NASA Administrator hopeful commits to the Moon, but will set priority on Mars

The Artemis Program political drama continues as Jared Isaacman, nominee for NASA Administrator, shares his support for returning to the Moon to build up the capabilities to get to Mars. This sounds very similar to NASA’s already-established Moon-to-Mars program, which has been the main talking point over the last eight years when asked about going to Mars. However, this goes against what has been publicly stated about the direction of the nation’s space program.

In his written testimony shared by Reuters, Isaacman states, “We will prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars. Along the way, we will inevitably have the capabilities to return to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security benefits of maintaining a presence on the lunar surface.” However, it also states he will prioritize a crewed mission to Mars if confirmed as NASA Administrator.

For now, Artemis 2 is still set to take place in early 2026, a crewed test flight of the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft. Future Artemis missions will require SpaceX’s Starship rocket to be ready to serve as its Human Landing System. Already, the missions are many years delayed, with little confidence that they will continue to stay on their current schedule.

What Isaacman’s plans look like for NASA’s and its partners’ return to the Moon is still unclear; however, we might see a glimpse of it during his hearing today in front of the Senate’s Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

Advertisement - scroll for more content

Isaacman has already met with members of the Senate to discuss his potential position in President Trump’s administration. So far, he has gained the support of Senator Katie Boyd Britt from Alabama and committee chairman Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.

Many believe that Isaacman’s nomination will be a smooth one, and with Cruz’s support, it strengthens the argument. However, it will need to go to the full Senate, which could take a few weeks, as the Senate is expected to go on recess on April 14 for two weeks.

Not exactly Trump and Elon’s plan

Isaacman’s Moon-to-Mars support is not exactly what President Trump and his close advisor Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO, want. The two have been in support of a direct Mars mission, even if this is unlikely to happen within Trump’s final term as President, and would seed China free rein of the Moon, destroy dozens of international partnerships, and potentially ruin any chance of a cis-lunar economy that many companies have been expecting.

The Moon-to-Mars approach could be the political middle ground, gaining support from Congress while pleasing Trump’s wish for a grand historic plan. However, Musk has been all in on Mars, even stating he believes going to the Moon would be a distraction.

Isaacman’s testimony could also be a political bait and switch, giving Congress what they want to hear, i.e., not canceling the Artemis Program and SLS for the short term while it builds out a bigger Mars program. Then, once confirmed, the Administration pulls the rug out from Congress and deprioritizes any missions planned for the Moon. This would make for heated budget discussions, as Congress is the one that approves where the money goes.

Moon-to-Mars at what cost?

What ever happens, NASA has been bracing for budget cuts for the next fiscal year. This will likely come in the defunding of Earth science and climate programs, as this is a Republican-controlled government after all.

However, Science could see a bigger cut than just a few percent; reports state that Science could see as much as a 50% cut from its budget this year. That would put an end to many of the agency’s missions in operation and any planned, basically neutering the division as a whole.

Science is likely the division to see the most cuts as the strongest support is all focused on the exploration side of NASA currently with the Moon and Mars programs. Isaacman, an avid pilot, will likely continue to support NASA’s small aviation research division. For now, the only champions for science seem to be advocacy groups like The Planetary Society and its small caucus in Congress.