One Response per State

At first glance, NASA’s request seems straightforward: each State gets to make its case for the United States Space Academy. The fifteen-page request, issued September 10, asks each State to present “its strongest vision” for a campus “worthy of NASA’s mission.”³

But what does one response per State mean for a county, a university, or a community with something to offer? To me, that is where the document becomes interesting. Before asking which location makes the strongest case, we have to understand how that case gets heard. The requirements for participating, the information NASA asks for, and the decisions that follow all shape that opportunity.

The request opens to one voice per State: the entity its Governor designates in writing. Its firmest requirements concern form, and a response that misses the page limit, the font, the spacing, or the deadline can be set aside unread. Most of its detailed questions are phrased in qualified terms (“should,” “as applicable,” “to the extent currently known”), yet NASA calls all the requested information essential and ranks the answers against a single standard: how likely a response is to produce the Academy effectively and efficiently.

The timetable helps explain why the requested information matters. NASA’s plan calls for ground broken no later than 2027, about 300 students in class in 2028, and a permanent campus holding 1,200 by the fall of 2031. Reading the land, partnership, and funding questions against those dates makes their practical importance clearer. Under the process described in the RFI, the recommendation goes to the President for decision. That structure also raises questions about judicial review, which I consider below.

The document will not “directly result in the award of a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, lease, land transaction, or other Federal instrument.” It does not obligate NASA, the Commission, the President, or the United States to select a proposal, reimburse costs, negotiate, or complete any transaction, and any later transaction will need its own legal authority.⁵ In the vocabulary of federal acquisition, that is market research, and the review section uses exactly that phrase.⁶

NASA also describes the RFI as “the exclusive process through which an official State-sponsored response may be received and evaluated by NASA for presentation to the Commission.”⁷ A State must use this process to receive NASA’s official consideration, but preparing a response secures neither reimbursement nor a commitment to select its site. A Responding Entity that submits “accepts all the terms and conditions set forth in this RFI,” while NASA keeps the right, “at its sole and absolute discretion,” to extend any deadline, reject every response, or end the process.⁸

The request also does two jobs at once. Executive Order 14423 created a Presidential Commission, chaired by the NASA Administrator, and gave it until December 26, 2026, to report on, among other things, “the process for selection of the permanent physical location of the Space Academy appropriate for the chosen governance framework.”⁹ The RFI says its information will be used to develop that recommended process, and that “[a] separate announcement for formal proposals may be issued at a later date.” Yet the same document has NASA rank every eligible response and deliver the rankings to the Commission.¹⁰ If those responses are being ranked, how much can a State afford to leave unexplained? The State is making its case while the government is still deciding how the final selection should work.

One premise remains open. The executive order directs the Commission to recommend a governance framework and to “evaluate the option of establishing the Space Academy within NASA.”¹¹ The RFI proceeds on the working assumption of “a NASA-led, civilian Federal academic institution.”¹² Because the location process is to fit whatever framework is chosen, the terms on which land and facilities change hands may shift with it.

“State” is defined broadly to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths, and the territories and possessions. Each gets one response, and that response “must represent that State’s final, integrated approach.” One response need not mean one site: it may combine multiple parcels, interim facilities, or supporting consortium locations.¹⁴

The Governor must designate two actors in writing. The Responding Entity, “[a] U.S. domestic entity,” prepares and submits the response. It need not be a state agency, and it may partner with State and local governments, educational institutions, private developers, philanthropic organizations, and industry, counting their contributions as part of its own submission. The State Selecting Official coordinates and formally endorses the response and, if more than one arrives from a State, serves as “the authoritative point of contact for resolving which response has the official endorsement of the State.”¹⁵ The Governor’s written designation must travel inside the response itself.¹⁶

Where does that leave a county, a university, or a landowner hoping to contribute? NASA’s review rests “solely on the content of the information contained in the responses,” and information sent outside the RFI process “will not be considered in the initial review.” The NASA mailbox is watched only for process questions and for communications from a Governor’s designees. “Substantive information intended to support a State’s proposed location(s) must be submitted through that State’s Governor-designated Responding Entity or State Selecting Official.”¹⁷

The designation requirement draws a practical line between contributing to a proposal and submitting the State’s official response. A city, county, university, or landowner could have much to offer, but proposing a site does not by itself confer authority to submit that official response. The Responding Entity must have the Governor’s designation. That makes coordination within the State an important part of the work before anything is submitted.

