Administrator Isaacman?

[tater]

Wow. That's potentially a great pick—he knows how to run organizations, and absolutely has spaceflight as a primary personal interest.

[Shpaget]

I'd rather see scientists in such positions.

[darthgently]

17 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

I'd rather see scientists in such positions.

I prefer those who’ve been in orbit, but these need not be mutually exclusive.  Isaacman could be defended as a journeyman polymath at least and is very science friendly

[kerbiloid]

The only substantial question is: does he play KSP?

[Superpluto126]

I guess NASA is going to have a good time the next 4 years.

[Minmus Taster]

Even in the current tidal wave of... interesting picks to stay as neutral as possible I didn't see this coming, probably influenced by Elon's experience. Not actually a bad idea in my opinion, maybe he can bring in some SpaceX flare to NASA.

[tater]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

I'd rather see scientists in such positions.

I prefer someone who understand politics, and/or running organizations, actually.

Science and engineering have virtually nothing to do with the reality the job which is large scale politics (Congress, etc), and the smaller scale politics of center vs center (different NASA centers have dissimilar interests).

 

[darthgently]

Excellent point Tim Dodd makes:  Hubble service mission likely just got vastly more probable 

https://x.com/erdayastronaut/status/1864353341737742782?s=46

 

Edited December 4 by darthgently

[Ultimate Steve]

This could either be really good or really bad. My full opinions on the matter would probably break the no politics rule so I will try to steer clear of anything too far, but the Moderators are welcome to edit this if I do go to far.

Mr. Isaccman has had two once in a lifetime experiences because of SpaceX with another two on the way. Putting him in a place where he has some amount of power over one of SpaceX's largest revenue streams and American space policy in general, well, at the very least that is a massive conflict of interest and should be setting off alarm bells, though by itself is not immediately a showstopper. And that is before even getting into how Elon's new committee position arguably gives him a knife at the throat of the regulatory agencies that have impeded, justly or not, SpaceX and his other companies.

It does not sit right for me for one company to possibly have so much control over the government agencies that fund and regulate it.

There are also a lot of green flags. He isn't just a guy who paid to go to space. He has emphasized the scientific, exploratory, developmental, and humanity centric aspects of what he is doing at every step. He very much appears to be a "going to space for the benefit of Earth" person. From his recent tweets he appears solidly in the middle politically, has a really strong passion for space and spaceflight, and has urged the government to not cut funding for the Chandra telescope in the past.

He had a really old (2022) tweet saying he did not agree with the decision to fund two landers. I disagree with this for the time being. I don't think it is wise for the government to go all in on Starship just yet, though if they keep improving at the rate they are, my opinion will likely change in the next year or two. Granted his opinions may have changed since then.

I would say I am cautiously optimistic. There is a lot of potential for him to do a good job, but there is also some potential for conflicts of interest, up to and including some level of "cancel everything and give it to SpaceX." Which is weird because that is arguably the correct thing to do in many cases and it may be difficult to distinguish motivations. We may very well end up in a situation where a lot of cool stuff gets done, but I may not approve of how it is being done.

He at least in passing has acknowledged climate change as a problem in a 2022 tweet (google being dumb and I am having trouble finding anything more if it exists) so we are already one step better than Bridenstine, and he turned out to do a pretty good job.

[tater]

21 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Mr. Isaccman has had two once in a lifetime experiences because of SpaceX with another two on the way. Putting him in a place where he has some amount of power over one of SpaceX's largest revenue streams and American space policy in general, well, at the very least that is a massive conflict of interest and should be setting off alarm bells, though by itself is not immediately a showstopper. And that is before even getting into how Elon's new committee position arguably gives him a knife at the throat of the regulatory agencies that have impeded, justly or not, SpaceX and his other companies.

With all due respect, this is completely unconcerning.

Ballast (Nelson) is literally the author of SLS, and has had political interactions (contributions) from involved parties for years. If connection to defense contractors (even as a customer of a contractor, which is this example) was disqualifying for NASA Admin or Sec Def, or FAA, or any number of other gov positions—literally none of those positions would have been filled since... forever.

24 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

It does not sit right for me for one company to possibly have so much control over the government agencies that fund and regulate it.

It gets funded by Congress, not the NASA Admin. The Admin merely pursues the policy agenda for space that the President advocates.

26 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

He at least in passing has acknowledged climate change as a problem in a 2022 tweet (google being dumb and I am having trouble finding anything more if it exists) so we are already one step better than Bridenstine, and he turned out to do a pretty good job.

