The next president of the United States could be the first in that office to accept a phone call from the Moon and hear a woman’s voice on the line. To do so, they’ll first need to make a series of strategic space policy decisions. They’ll also need a little luck.

Enormous government investment supports outer space activities, so the U.S. president has an outsize role in shaping space policy during their time in office.

Past presidents have leveraged this power to accelerate U.S. leadership in space and boost their presidential brand along the way. Presidential advocacy has helped the U.S. land astronauts on the surface of the Moon, establish lasting international partnerships with civil space agencies abroad and led to many other important space milestones.

But most presidential candidates refrain from discussing space policy on the campaign trail in meaningful detail, leaving voters in the dark on their visions for the final frontier.

For many candidates, getting into the weeds of their space policy plans may be more trouble than it’s worth. For one, not every president even gets the opportunity for meaningful and memorable space policy decision-making, since space missions can operate on decades-long timelines. And in past elections, those who do show support for space initiatives often face criticism from their opponents for their high price tags.

But the 2024 election is different. Both candidates have executive records in space policy, a rare treat for space enthusiasts casting their votes this November.

As a researcher who studies international affairs in outer space, I am interested in how those records interface with the strategic and sustainable use of that domain. A closer look shows that former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have used their positions to consistently prioritize U.S. leadership in space, but they have done so with noticeably different styles and results.

Trump’s space policy record

As president, Trump established a record of meaningful and lasting space policy decisions, but did so while attracting more attention to his administration’s space activities than his predecessors. He regularly took personal credit for ideas and accomplishments that predated his time in office.

The former president oversaw the establishment of the U.S. Space Force and the reestablishment of the U.S. Space Command, as well as the National Space Council. These organizations support the development and operation of military space technologies, defend national security satellites in future conflicts and coordinate between federal agencies working in the space domain.

He also had the most productive record of space policy directives in recent history. These policy directives clarify the U.S. government’s goals in space, including how it should both support and rely on the commercial space sector, track objects in Earth’s orbit and protect satellites from cyber threats.

He has called his advocacy for the creation of the Space Force one of his proudest achievements of his term. However, this advocacy contributed to polarized support for the new branch. This polarization broke the more common pattern of bipartisan public support for space programming.

Like many presidents, not all of Trump’s visions for space were realized. He successfully redirected NASA’s key human spaceflight destination from Mars back to the Moon. But his explicit goal of astronauts reaching the lunar surface by 2024 was not realistic, given his budget proposal for the agency.

Should he be elected again, the former president may wish to accelerate NASA’s Moon plans by furthering investment in the agency’s Artemis program, which houses its lunar initiatives.

He may frame the initiative as a new space race against China.

Harris’ space policy record

The Biden administration has continued to support Trump-era initiatives, resisting the temptation to undo or cancel past proposals. Its legacy in space is noticeably smaller.

As the chair of the National Space Council, Harris has set U.S. space policy priorities and represented the United States on the global stage.

Notably, the Trump administration kept this position that the president can alter at will assigned to the vice president, a precedent the Biden administration upheld.

In this role, Harris led the United States’ commitment to refrain from testing weapons in space that produce dangerous, long-lasting space debris. This decision marks an achievement for the U.S. in keeping space operations sustainable and setting an example for others in the international space community.

Like some Trump administration space policy priorities, not all of Harris’ proposals found footing in Washington.

The council’s plan to establish a framework for comprehensively regulating commercial space activities in the U.S., for example, stalled in Congress.

If enacted, these new regulations would have ensured that future space activities, such as private companies operating on the Moon or transporting tourists to orbit and back, pass critical safety checks.

Should she be elected, Harris may choose to continue her efforts to shape responsible norms of behavior in space and organize oversight over the space industry.

Alternatively, she could cede the portfolio to her own vice president, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who has virtually no track record on space policy issues.

Stability in major space policy decisions

Despite the two candidates’ vastly different platforms, voters can expect stability in U.S. space policy as a result of this year’s election.

Given their past leadership, it is unlikely that either candidate will seek to dramatically alter the long-term missions the largest government space organizations have underway during the upcoming presidential term. And neither is likely to undercut their predecessors’ accomplishments.

Thomas G. Roberts, Postdoctoral Fellow in International Affiars, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

About 23 million U.S. households depend on private wells as their primary drinking water source. These homeowners are entirely responsible for ensuring that the water from their wells is safe for human consumption.

Multiple studies show that, at best, half of private well owners are testing with any frequency, and very few households test once or more yearly, as public health officials recommend. Even in Iowa, which has some of the strongest state-level policies for protecting private well users, state funds for free private water quality testing regularly go unspent.

Is the water these households are drinking safe? There’s not much systematic evidence, but the risks may be large.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency still relies on a 15-year-old study showing that among 2,000 households, 1 in 5 households’ well water contained at least one contaminant at levels above the thresholds that public water systems must meet. While other researchers have studied this issue, most rely on limited data or data collected over decades to draw conclusions.

