Last week, Jared Isaacman sat in front of his first Congressional hearing in what is expected to be his new career as NASA Administrator. On Wednesday, Isaacman sat in front of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee for his confirmation hearing, answering any questions the Senators wished before they voted on giving him the job or not. Here are five things we could expect from potential Administrator Isaacman if he is confirmed.
1. Moon AND Mars
As stated in an early preview of Isaacman’s written testimony, if confirmed as Administrator, Isaacman wishes to support both missions to the Moon and Mars along parallel paths. This is a change to the ongoing Moon to Mars program office that is working to build up the skills needed to launch a crew to Mars by first going to the Moon.
Isaacman believes there are plenty of skills to be learned while going back to the Moon and confirmed his promise to return NASA astronauts to the Moon. However, he continued to state that a continued presence would only be established if there are strong scientific and national security reasons to do so.
In a rare case of NASA politics, the crew of Artemis 2 were there front and center during the hearing. Rarely do astronauts get thrust into political roles; however, given the importance of Artemis’ survival during this administration, seeing them there is a sign they’re not going anywhere yet.
2. SLS is safe for now, but not long
Isaacman has been a long-time skeptic of NASA‘s continued reliance on Boeing’s Space Launch System for its lunar plans. He has supported canceling the program and replacing it with SpaceX’s Starship or another commercial option in order to reduce costs and potentially speed up NASA’s lunar return.
However, with the Artemis 2 crew to his left and in front of many Senators whose states support the SLS rocket, Isaacman stated that currently the SLS, with Artemis 2 and 3, is the fastest way to get NASA astronauts to return to the lunar surface. Isaacman did not go as far as to fully endorse the rocket’s continued existence, as he is still in favor of replacing it with something cheaper and faster.
3. Elon’s role is a sore spot?
Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and close advisor to President Trump, came up regularly during Isaacman’s hearing. A concern going into Isaacman’s nomination was his close connections with SpaceX, both because of his two space missions with them and also because his company, Shift4, owns shares in the company. Plus, Musk has a lot to gain from NASA handing SpaceX billions of dollars’ worth of contracts, something Congress is concerned Musk is manipulating with his current position.
One of the more confusing points in Isaacman’s hearing was when Senator Ed Markey asked several times if Elon Musk was present during Isaacman’s interview with Trump. Markey insisted that Musk was the one who offered him the job; however, Isaacman repeatedly responded that he had his interview with President Trump but did not deny Elon’s role.
Other Senators were focused on getting a promise from Isaacman that he wouldn’t take illegal orders, either from Musk or from Trump. Where Isaacman was easily able to confirm he “would follow the law.” A fairly useless political moment as would anyone planning on breaking the law tell you they would break it?
4. Budget be damned, we’re doing it all
Isaacman wouldn’t commit to any sort of project cancellations, a smart move given he needs the votes of those that would like any contracts those programs give. He even went as far as committing to not just both the Moon and Mars, but also to having robust Earth science and exploration programs as well. All of these promises come amidst potential heavy budget cuts to not just NASA but all government agencies.
So this begs the question, how will Isaacman do all of this? He states it is possible by reducing complexities and streamlining the agency as a whole. He noted that the large number of social media channels the agency uses could be reduced. I’m sure Isaacman will also rely heavily on the commercial industry to do things cheaper and faster than what the agency can do with traditional contractors.
5. Long term lunar stay isn’t a guarantee
As stated before, Isaacman’s testimony indicated his priority is on Mars, even though NASA’s current missions are returning to a long-term stay in the lunar system. During his hearing, Isaacman stated that he would await evidence of either scientific or national security importance before promising a lunar stay; however, that didn’t go over well with Senator Cruz.
After stating he would, in fact, follow the law when asked about following any potential illegal commands by President Trump, Cruz took that opportunity to bring up federal law that states NASA is to build a continued presence on the lunar surface or cislunar space. This put Isaacman in a corner to agree to follow the law, but not directly confirming a long-term lunar stay.
Of course, new NASA authorization bills can be built up; this could be done to task NASA with a mission to Mars and remove any lunar requirements. However, that will need to make its way through Cruz’s committee, which he chairs, and it sounds like he and many other senators on the committee are fans of a lunar stay.
Geopolitics is playing a big role in this decision. While Trump and Musk have their reasons for wanting to go to Mars, Congress is much more concerned over China’s lunar ambitions. They believe NASA must return to the Moon before China arrives to set the norms for how nations are to operate there and ensure space dominance.
While leapfrogging Mars could also be viewed as dominating space exploration, it sounds like we’re almost in an episode of For All Mankind with “Race for the Base” talk becoming the norm between NASA and the communists.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments