While there is still no definite date given for Jared Isaacman's Senate confirmation hearing before the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, all we have known for sure until now is that the nominees typically have some private conversations with the senators that will be on the other side of the table, and otherwise tend to keep quiet. They especially tend to avoid public statements that might make their confirmation hearings more difficult.
Because of this dynamic, we've heard very little about his opinions on the big questions the agency has to deal with. At this point, the success of the Artemis moon landing mission doesn't look like it's a safe bet. Do they keep the SLS or drop it, and if they drop SLS, how do they replace it? What about the a potential for switching to Mars as the big manned goal and dropping the moon return, which Trump has hinted at? There's the International Space Station sliding into obsolescence, the Mars Sample Return mission plan that remains unsolved, a limited pipeline of science missions, and the likelihood of budget cuts. On top of all of this, it's hard to imagine the NASA staff is free of the unease federal workers face as the Trump Administration scrutinizes their activities for efficiency and, to be honest, working for the benefit of America.
However, Isaacman made some of his most in-depth remarks yet on his vision to lead the space agency this weekend on the social media site X. Commenting on an image of Mars, it is notable that Isaacman chose to focus on the benefits of sending humans to the red planet.
"When I see a picture like this, it is impossible not to feel energized about the future," he wrote. "I think it is so important for people to understand the profound implications of sending humans to another planet."
Among these, Isaacman cited the benefits of advancing state-of-the-art technologies including propulsion, habitability, power generation, in-situ resource utilization, and manufacturing.
"We will create systems, countermeasures, and pharmaceuticals to sustain human life in extreme conditions, addressing challenges like radiation and microgravity over extended durations," he said. "These advancements will form the foundation for lower-cost, more frequent crewed and robotic missions across the solar system, creating a flywheel effect to accelerate world-changing discoveries."
Isaacman added that he thought that taking the first steps toward humanity living beyond Earth was not just critical to the long-term survival of humanity, but that doing so would inspire a new generation of scientific and technological leaders.
"Achieving such an outrageous endeavor—like landing American astronauts on another planet—will inspire generations of dreamers to build upon these accomplishments, set even bolder goals, and drive humankind’s greatest adventure forward," he wrote.
It seems inevitable that anything going on in DC becomes infected by contact with politicians. Just being nominated to be NASA administrator by President Trump has critics screaming about conflicts of interest, assuming that since he hired SpaceX for his Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions that he'll unduly favor them if given the position as leader of NASA. Never mind that SpaceX does more orbital flights than any other launch provider on the planet. Hiring them isn't just a logical decision, it's favoritism.
Although Isaacman's remarks this weekend were general in nature, we can draw some information from them. First of all, Isaacman does not appear to be foreclosing on the idea of a lunar component for NASA's deep space exploration program. He mentions "Moon to Mars" in his comments. However it is likely that NASA's lunar program will become more focused, with the goal of learning what we can on the Moon to support human missions to Mars.
As for Mars itself, it seems clear the Isaacman's spaceflight goals align with those of Trump—who, despite creating the Artemis lunar program during his first term, has always been more interested in sending humans to Mars—and Musk, who founded SpaceX with the express purpose of putting humans on Mars.
Jared Isaacman, the tall guy, with the Polaris Dawn crew last August, on arrival at the KSC to prepare for their mission. August 19, 2024. Left to right: Mission Specialist Anna Menon, Pilot Scott “Kidd” Poteet, Commander Jared Isaacman, Mission Specialist Sarah Gillis. Image: Adam Bernstein/Spaceflight Now
I've thought, from the moment it was announced that SpaceX would use a modified Starship to land on the moon, that having the SLS and the Lunar Gateway and the Orion and it's service module being part of the equation was ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou have this HLS Starship, designed to land 100 tons and at least 15 people, go from LEO to the Moon and has to stop in Lunar orbit to pick up a 2 man crew? What the actual Heck?
