Jared Isaacman and the Fate of NASA
With the surprise withdraw of a popular nominee for NASA Administrator, I ponder what could have been.
Jared Isaacman’s nomination for NASA Administrator has be abruptly withdrawn by the Trump administration. This has been widely viewed as a very negative development - Isaacman was both well liked across the space community and incredibly well qualified. He would have been the first NASA Administrator to have prior experience running a different space program (his own private Polaris program).
There have been many rumours about what happened, but he has now given an interview with the All In Podcast which clears up a lot of things.
It was an in-depth account of the story of his space adventures, starting with how he came into the orbit of Elon Musk - who he isn’t as close to as some people seemed to think, but clearly has a strong professional relationship with. He gives an account of how he gained the nomination and of his conversation with Trump, who he reports as being knowledgable about space, military issues and China.
He then discusses issues regarding the agency, and what he thinks ought to be done there. So, drawing on this, let us imagine an agency if his nomination had not been withdrawn. Obviously we can only go on stated intentions, and perhaps he would never have been able to achieve what he wanted to. But it is interesting to contemplate the direction he would have taken the agency.
Isaacman’s NASA
Isaacman would have been the first NASA administrator to publicly denounce the vastly overbudget, late, and obsolete SLS program. In his interview he compared using the Shuttle-derived components in the 2020s to fighting Desert Storm with P51 Mustangs. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that the SLS was likely the fastest way to get Americans to the Moon again before China can go the first time, which for him is a clear priority.
In his confirmation hearing he said that he felt NASA could pursue the Moon and Mars in parallel, and was questioned on how this could be affordable. Here he has given more clarity about what his approach would have been - reducing the scope of what NASA attempts to do.
Isaacman feels the agency should be investing in “needle movers” instead of lots of little programs, that it should not be funding R&D that could reasonable by done in house by companies, and that its bureaucracy needs to be significantly trimmed. This is unsurprising from a businessman’s point of view. I’m reminded of Steve Jobs’ return to Apple, where he upset many constituencies within the company by cancelling their pet projects which didn’t serve the wider purpose of the company. Such focus on top level missions would probably be good for NASA as well.
Speaking of missions, he favoured replacing large billion dollar flagship missions with a larger number of cheaper missions. This has echos of former administrator Dan Goldin’s “faster, better, cheaper” approach from the 1990’s - which was criticised at the time by those who said you can only pick two of those - but did result in more scientific missions being launched and money being saved.
With regard to human spaceflight - Isaacman does not seem to see any reason for NASA to have a continuous presence on the Moon, although he stressed we should find out if there is one. He favours essentially flags and footprints to put China in its place, then leaving the Moon to any commercial entities that want it and moving quickly on to Mars.
His views on Mars are that it is the first step in our “cosmic destiny” and it sounds as if he would have leant heavily on SpaceX to do this. He is opposed to nuclear thermal propulsion and would have supported the administrations decision to cancel it. Nuclear thermal would still require propellant refills, which somewhat negates its advantage over chemical propulsion - if you have a propellant infrastructure going, you can just add more rather than carrying a nuclear reactor around to boost performance. Instead, he favours nuclear electric propulsion, which gives significantly more Isp benefits at the cost of thrust, but also develops a space rated reactor which is suitable for use as a power source for in-situ resource utilisation.
NASA supplying nuclear power to support a SpaceX Mars mission is something proposed by Robert Zubrin, due to the large power requirements of producing propellant for Starships and the fact that nuclear technology is heavily regulated, difficult and expensive for private companies to develop. Either Isaacman has been listening to the debates on the matter or has independently reached the same conclusion. What is most interesting to me about this is that NASA might have had an administrator making significant program decisions on purely technical grounds that he is well versed in, in order to make the mission a success - without regard for political considerations. That is a rare thing.
Overall I think he would have been one of the best administrators in the history of the agency - and hopefully whoever takes up the nomination now can do at least some of what he planned.
The China Threat
During Isaacman’s time at Draken training US fighter pilots, he became concerned about gaps in miliary capability between the US and China. His views on the current space race reflect this - noting the Chinese program exploiting a second mover advantage and a lack of “baggage” to move much faster. National competition is a clear driver for him, and likely a reason why his initial meetings with Trump went well - he is closely aligned with the administration on this.
I myself have changed my mind on this - for a while I thought that the new space race was at the least exaggerated by China hawks. The Chinese program seemed to be governed entirely by its own internal timelines, unconcerned with what NASA was doing. They initiated the current space station program originally in 1992 and have not deviated hugely from the original plan. Their manned program was at methodical and slow, flying missions only irregularly and only when they had some new milestone. This has lead them to have a small module space station with regular crew rotations, but nothing Earth-shattering.
However, in recent years, their plans to put humans on the Moon have accelerated and been modified several times, to the point where they have a chance at beating the delayed Artemis program to putting the next boots on the Lunar surface. Their pursuit of reusability, both in the state program and various (ostensibly) private companies, indicates they are paying attention to what the US - especially SpaceX - are doing, and seeking to keep up.
In the interview Isaacman correctly pointed out their impressive flight rate, that were it not for the Falcon 9 would surpass the rest of the world. The Long March variants, LM-5 and LM-7, that cover the payload capabilities of Falcon 9 are launched at roughly the same rate at which new Falcon 9 boosters debut. In other words, China equally matches SpaceX for rocket manufacturing and the American advantage is purely a factor of reuse. Given numerous recent demonstrations of reusable technology in China, Isaacman and other hawks are right to warn of America resting on its laurels.
The worst case outcome of being denied the best leadership of NASA would be a “red Moon” moment. A lesser administrator might drop the ball on returning humans to the Moon, and in a few years leave Americans like the cast of For All Mankind, glowering at their TVs as the communists plant their flag in the lunar soil. For the sake of the free world, let us hope that doesn’t come to pass.
This is the end of the article. This one is free for all readers, but some of my work is for paid subscribers only. Upgrading gets you full access to articles like these:
The history and current state of the art of partial gravity research, important for building human colonies on Mars or the Moon.
How the threat of ASAT weapons and satellite constellation technology could lead to a militarisation of space.
…and many more, including my regular monthly Mass Value Report where I apply a unique analytical lens I developed in this paper to the launch and space industries.
To subscribe costs about the same as a cup of coffee every month. Would you buy me a coffee to hear a complete set of my insights each month?