Bridenstine was the best NASA Admin in decades, honestly.

[Ultimate Steve]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

With all due respect, this is completely unconcerning.

Ballast (Nelson) is literally the author of SLS, and has had political interactions (contributions) from involved parties for years. If connection to defense contractors (even as a customer of a contractor, which is this example) was disqualifying for NASA Admin or Sec Def, or FAA, or any number of other gov positions—literally none of those positions would have been filled since... forever.

Hmm, that's eye opening. The Isaccman connections feel a little more solid but this definitely reduces my concern.

5 minutes ago, tater said:

It gets funded by Congress, not the NASA Admin. The Admin merely pursues the policy agenda for space that the President advocates.

I was less talking about the congressional budget and more contract decision making - E.G. Congress funds a lander, NASA has to choose who to give the contract to. However I seem to have misremembered who has the authority to sign off on those decisions. For some reason I was under the impression that it was the administrator, but upon further examination, it does not appear like that is the case. Thank you for correcting my misconceptions.

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Bridenstine was the best NASA Admin in decades, honestly.

I haven't been following space long enough to make this assertion confidently but in recent years I would say yes to this.

With that out of the way I'm now significantly more confident in Isaccman. These should be an interesting four years indeed.

[Ultimate Steve]

Ow, well that's embarassing. I've been spelling Isaacman's name wrong all these years! Sorry, Jared!

[darthgently]

Just to inject a note of sobriety and humility into all this irrational exuberance and celebration, we should probably dutifully wait for Thunderfoot to chime in on the webz with his astute and weighty opinion of the Isaacman appointment before we get all excited like 10 yo school boys.

He will likely intellectually torch us shamefully with his brilliant take on this and we’ll regret having been so wrong and ignorant.

Meanwhile, I’ll make the popcorn and cue up the laugh track

[tater]

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Hmm, that's eye opening. The Isaccman connections feel a little more solid but this definitely reduces my concern.

Well, he bought a bunch of launches from SpaceX, so he's certainly a customer, then again, so is NASA a customer. There has been talk on X about him being an investor, but back during Inspiration 4, the specific story he told was that he managed to get a tour of SpaceX, then explicitly asked about investing—but was told that was not an option, and then they suggested he could move spaceflight forward in other ways, like buying launches... which he then did.

Senator Nelson (and Representative Bridenstine) both obviously had interactions with defense contractors/lobbyists while in office, and lobbyists always come with satchels of money (my wife brings a check when she visits our Congressional delegation to lobby for her surgical association—the check is small, so she only ever talks to some clueless 20-something staffer, to talk to the actual rep she'd need a steamer truck full of cash).

1 hour ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I was less talking about the congressional budget and more contract decision making - E.G. Congress funds a lander, NASA has to choose who to give the contract to. However I seem to have misremembered who has the authority to sign off on those decisions. For some reason I was under the impression that it was the administrator, but upon further examination, it does not appear like that is the case. Thank you for correcting my misconceptions.

Yeah, it was Kathy Lueders who pulled the trigger on HLS, not Bridenstine. She was a few steps below the Administrator. She was an Associate Admin for something or other at NASA (she's now at SpaceX in TX).

These choices have always been political since NASA was a thing... in the back room sense of political. Rewarding people, or picking friends you think will move the agenda—or just picking friends you think have an interest, like Nelson.

Cancelling SLS (Berger now says he thinks that's a 75% chance) means the Administrator going to war with Marshall, along with perhaps elements of KSC—as well as supporters in Congress. NASA is very center-orientated, with the different centers having very different interests. It'll be interesting to see what if anything he changes—and the Administration likely wants to see something huge/cool/best/biggest/whatever done in the next 4 years , so maybe SLS/Orion survives somehow.

Edited December 4 by tater

[RCgothic]

I'm cautiously optimistic about Isaacman as administrator. I think he'll be unsentimental about cutting elements that need to be cut and driving forward progress towards a greater goal.

I don't think he'll be able to command Polaris missions whilst NASA administrator however.