And there's a lot behind the HLS and a Moon landing that is directly relatable to a Mars mission. Long term crew environment issues. Layout of the crew areas. Cargo handling (more like an actual old cargo ship, dealing with huge (for space) amounts and sizes) and space cargo transfers. Communications equipment and issues. Long-duration comfort issues.
And... there's the whole China issue. If China lands, they'll declare it, as they've stated, for China. We need to put a permanent or semi-permanent facility on the Moon. Whether it's Earth-Side or Dark-Side, or both, a permanent habitat for research and testing and working out issues is needed.
There's also the whole 'the Moon is closer' thing and thus easier to get to if an emergency occurs. Assuming we've got rescue capabilities by then.
That's the stuff we need out of NASA - big damn hero talk.
ReplyDeleteCould be if rumors are accurate, might be a kind if dwell period here with Issacman taking the riegns. It appears from what i read from the DOGE data from ASAID money laundering racketeering, NASA was somehow involved in contributing many billions of federal tax dollars into that money laundering scheme, particularly with the hundreds of billions yearly which flow thru NASA, how simple it would be to divert funds and nobody has a clue while its going on, after all NASA disburses a ton of contracts yearly, and with the algorithms and codes used at the treasury to limit control access to trillions, nobody knew anything.
ReplyDeleteIf I was Jared, think it would not be till that was in some kind if solid investigatory stage before I would want to start running NASA. Besides, how ling and how much has been this laundering racket been running? All we have been shown is only a couple years of data.
I hate to burst your bubble, Anonymous, but NASAs bugets from 1994 to 2024 (31 years) averaged about $25 Billion in 2023 correct dollars and not hundreds of billions of dollars.
DeleteWhat we need to do, in order, from a logistics and engineering perspective:
ReplyDelete1. Build a "truck stop" space station orbiting Earth.
2. Build a space station orbiting the moon.
3. Build a temporary habitat on the moon.
4. Build a permanent habitat in the moon.
5. Build a space station orbiting Mars.
6. Build a temporary habitat on Mars.
7. Build a permanent habitat in Mars.
I like that, McChuck. The only problem I see - and it may well be a feature instead of a bug - is it still implies some sort of central planning, which I read as NASA. How do they get those things done in order without granting BFCs (Big Contracts)? Maybe it's just best for them to get out of the business of getting there.
DeleteWhole heartedly on the same page as you about leaving NASA in the dust SiG. Its the only way things will bust open reach real escape velocity. Has NASA a place, absolutely, no question, its a treasure trove of all the decades of priceless data, including NACA. We paid bookoo bucks for that too. Maybe what NASA should be turned into is a open source depository and library of data info engineering spec's etc, otherwise it will always have institutional feet in mud holding things back. At the least somehow like the FAA its got to be removed from politics which interfere with private venture, aka remove its regulatory powers, restructure that into advisory, with an elected council, that has Sheriff like constitutional officer of the law powers. Just to inhibit the worst of corporate and power money getting out of control and killing people, destroying the competition, messing with the earth and such, mostly very public trusted oversight.
DeleteThe most dangerous thing to space freedom is a person or company which made it because of space and tech liberty, who then tries to stop everyone else, rich capitolosts who got rich because America, then goes on to deny same said liberty for others made them wealthy to begin with. Thats kind of how things evolved in the US i think, and is still how it works, so having a monster regulatory body like NASA, and where its corporate/institutional order loyalties lay up where command decisions rule the back room.
Say that, because dollars to donuts, there are those on this dirt ball who do not want any of mankind to get free and clear out in outer-space where part of humanity can function in true liberty and freedom far from earth and their greasy meathooks. Guarantee it. Its orders of magnitude more difficult to rule over humans free in space than here on earth. If anything, and this is only me saying it, be sure there are things in motion to keep any human or organization from escaping from the gross tyranny of our times, they just cannot tolerate such a thing just as they can not now on earth.
NASA needs to be an advisory board and a think tank, not a jobs program.
Delete