Who is barred

Section 10 reaches past the Responding Entity to anyone who would “participate in the project (including as a contractor, subcontractor, or professional).” It bars persons debarred or suspended from federal business, persons on the nonprocurement or reciprocal exclusion lists in the System for Award Management, persons the Secretary of State determines pose a security or safety risk (including supporters of groups listed in the Country Reports on Terrorism), and persons under felony indictment or information in a court in the United States. The provisions on SAM exclusions, security or safety risks, and felony charges expressly mention “partners, members, or principal stockholders,” while the debarment or suspension provision does not. For purposes of the RFI, a principal stockholder is anyone who beneficially owns ten percent or more of the outstanding stock or other equity of the Responding Entity under the SEC’s Rule 13d-3.¹⁸ That rule looks through structure: it counts anyone who, “directly or indirectly,” has or shares voting or investment power.¹⁹

Respondents must also comply with export-control and sanctions law, “including restrictions under the Wolf Amendment.”²⁰ In its 2011 form, that appropriations rider barred NASA funds from any bilateral effort “to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company” unless a later law specifically authorized it.²¹ The ownership provisions therefore raise eligibility questions about proposed partners as well as the Responding Entity.

Section 04 supplies the planning assumptions every response argues from. The Academy intends to welcome an inaugural class of about 300 students in 2028. NASA assumes that by then the permanent campus “may not yet be constructed or operational” and the Academy “may not yet be accredited,” so it anticipates an interim model built on one or more partner institutions “while maintaining a distinct USSA identity and governance.” Respondents are to assume a permanent campus ready for 1,200 undergraduates by the fall 2031 term, with a footprint of “no less than 300 acres” and room for a mature Academy of about 4,000 students. Whether the campus is one parcel or several, the response must explain how it “would function as one coherent Academy campus.” NASA’s stated objectives add a groundbreaking “no later than 2027.”²³

NASA expects the campus to include academic, engineering, science, and research buildings; residences, dining, student life, and healthcare; “[m]ajor sporting venues”; research, innovation, manufacturing, transportation, logistics, and information-technology infrastructure; leadership-development, ceremonial, and formation spaces; controlled-access or secure technical facilities; and “[s]ufficient buffers from encroachment and capacity for significant future growth.”²⁴

When could the State actually make the site available? Section 05.A asks for the “[e]arliest estimated date the USSA could gain site access or control” and for regulatory requirements, “particularly any requirements that may delay NASA’s operational timeline.”²⁵ Could NASA gain access in time to break ground in 2027?

Federal environmental review shows why timing matters. Since 2023, the National Environmental Policy Act has set statutory deadlines: two years for an environmental impact statement and one year for an environmental assessment, each measured from the triggering date and subject to extension.²⁶ If an impact statement were needed and review took close to that period, the 2027 objective could be difficult to meet. The amount of review required, when it begins, and how much usable work is already available could therefore matter to the schedule. The RFI allows independent environmental assessments outside the page limit.²⁷

The tables below organize the information requested in Section 05, in the order the RFI gives it. The middle column records how each is phrased, because the wording helps explain what NASA is asking a State to provide. The last column gives the RFI’s printed page.

Land: the vocabulary of title

The land questions resemble questions a title examiner would ask, and two federal statutes provide useful context. NASA’s statute lets it accept “unconditional gifts or donations of services, money, or property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible.”²⁹ A proposed donation with a reversion condition raises a question about whether it fits that particular acceptance authority. That limitation offers one possible explanation for why “reversionary interests” appear on NASA’s list, and it fits Section 05.C’s statement that “NASA is not soliciting or accepting a gift through this RFI.”³⁰ If the government buys instead, “[p]ublic money may not be expended to purchase land or any interest in land” until the Attorney General, or a department or agency exercising delegated authority, approves the title in writing.³¹ The practical question is whether the land can be made available on terms the Federal Government can accept. The RFI asks States to work through those questions at this stage.