[AckSed]

The Planetary Society's hopeful take on the pick, including an interview from last year: https://www.planetary.org/articles/who-is-jared-isaacman

[Fizzlebop Smith]

Whoever takes the seat. I will be glad to see NASA regain some of it's relevance

[darthgently]

This vid linked in the Planetary Society link Acksed posted tells me the exact right choice for NASA admin was made for this juncture in human spaceflight

 

[Pthigrivi]

There's not a lot I can say in this thread without invoking the "P" word but just throwing it out there that cronyism and corporate favoritism were absolutely terrible not just for NASA and taxpayers but also in the end for Boeing and other major contractors for the obvious reason that government sponsored monopolies and regulatory blindness are a really terrible ideas. Its nice that SpaceX and to a lesser extent Blue Origin have shaken things up, but it does us no good if we just begin to treat them with the same system of crony favoritism and regulatory capture. Im sure Isaacman is a nice and competent man. Lets just hope we don't all regret his giant-bright-blinking-red-light conflicts of interest down the road. 

Edited December 13 by Pthigrivi

[tater]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

There's not a lot I can say in this thread without invoking the "P" word but just throwing it out there that cronyism and corporate favoritism were absolutely terrible not just for NASA and taxpayers but also in the end for Boeing and other major contractors for the obvious reason that government sponsored monopolies and regulatory blindness are a really terrible ideas. Its nice that SpaceX and to a lesser extent Blue Origin have shaken things up, but it does us no good if we just begin to treat them with the same system of crony favoritism and regulatory capture. Im sure Isaacman is a nice and competent man. Lets just hope we don't all regret his giant-bright-blinking-red-light conflicts of interest down the road. 

The current NASA Administrator practiced law of ~1 year, then went into politics in 1971. So the last time he had an actual job was 1970. But hey, he's been pals with the President for literally decades, that's cool. No conflict there! Government cronyism is still cronyism, or no?

Webb worked for Sperry for 8 years, but otherwise was just in government (ie: swimming in a sea of politics).

Many NASA admins were engineers, though, some for actual companies...

Goldin was at TRW for 25 years before appointment—conflict of interest?

Fletcher was VP of Aerojet—conflict?

We could find more if we bothered to look.

Do you have an algorithm for appointment? Let's see:

Can not have ever been a customer of a company that provides, well, ANYTHING, to NASA?

Certainly no one who has worked for an aerospace company in any capacity.

Should probably not be political at all—so no one ever elected to office, heck, no one who ever ran for office!

I assume you're fine with "purebloods" who have only ever worked at NASA? Can they have been in the military first?

Hmmm, what else? University professors? (what could be more apolitical than a university campus where all political views are equally represented!)

 

Edited December 13 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

38 minutes ago, tater said:

The current NASA Administrator practiced law of ~1 year, then went into politics in 1971. So the last time he had an actual job was 1970. But hey, he's been pals with the President for literally decades, that's cool. No conflict there! Government cronyism is still cronyism, or no?

Webb worked for Sperry for 8 years, but otherwise was just in government (ie: swimming in a sea of politics).

Many NASA admins were engineers, though, some for actual companies...

Goldin was at TRW for 25 years before appointment—conflict of interest?

Fletcher was VP of Aerojet—conflict?

We could find more if we bothered to look.

Do you have an algorithm for appointment? Let's see:

Can not have ever been a customer of a company that provides, well, ANYTHING, to NASA?

Certainly no one who has worked for an aerospace company in any capacity.

Should probably not be political at all—so no one ever elected to office, heck, no one who ever ran for office!

I assume you're fine with "purebloods" who have only ever worked at NASA? Can they have been in the military first?

Hmmm, what else? University professors? (what could be more apolitical than a university campus where all political views are equally represented!)

 

Yeah dude. The first half I agree with. Appointments based on who’s buddies with who and how many billions of dollars they can funnel to their friends and close business associates is a really dumb and corrupt way to make decisions. We should stop doing that. The second half of your post is in bad faith and I think you know it. 

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah dude. The first half I agree with. Appointments based on who’s buddies with who and how many billions of dollars they can funnel to their friends and close business associates is a really dumb and corrupt way to make decisions. We should stop doing that. The second half of your post is in bad faith and I think you know it. 

Not in bad faith at all, seems legit to me.

It's acceptable to argue that an NASA Admin must only be moved up the ranks in NASA, I suppose—though it's a bad idea, IMO.

[Pthigrivi]

10 minutes ago, tater said:

Not in bad faith at all, seems legit to me.

It's acceptable to argue that an NASA Admin must only be moved up the ranks in NASA, I suppose—though it's a bad idea, IMO.

Or like literally anyone who doesn’t have a glaring and obvious conflict of interest with one of the largest government space contractors?

[kerbiloid]

Why not Scott Manley again?

[GuessingEveryDay]

36 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Why not Scott Manley again?

There'd be some representative from the South asking whether they can trust a limey to take care of NASA.