued in 2017 by Donald Trump that refocused United States civil space priorities toward human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, emphasizing crewed missions to the Moon as a precursor to Mars. It updated elements of prior policy established under Barack Obama and engaged agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Defense (United States), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (United States). The directive influenced planning at institutions including Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, and contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and SpaceX.

Background

The directive followed decades of policy evolution from the Apollo program era through the Space Shuttle period and the Constellation program cancellation during the Barack Obama administration. It drew on precedents such as the National Space Policy (2010) and the National Space Policy (2018) framework and responded to strategic dialogues involving Congress of the United States, hearings in the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and advocacy by figures including Jim Bridenstine and Robert Lightfoot. The document was situated amid renewed attention to competition from actors like China National Space Administration, Roscosmos State Corporation, and commercial entrants such as Blue Origin and Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Objectives

The directive set forth objectives aligning human exploration with scientific, economic, and strategic aims, endorsing a stepwise approach from cis-lunar operations at the Lagrange point and Gateway (spacecraft) concepts to surface operations on the Moon and eventual expeditions to Mars. It sought to leverage partnerships with International Space Station partners including Canadian Space Agency, European Space Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, and Roscosmos State Corporation where interests aligned. The policy emphasized sustaining leadership in space through collaborations with private firms such as SpaceX, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Northrop Grumman.

Key Provisions

Key provisions reoriented NASA programmatic planning, directing the agency to prioritize development of systems like the Space Launch System and the Orion (spacecraft), and to accelerate commercial crew and cargo capabilities exemplified by the Commercial Crew Program and Commercial Resupply Services. It called for increased use of public–private partnerships modeled on contracts with SpaceX and Boeing and supported technology maturation in areas including in-situ resource utilization, habitats similar to proposals from Bigelow Aerospace, and radiation protection informed by research at Ames Research Center and Johnson Space Center. The directive referenced coordination with defense-related organizations, including United States Space Command and the newly proposed United States Space Force, for aspects of space situational awareness and launch infrastructure.

Implementation and Agencies

Implementation responsibilities were assigned across multiple agencies: National Aeronautics and Space Administration for civil exploration execution, Department of Defense (United States) for launch range and national security coordination, and the Office of Management and Budget (United States) for budgetary alignment. Congressional oversight by committees such as the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation affected appropriations for programs like the Space Launch System and the Commercial Crew Program. Contractors and centers including Michoud Assembly Facility, Marshall Space Flight Center, and industry partners like Dynetics were integral to procurement and mission timelines.

International and Commercial Implications

The directive shaped international negotiations with entities such as the European Space Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, and Canadian Space Agency regarding contributions to lunar infrastructure and the Lunar Gateway. It influenced commercial market signals for companies including SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, affecting investments in launch systems, lunar landers, and satellite constellations linked to proposals from OneWeb and Iridium Communications. Issues touching on legal frameworks evoked instruments like the Outer Space Treaty and dialogues in forums including the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and bilateral consultations with Roscosmos State Corporation and China National Space Administration.

Reactions and Criticism

Reactions ranged from endorsements by industrial advocates and some lawmakers who cited revitalization of human exploration priorities, to critiques from former officials and researchers concerned about budget realism, program stability, and scientific balance. Analysts from institutions such as the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and think tanks including the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Brookings Institution questioned timelines tied to the Space Launch System and the trade-offs with robotic science missions championed by bodies like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. International partners expressed cautious support while raising issues about cost-sharing, governance of lunar resources, and alignment with treaties like the Outer Space Treaty.

Category:United States space policy