Just between you and me. The NASA/SpaceX/Sean Duffy story yesterday is the kind of story I ha-a-a-te with a blinding passion. It's too much of an annoying people story that doesn't tell you the tiniest bit about some new technology, new engine, new telescope or camera or any cool-ass piece of technology. It's just my least favorite aspect of any space story is petty personnel crap.
Here we are 24 hours later and it has only gotten worse. But now it's bigger news. More complicated. More involved. Believe me, if I had more details on some mission or new piece of hardware, I'd rather post that. So I'll try to be brief.
It turns out that the Sean Duffy news presentation yesterday was upsetting. Eric Berger over at Ars Technica, who presented the base story I linked to, went for the attention-grabbing headline that "Elon Musk just declared war on..." Sean Duffy but the story title was a little wordier, and ended with the weasel word "apparently."
What has happened now? Why, it was only SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who is NASA’s most important contractor, referring to the interim head of the space agency, Sean Duffy, as “Sean Dummy” and suggesting Duffy was trying to kill NASA. Musk later added, “The person responsible for America’s space program can’t have a 2 digit IQ.”
This is all pretty bonkers, so I want to try to contextualize what I believe is going on behind the scenes. This should help us make sense of what is happening in public.
Perhaps Eric is on to something, and I bow in his direction for (1) having many years in this field (he's actually a certified meteorologist) and (2) largely because of that, he has put together a group of experts he can trust for good opinions and good guesses on things like "they said their new rocket is going to fly in X months, but when do you think it actually will?"
What Eric thinks this is all about is that Duffy wants to be NASA Administrator and it looks like Jared Isaacman is going to get nominated again.
Since then, a lot has happened, but it boils down to this. Duffy was, nominally, supposed to be running the space agency while searching for a permanent replacement. The biggest move he has made is naming Amit Kshatriya, a long-time employee, as NASA’s associate administrator. Kshatriya now has a lot of power within the agency and comes with the mindset of a former flight director. He is not enamored with using SpaceX’s Starship as a lunar lander.
After Isaacman's nomination was pulled, people close to Trump continued to vouch for the billionaire/former astronaut. Trump listened to his trusted circle and got closer to Isaacman, meeting with him multiple times since, and all were positive experiences.
The problem is that Duffy found he liked running NASA. NASA gets more favorable news coverage than the Department of Transportation gets in the news. To add to that, he brought his chief of staff from the DOT, Pete Meachum, and he also enjoyed having power over NASA.
Berger points out that what Duffy did yesterday in criticizing one of their most important contractors "just isn't done." Is it true that Starship is late with the Human Landing System? Of course it is. It's also amazingly ignorant to blast SpaceX for being late when virtually everything associated with Artemis has been late and over budget, not just Boeing's Space Launch System, but the mobile launch towers, even the new space suits needed for the lunar landing, which also almost certainly will not be ready by the projected 2027 Artemis III launch. If everything is late, why pick on just one?
There seem to be two clear reasons why Duffy did this. One, he wanted to show President Trump he was committed to reaching the Moon again before China gets there. And secondly, with his public remarks, Duffy sought to demonstrate to the rest of the space community that he was willing to stand up to SpaceX.
Maybe that should read "willing to pick on SpaceX." Eric also reports, almost certainly from well-placed sources in the other companies, that Duffy and Meachum had spent the weekend calling around to SpaceX’s competitors, like Duffy's mention of Blue Origin in Monday's report, asking for their support in his quest to remain at NASA.
By this morning (Tuesday, Oct. 21) it seemed like Elon had enough.
The acting administrator had gone on TV and publicly shamed Musk’s company, which has self-invested billions of dollars into Starship. (By contrast, Lockheed has invested little or nothing in the Orion spacecraft, and Boeing also has little skin in the game with the Space Launch System rocket. Similarly, a ‘government option’ lunar lander would likely need to be cost-plus in order to attract Lockheed as a bidder.) Then Duffy praised Blue Origin, which, for all of its promise, has yet to make meaningful achievements in orbit. All the while, it is only thanks to SpaceX and its Dragon spacecraft that NASA does not have to go hat-in-hand to Russia for astronaut transportation.
Will the crass and Trump-like moniker of "Sean Dummy" work? We don't know enough about the important interpersonal dynamics to guess. Like most experiments, we have to watch for the results.
SpaceX rendering of the Human Landing System, that I first posted here in August of 2021. It appears to be a crop from a larger scale image posted earlier in the year. Credit SpaceX
Another point to factor into the big picture is that the Wall Street Journal reported last night that Duffy has sought to move NASA into the Department of Transportation, as Eric Berger reported earlier in the afternoon yesterday. That would mean that even if Isaacman were appointed to be NASA administrator that he would report to Duffy. I would think it's more likely Duffy would appoint someone other than Isaacman; someone who is a more dependable suck-up.
Don't forget that NASA has been subject not just to the Schumer Shutdown but also to layoffs of 20% of its employees and the budget cuts going around this year. Morale is said to not be high and this situation isn't helping.