I’m an economist studying energy and agriculture issues. In a recent study, I worked with colleagues at Iowa State University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst and Cornell University to understand drinking water-related behaviors and perceptions of households that use private wells. We focused on rural Iowa, where runoff from agricultural production regularly contaminates public and private drinking water sources.

We found that few households followed public health guidance on testing their well water, but a simple intervention – sending them basic information about drinking water hazards and easy-to-use testing materials – increased testing rates. The burden of dealing with contamination, however, falls largely on individual households.

Nitrate risks

We focused on nitrate, one of the main well water pollutants in rural areas. Major sources include chemical fertilizers, animal waste and human sewage.

Drinking water that contains nitrate can harm human health. Using contaminated water to prepare infant formula can cause “blue baby syndrome,” a condition in which infants’ hands and lips turn bluish because nitrate interferes with oxygen transport in the babies’ blood. Severe cases can cause lethargy, seizures and even death. The EPA limits nitrate levels in public water systems to 10 milligrams per liter to prevent this effect.

Studies have also found that for people of all ages, drinking water with low nitrate concentrations over long periods of time is strongly associated with chronic health diseases, including colorectal cancer and thyroid disease, as well as neural tube defects in developing fetuses.

Nitrate pollution is pervasive across the continental U.S. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to determine whether water contains unsafe nitrate concentrations. Test strips, similar to those used in swimming pools, are cheap and readily available.

The water’s fine … or not

Mailing lists of households with private wells are hard to come by, so for our study we digitized over 22,000 addresses using maps from 14 Iowa counties. We targeted counties where public water systems had struggled to meet EPA safety standards for nitrate in drinking water, and where private wells that had been tested over the past 20 years showed nitrate concentrations at concerning levels.

We received responses from over half of the households we surveyed. Of those, just over 8,100 (37%) used private wells.

Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing annually for nitrate, just 9% of these households had tested their water quality in the past year.

More concerning, 40% of this group used their wells for drinking water, had not tested it in the past year, and did not filter the water or use other sources such as bottled water. They were drinking straight from the tap without knowing whether their water was safe.

Our survey also showed that, despite living in high-risk areas, 77% of households classified their well water quality as “good” or “great.” This may be driven by a “not in my backyard” mentality. Households in our survey were more likely to agree with the statement that nitrate is a problem in the state of Iowa than to perceive nitrates as a problem in their local area.

Climate change is likely to worsen nitrate contamination in well water. In regions including the Great Lakes basin, increases in heavy rainfall are projected to carry rising amounts of nutrients from farmlands into waterways and groundwater.

Providing information and tools helps

To see whether education and access to testing materials could change views about well water, we sent a mailer containing a nitrate test strip, information about risks associated with nitrate in drinking water, and contact information for a free water quality testing program run by the state of Iowa to a random 50% of respondents from our first survey. We then resurveyed all households, whether or not they received the mailer.

Over 40% of households that received test strips reported that they had tested their water, compared with 24% of those that did not receive the mailer. The number of respondents who reported using Iowa’s free testing program also increased, from 10% to 13%, a small but statistically meaningful impact.

Less encouragingly, households that received the mailer were no more likely to report filtering or avoiding their water than those that did not receive the mailer.

Households bear the burden

Our results show that lack of information makes people less likely to test their well water for nitrate or other contaminants. At least for nitrate, helping households overcome this barrier is cheap. We asked respondents about their willingness to pay for the program and found that the average household was willing to pay as much as US$13 for a program that would cost the state roughly $5 to implement.

However, we could not determine whether our outreach decreased households’ exposure to contaminated drinking water. It’s also not clear whether people would be as willing to test their well water in states such as Wisconsin or Oregon, where testing would cost them up to a few hundred dollars.

As of 2024, just 24 states offered well water testing kits for at least one contaminant that were free or cost $100 or less. And while most states offer information about well water safety, some simply post a brochure online.

The upshot is that rural households are bearing the costs associated with unsafe well water, either through health care burdens or spending for treatment and testing. Policymakers have been slow to address the main source of this problem: nitrate pollution from agriculture.

In one exception, state agencies in southeastern Minnesota are providing free well water quality testing and offering a few households filtration systems in cases where their wells are laden with nitrate from local agricultural sources. However, this effort began only after environmental advocates petitioned the EPA.

If state and federal agencies tracked more systematically the costs to households of dealing with contaminated water, the scale of the burden would be clearer. Government agencies could use this information in cost-benefit assessments of conservation programs.

On a broader scale, I agree with experts who have called for rethinking agricultural policies that encourage expanding crops associated with high nutrient pollution, such as corn. More restoration of wetlands and prairies, which filter nutrients from surface water, could also help. Finally, while the Environmental Protection Agency can’t force well owners to test or treat their water, it could provide better support for households when pollutants turn up in their drinking water.