Item (g) turns from the parcel to its neighbors. A “controlled-access Federal campus” with “buffers from encroachment” depends on what surrounds it.³² How would the Academy function alongside the people, uses, and infrastructure already around the proposed site?

The first class and its partner institutions

Section 05.B gives partner institutions an important role in the proposed interim model. NASA anticipates that the Academy may not be accredited in 2028 and asks how partners could support the first class through classrooms, laboratories, housing, and athletics, all “while maintaining a distinct United States Space Academy identity and governance.”³³ The test of distinctness borrows the executive order’s description of the Academy almost word for word. The order says the Academy “will develop a professional corps of civically grounded leaders prepared to advance American interests within the space domain”; the RFI asks how the interim model could develop “a professional corps of civically grounded leaders prepared to advance American interests in aerospace.”³⁴ That description has become part of what a response must address.

Section 05.A asks about proximity to “academic institutions capable of supporting the inaugural instruction plan starting in 2028.”³⁵ Which nearby institutions could provide classrooms, laboratories, and housing for the first class, and when would those facilities be available?

Which commitments can the State actually make?

For each cost component, Section 05.C asks how much is proposed, how the estimate was calculated, how far authorization has progressed, what else must happen, and when the resources could become available. Items three and four help distinguish existing support from commitments that would require further authorization. The exclusion list tells States to leave out support that would not meaningfully affect feasibility, cost, schedule, or quality.

The post-deadline clause on “material developments” gives NASA’s own examples of what could still matter after the record closes: “new or materially increased State, local, private, or institutional financial commitments; changes in the availability or control of proposed land; newly enacted legislation or appropriations; new infrastructure commitments; or new binding commitments from participating academic institutions.”³⁶ Each example is a commitment, an enactment, or a change in the availability or control of land; none is a statement of interest. NASA has announced no weighting rule. Should greater weight be given to a smaller commitment already approved by a legislature or board than to a larger one that remains only a possibility?

The format rules are exact. The response must be a searchable, unlocked PDF with editing enabled. It must be set in Times New Roman at 12 points, on letter-size pages with one-inch margins, single-spaced with a double space between paragraphs. It is limited to forty-seven pages, and every page must reference “NASA-USSA-RFI.” After the identification material, the substance must be divided into three sections in a fixed order: the location plan, the 2028 interim plan, and financial capability.³⁸ The response must be emailed and received by 5:00 p.m. Central on October 26. NASA will not accept hard copies or late responses.³⁹

The RFI states the consequences plainly: “Responses that do not meet eligibility, page limit, line spacing, font size and other administrative requirements as listed in this RFI may be eliminated without review.” Pages beyond the limit may be removed and go unevaluated.⁴⁰ That sentence emphasizes eligibility and administrative compliance without separately addressing each substantive question. Does that make the detailed substantive questions optional? Section 06 calls the requested information “essential for NASA to conduct a fair and uniform review,” and NASA anticipates a review to ensure each submission “is complete.”⁴¹ Why leave NASA to guess whether an item marked “as applicable” was overlooked or does not apply?

The page rules also affect how a State can explain its proposal. Independent third-party material, such as environmental assessments, maps, conceptual site plans, and renderings, does not count against the forty-seven pages, and alternate locations may be presented in a separate document of up to twenty pages.⁴² For a State preparing its response, that creates space to explain its proposal while letting independent exhibits supply the technical detail.

After the deadline, the record closes. Respondents may not send unsolicited revisions, but they may give brief written notice of “a potentially material development that was not reasonably available for inclusion in its original response,” and the notice “must not constitute a revised response.” With the Commission’s authorization, NASA may request updates or open “a uniform, time-limited supplemental submission window.” “No Responding Entity has a right to revise its response.”⁴³

Finally, a confidentiality label is not a guarantee. Proprietary data must be marked on every affected page and identified in the cover letter. NASA will handle submitted information “in accordance with applicable law and regulation,” but it “cannot guarantee information will be exempt from disclosure merely because a respondent labels it proprietary or confidential.” The same section identifies a related responsibility for the Responding Entity: Responding Entities “are responsible for ensuring they have authority to submit all information included in their response.”⁴⁴ That duty reaches everything in a response, and it matters most for nonpublic material supplied by a landowner or partner.

