Jared Isaacman’s Plans For NASA
Keith’s Note: Jared Isaacman just tweeted this. “Spent the last few months assembling a pretty extensive plan—shaped by insights from a lot of smart, passionate people. No shortage of input—everyone loves NASA and wants to help. Maybe I will write an op-ed someday—but I didn’t love being inundated with plans from people who thought they were uniquely NASA’s savior—and I have little interest in doing the same. (more below)
In short, I would have deleted the bureaucracy that impedes progress and robs resources from the mission (this is not unique to NASA it’s a govt problem). I would flatten the hierarchy, rebuild the culture—centered on ownership, urgency, mission-focus alongside a risk recalibration. Then concentrate resources on the big needle movers NASA was meant to achieve.
And if it came down to poor outcomes like failing to launch a near-complete Roman, shutting down Hubble or Chandra prematurely or flying reduced crew sizes to the ISS just to save money (yes, people are actually considering 3 astronauts instead of 4) … then yes, I would have funded it myself to protect the science.
That is not how it should work—and I honestly don’t think it would have come to that. With the right political support and smart management—logic should prevail.”
6 responses to “Jared Isaacman’s Plans For NASA”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Easy to say now that he does not have the job. Shouldn’t these things been said out loud when he was being vetted? Too bad it takes a loss of nomination to get the truth out. Not ideal for anyone.
Park this under no surprise whatsoever. A rich guy who thinks government is the enemy and doesn’t want to focus on risk. He was the least bad option, and that alone is depressing.
There is a lengthy interview with Isaacman on All-In Podcast which sounds to me Isaacman would proceed with the huge cuts proposed. I find it disturbing how he praises Trump and Musk for their outstanding leadership. OK so Elon makes SpaceX do great rockets (much at government expense) but that comes with significant damage to federal agencies. NASA will begin phasing out science missions to other worlds, HHS will phase out vaccines, EPA no longer deal with pollution control, banks will go unregulated.
I want him to “Embrace the Complexity” of the extinction level crises we face and deeply need Earth and space sciences for.
___
I fear that regardless of whatever good intentions he does have and any willingness to push back that he may have held in reserve, that even if he wanted to martyr his wealth for NASA the problems we face are orders of magnitude more complex and deeply intertwined.
___
Trump and Musk don’t even see the complex problems we face as real. Trump will have passed away from old age before it’s his problem and Musk is living in a persistent delusion stemming from his childhood trauma. Both care more for performing in order to gain attention, which inevitably means catering to the lowest knowledge and most hateful, which does not bode well for anyone.
And so many of our colleagues voted for this…smdh
He can still hire people and fund it himself if that’s what he wants. If that’s the case I look forward to collaborating and competing with him down the road.
___
Nonetheless his confirmation would not have saved NASA and realistically his power to do so would have been limited. Keith, you called out literally every organization to work together and I agree – but we have to keep and in fact increase that energy and focus to keep civilian space science going outside a gutted NASA.
___
And most of that energy is going to be chasing dollars, which means civilian space needs both Isaacman and the regular individuals donating what little they can in order to hold onto something. It’s possible, even if incredibly difficult.