Final words to Eric Berger
So this is where we are. A fierce, behind-the-scenes battle rages on among camps supporting Duffy and Isaacman to decide the leadership of NASA. The longer this process drags on, the messier it seems to get. In the meantime, NASA is twisting in the wind, trying to run in molasses while wearing lead shoes as China marches onward and upward.
Okay, that's a lot to unpack. And if remotely true, then Musk's naming Duffy as "Dummy" is perfect.
ReplyDeleteI do hope Jared gets another chance.
Wow, go on the attack against the only one actually achieving. And, again, I get to point out that SpaceX would be far ahead if they haven't had to continually stop work on Starship because of lawsuits by BO and others.
Who is it that is launching on a regular basis and isn't stranding astronauts on the ISS? No brainer as to who is most likely to have a working system for reaching and landing on the moon in the shortest time. And they are not doing it on a "cost plus" basis. I hope Elon rubs their noses in it when he succeeds. As was noted, SpaceX is the only one with skin in the game.
ReplyDeleteSpaceX needs to raise prices to Nasa to deal with a difficult customer.
DeleteIt is a lot to unpack. Rather than getting into the weeds of who said what or did that, the simple solution is a whole house cleaning. Anyone 100% mission focused stays. Everyone else, clear out. Any lying about that gets one branded government wide and loss of pension. Top to bottom.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Duffy needs to go.
ReplyDeleteThe "cost plus" set up to space flight sounds like a NGO that gives kickbacks to the democrats... money money money!
ReplyDeleteThis whole things sounds like an ego trip on the surface, but I'll bet that (with this being an American problem) you'll find the correct answer if you follow the money.
Even if NASA was made part of the DOT, Duffy wouldn't get to choose it's head - the position is high enough it would still be a presidential appointee with Senate confirmation.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned elsewhere, he seems to be attaching himself to legacy government space, which from my perspective is a very self limiting position to take.
Jonathan
The cool kids in high school can socially freeze out competitors to keep their cartel intact. That's why they pick on the challenger but ignore their own similar failings. However, this only works if the cool kids are actually producing cool. NASA hasn't produced cool for many decades.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, NASA has been a laughing stock for 20-30 years. A history of failures, late and unbelievably late projects often abandoned after spending 200% of the estimate to complete. Failure after failure, poor leadership, just a total disaster. And somehow Musk acting like a child and the hurt feeling because of that is important?!! Musk does this because he cannot help himself. The same mental issues that make him a genius also make him a social misfit with zero control of his mouth and pen. NASA needs a complete revolution. They are mired in red tape, DEI, employees that cannot be fired and fear of making decisions. They have become a money pit where the main goal now is trying to justify their existence. Very little that is useful has come from the trillions wasted and shot into space by NASA. It has all been an ego trip and now we are only hiring lesbian and minority astronauts because the mission is/was never important all that matters is politics.
ReplyDeleteI was just starting to right the same basic thing, starting with, "so tell me what has NASA accomplished in this century." I was fine with getting them out of the "getting there" business but it looks like that isn't enough. If the Fed.gov wants to get to the moon, they can hire a private sector launch company and pay them to develop the way. Which is close to what Artemis started out as but that was ruined by congress specifying the Senate Launch System. Now I don't see any reason for the Fed.gov to be involved.
DeleteWe're in the awkward few years until a space-based economy really gets going. The only thing the new NASA admin should have to do is place an order with the private sector for the mission. More has happened since NASA went private on cargo and crew missions to the ISS than expected. I'd bet that all of the "space 1.0" industry - ULA, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, you name it - would be gone in five years if everything went private sector.
Of course it would, SiG, cost-plus is no way to run a program, unless graft and theft is why it was started.
DeleteHey, let's get FedGov out of th equation and see what happens! Whaddya say, Chuckies??
It's mostly the 'Manned Program' that is the issue. Probes and satellites seem to be doing well.
DeleteI'll say it again, Musk reminds me of the Mule in Asimov's Foundation trilogy. (Ignore the 4th book, it's garbage)
DeleteI've thought for the past few years that NASA should be a regulator only. But that comes close to paralleling the FAA. That latter should be hands off anything space related, ground ops, inclusive.
DeleteI've though of Musk as Harriman in Heinlein's "The Man Who Sold The Moon".
DeleteBeans,
DeleteMany of the probes and satellites are run by university groups under contract to NASA - JPL and JHU APL being two of the big ones, but far from the only ones.
I suspect they're smaller budget helps keep them focused.
Jonathan
Thank you for writing this SiG. Drama sells. Berger's customer base will enjoy infighting in the Trump administration and badmouthing Musk. Progress will slow down.
ReplyDeleteAfter I had published the post last night, I started looking at the comments, I didn't get farther than the first page in before I saw the first mention of Elon Musk being a Nazi - with that specific word. There were other comments that implied he was that didn't outright say the word.
DeleteRE: my comment about Musk To be clear, I do not think he is that awful being I think Musk quite needed and unique. When he has soared that high on his own wings, it must be difficult to keep separation between professional and personal lives.
DeletePolitical Horse Manure.
ReplyDeleteTypical
Typical
Typical
Sigh.