The RFI states its general review standard this way. NASA “will consider how likely a response is to enable the effective and efficient creation of the USSA and rank responses accordingly.”⁴⁶ The RFI publishes no weights, no subfactors, and no scoring scale. The planning assumptions suggest what “effective and efficient” would have to accomplish: students in class in 2028 and a permanent campus open in 2031. The document does not say how NASA will weigh the land, facilities, funding, and partnerships needed to reach those dates.

The RFI describes the review process in these terms. NASA anticipates first reviewing submissions for completeness and compliance. It then ranks eligible, compliant responses and sends the rankings, “along with any notable observations,” to the Commission. Along the way it may request more information, confer with respondents, visit some or all sites, and ask for updated responses. The Commission is not bound by NASA’s findings, may conduct its own site visits and due diligence, and makes its recommendation to the President. The government “reserves the right not to make any recommendation” at all.⁴⁷

That sequence raises a further question: what could a State challenge if it is not chosen? In Dalton v. Specter, the Supreme Court considered a comparable chain for military base closures: the Secretary of Defense recommended, a commission reviewed, and the President decided. The Court held that the subordinate reports “carr[y] no direct consequences” and serve “more like a tentative recommendation than a final and binding determination,” so they are not final agency action. The President, who takes the final action, is not an “agency” under the Administrative Procedure Act. And “[h]ow the President chooses to exercise the discretion Congress has granted him is not a matter for our review.”⁴⁸

Dalton involved discretion that Congress granted by statute. The Academy process rests on an executive order that does not “create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity,”⁴⁹ and on an RFI that does not itself commit NASA or a respondent to a transaction. By analogy, those features suggest substantial obstacles to an APA challenge against the choice itself, although the analysis would depend on the action challenged and the claim presented. Dalton left room for constitutional claims, and later agency actions that carry out the decision, such as NASA’s own environmental review, raise separate questions.

The executive order anticipates Congress. The Commission must recommend any legislation its plan requires, and implementation follows “approval by the President, and any necessary legislative action.”⁵¹

Congress need not wait for the Commission. On September 15 and 16, members of Florida’s delegation introduced matching bills in the Senate and the House, the STARS Act of 2026. Each would establish the Academy “as an academy of the United States within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” require that its permanent campus “be located within the State of Florida,” set priorities for choosing a site within Florida, and provide that “no recommendation of the Commission may supersede the site-selection requirement.”⁵² As of September 28, both bills sat in committee with no further action.⁵³ If that text were enacted, the national competition the RFI conducts would become a siting question inside a single State.

The bills also use a different noun. Their long titles call the Academy “a service academy of the United States,” while the RFI describes “a NASA-led, civilian Federal academic institution.”⁵⁴ Those descriptions lead to a question about the institution itself. The executive order asks the Commission to recommend graduates’ service obligations, “including service in the Armed Forces and civilian Federal service,”⁵⁵ and the location process is to fit the governance framework chosen. What the Academy is will shape who governs it, what its graduates owe, and how its land is held.

Questions the RFI leaves open

How will “effective and efficient” be weighed? Which governance framework will the Commission recommend? How will the Academy reach accreditation, and will formal proposals follow? There is also the question of whether NASA will hold the State Information Session it reserved the right to host, which would require an amendment to the RFI.⁵⁶

For the States, the immediate question is practical: which proposal can break ground next year, seat a class the year after, and by 2031 open a campus equal to the mission?

Could Congress bring the Academy’s founding decisions together in a 2028 Space Act? Such an act could codify the path from State proposals to an operating institution: who selects the site, who governs the Academy, how it may acquire land, what funding Congress authorizes, and what service its graduates owe. It could also authorize teaching and research partnerships beyond the host State. What should that legislation settle before the first class arrives, and what should it leave open for the Academy to grow?