Gabriel Lade, Associate Professor of Economics, Macalester College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NASA plans to send humans on a scientific round trip to Mars potentially as early as 2035. The trip will take about six to seven months each way and will cover up to 250 million miles (402 million kilometers) each way. The astronauts may spend as many as 500 days on the planet’s surface before returning to Earth.

NASA’s Artemis program plans to return humans to the Moon this decade to practice and prepare for a Mars mission as early as the 2030s. While NASA has several reasons for pursuing such an ambitious mission, the biggest is scientific exploration and discovery.

I’m an atmospheric scientist and former NASA researcher involved in establishing the scientific questions a Mars mission would investigate. There are lots of mysteries to investigate on the red planet, including why Mars looks the way it does today, and whether it has ever hosted life, past or present.

Mars geology

Mars is an intriguing planet from a geological and atmospheric perspective. It formed with the rest of the solar system about 4.6 billion years ago. Around 3.8 billion years ago, the same time that life formed on Earth, early Mars was very Earth-like. It had abundant liquid water on its surface in the form of oceans, lakes and rivers and possessed a denser atmosphere.

While Mars’ surface is totally devoid of liquid water today, scientists have spotted evidence of those past lakes, rivers and even an ocean coastline on its surface. Its north and south poles are covered in frozen water, with a thin veneer of frozen carbon dioxide. At the south pole during the summer, the carbon dioxide veneer disappears, leaving the frozen water exposed.

Today, Mars’ atmosphere is very thin and about 95% carbon dioxide. It’s filled with atmospheric dust from the surface, which gives the atmosphere of Mars its characteristic reddish color.

Scientists know quite a bit about the planet’s surface from sending robotic missions, but there are still many interesting geologic features to investigate more closely. These features could tell researchers more about the solar system’s formation.

The northern and southern hemispheres of Mars look very different. About one-third of the surface of Mars – mostly in its northern hemisphere – is 2 to 4 miles (3.2-6.4 kilometers) lower in elevation, called the northern lowlands. The northern lowlands have a few large craters but are relatively smooth. The southern two-thirds of the planet, called the southern highlands, has lots of very old craters.

Mars also has the largest volcanoes that scientists have observed in the solar system. Its surface is peppered with deep craters from asteroid and meteor impacts that occurred during the early history of Mars. Sending astronauts to study these features can help researchers understand how and when major events happened during the early history of Mars.

Asking the right questions

NASA formed a panel called the Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group to plan the future mission. I co-chaired the panel, with NASA scientist James B. Garvin, to develop and assess the key scientific questions about Mars. We wanted to figure out which research questions required a human mission to address, rather than cheaper robotic missions.

The panel came up with recommendations for several important scientific questions for human investigation on Mars.

One question asks whether there’s life on the planet today. Remember, life on Earth formed about 3.8 billion years ago, when Earth and Mars were similar-looking planets that both had abundant liquid water and Mars had a denser atmosphere.

Another question asks what sort of environmental changes led Mars to lose the widespread, plentiful liquid water on its surface, as well as some of its atmosphere.

These questions, alongside other recommendations from the panel, made it into NASA’s architectural plan for sending humans to Mars.

How do you get to Mars?

To send people to Mars and return them safely to Earth, NASA has developed a new, very powerful launch vehicle called the Space Launch System and a new human carrier spacecraft called Orion.

To prepare and train astronauts for living on and exploring Mars, NASA established a new program to return humans to the Moon, called the Artemis program.

In mythology, Artemis was Apollo’s twin sister. The Artemis astronauts will live and work on the Moon for months at a time to prepare for living and working on Mars.

The Space Launch System and Orion successfully launched on Nov. 16, 2022, as part of the Artemis I mission. It made the Artemis program’s first uncrewed flight to the Moon, and once there, Orion orbited the Moon for six days, getting as close as 80 miles (129 kilometers) above the surface.

Artemis I splashed back down to Earth on Dec. 11, 2022, after its 1.4 million-mile (2.2 million-kilometer) maiden journey.

Artemis III, the first mission to return humans to the lunar surface, is scheduled for 2026. The Artemis astronauts will land at the Moon’s south pole, where scientists believe there may be large deposits of subsurface water in the form of ice that astronauts could mine, melt, purify and drink. The Artemis astronauts will set up habitats on the surface of the Moon and spend several months exploring the lunar surface.

Since the Moon is a mere 240,000 miles (386,000 km) from Earth, it will act as a training ground for the future human exploration of Mars. While a Mars mission is still many years out, the Artemis program will help NASA develop the capabilities it needs to explore the red planet.

Joel S. Levine, Research Professor, Department of Applied Science, William & Mary

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.