The Space Advocate Newsletter, October 2026

This month

"Science as a service" — the idea that NASA can purchase science data or other related capabilities from commercial companies — is one of NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman's major interests for reforming the U.S. space agency. The concept isn't new, but the phrase, echoing big tech’s "software as a service" terminology, was first outlined in his leaked Project Athena manifesto during the run-up to his confirmation.

In response to initial criticism of the concept, Isaacman shared his ideal version of what Science as a service would mean: “[what] was specifically called out in the plan [was] for Earth observation, from companies that already have constellations like Planet, BlackSky, etc. Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers and repurpose the funds for more planetary science missions (as an example)?”

Well, I’m certainly predisposed to more planetary science missions. But it’s still unclear what “Science as a Service” means from a programmatic standpoint, and whether it can provide equivalent science while backfilling budgets for planetary science, which faces a 26% reduction in the FY 2027 budget request.

In March, NASA released a formal Science as a Service request for information and asked industry partners to suggest ways in which they could serve NASA’s science needs. Notably, the request had a relatively narrow focus: Earth science, space weather, and astrophysics. Planetary science was not included (likely due to the lack of overlapping commercial markets beyond Earth).

Historically, such services are used to augment existing capabilities rather than replace them. NASA’s Earth Science Division has experimented with commercial data purchases since the late 1990s, and currently acquires data from various companies via the Commercial Satellite Data Acquisition program. Even earlier, in the 1980s, the U.S. government’s Landsat program was privatized. This experiment quickly went awry, leading to huge price increases for Landsat data that suppressed scientific output. Landsat 6, the program’s first and only commercially built satellite, failed at launch in 1993. Congress backtracked on Landsat’s privatization. Prices were lowered, increasing usage in scientific work. In 2008 Landsat data was released free as a public service, leading to an explosion in scientific output.

We know from these experiences that “science as a service” faces real friction if our goal is to support high-impact scientific work. Commercial data often come with restrictive licensing and access limits that make them hard to share widely. Data quality and calibration have plagued prior efforts, because commercial systems are designed for less stringent market demands rather than scientific standards. And companies often treat their calibration methods and instrument designs as trade secrets, making their data harder to trust in a scientific context.

But more fundamentally, “science as a service” seems to mean “data as a service,” and data are not science. Science is what happens when you apply highly skilled labor to data, which results in trustworthy analysis and interpretation. In that sense, NASA already has a “science as a service” program: the research grants to scientists themselves which fund the actual process of science.

Just as you wouldn’t dump a pile of lumber on the ground and expect skilled carpenters to build a house out of it for free, NASA can’t just acquire commercial data and expect it to contribute to scientific knowledge. You need to pay for the “science” part of the “science as a service” equation. Unfortunately, NASA is facing a White House proposal that would slash anywhere from 30% to 80% of this basic research funding.

So yes, let’s look for ways to get more data. But impactful science requires good data paired with skilled scientists, and right now NASA is underinvesting in this critical capability. In fiscal years 2025 and 2026, NASA awarded the fewest new science grants in a decade, by our count. As a result, more data will go untapped, and less science will be served to the public that paid to acquire it.

Until next month,

Casey Dreier
Chief of Space Policy
The Planetary Society

What I’m reading this month

Why "Science-as-a-Service" Doesn't Work for Earth Science (terrawatchspace.com)
A more in-depth essay on the challenges of using a data-services model to replace custom-built Earth science orbiters.

Things are finally looking up for NASA’s first missions to Venus in a generation (arstechnica.com)
Some welcome news: DAVINCI, which will drop a probe through Venus’ atmosphere to the surface, and VERITAS, an orbiter that will map the surface in high resolution, are moving forward toward launches in 2030 and 2032, respectively. Note the shoutout to The Planetary Society at the end — we’ve been working hard to support these missions.

What is politically savvy for a NASA administrator? (spacenews.com)
Responding to reports that the NASA Administrator has donated over $3 million to Republican-aligned political action committees, Jeff Foust of SpaceNews asks whether this highly partisan alignment threatens the nonpartisan nature of NASA that the agency depends on to sustain its programs over time.

Five questions for Casey Dreier (spacejamteam.substack.com)
Don’t miss my interview on the Spacejam! Substack, and see their recent article on the potential benefits of a more commercial approach to space science for a counterpoint to my position.

Space Policy Edition: What does “science as a service” really mean? (planetary.org)
The Planetary Society’s Chief of Advocacy, Jack Kiraly, and planetary scientist and Society board member Britney Schmidt joined me on Planetary Radio: Space Policy Edition to explore the “science as a service” topic in more depth. Don’t miss it!

Ground Truth

Data visualization and analysis

Annual counts of peer-reviewed scientific articles that report using Landsat data, contrasted against the average cost of acquiring Landsat data products. Publications dropped and flattened when Landsat was privatized and prices spiked. It was only after Landsat was returned to public ownership that usage began to increase, followed by an explosion in publications after Landsat data were made free to use in 2008. Adapted from Zhu et al., “Benefits of the free and open Landsat data policy,” 2019. Data source: Science Explorer (SciX) digital library.