Some Notes On Jared Isaacman And NASA Science
Keith’s note: A recent Politico article cited some internal ideas Jared Isaacman offered to Interim Administrator Sean Duffy. The article said “Isaacman’s manifesto would radically change NASA’s approach to science. He advocates buying science data from commercial companies instead of putting up its own satellites, referring to it a “science-as-a-service.” This article has morphed in various discussion to come out as characterizing Isaacman being anti-science at NASA. In his response summarizing his Project Athena document, Isaacman wrote: “Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.” Below is the letter that Issacman wrote to former NASA Administrator Nelson in 2024 when news of defunding Chandra first broke. Just remember: Isaacman funded two crewed missions that he crammed full of science and in the process also raised a quarter of a billion dollars for research and support for St. Jude. More below.
April 29, 2024
The Honorable Bill Nelson
Administrator of NASA
NASA Headquarters,
300 Hidden Figures Way S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Subject: Urgent Appeal to Reconsider Funding Cuts to the Chandra X-ray Observatory
Dear Administrator Nelson,
As someone deeply committed to advancing space exploration, I must address the recent decision to cut funding to the NASA Chandra X-ray Observatory. This letter underscores Chandra’s importance as the most powerful X-ray telescope in history and appeals for your support in reversing these cuts.
My name is Jared Isaacman, and I have had the privilege of serving as the Mission Commander for Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn, which are historic milestones in the journey toward a more accessible and vibrant space frontier. My professional journey, including my roles as the CEO of Shift4 (NYSE: FOUR) and co-founder of the aerospace defense company Draken International, has been driven by a fervent belief in pushing beyond the boundaries of what we believe to be possible. My ventures in space have been personal milestones and platforms to advocate for the same belief and the broader significance of space travel and related research.
The decision to reduce funding for the Chandra X-ray Observatory, a cornerstone in our quest to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos, starkly contrasts the spirit of exploration and discovery that has defined human progress. Chandra is a keystone of multi-wavelength observations, providing enormous synergy with the James Webb Space Telescope and essentially all cutting-edge ground-and space-based telescopes. The premature loss of Chandra will result in a death spiral for X-ray astronomy in the United States, evaporation of a talented national workforce, and ceding U.S. industrial leadership in the most critical discoveries of the coming decade. It is particularly disheartening to witness billions of taxpayer dollars funneled into the Space Launch System (SLS) and not one but two lunar landing contracts.
I urge you to recognize the critical importance of the Chandra X-ray Observatory to both our scientific community and humanity’s quest for knowledge. I petition you to restore full funding (approximately $70M/yr) to NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory in any FY25 legislation. My friends at savechandra.org have established a community-driven, grassroots site dedicated to this cause. I encourage you to visit their site to learn more.
Thank you for your consideration. I am at your disposal to discuss this further. My direct email is below or your team can reach out to my colleague.
Sincerely,
Jared Isaacman
Polaris Program
Mission Commander
jared – at – polarisprogram.com
www.polarisprogram.com
6 responses to “Some Notes On Jared Isaacman And NASA Science”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What did Isaacman have to do to re-gain the nomination? To whom did he prostrate himself, and for what?
Maybe it was the other way around.
I am curious of this “buying science data from commercial companies” which implies commercial companies will first produce it if it has reasonable revenue value. Instead of scientists do decadal surveys or pitch their projects to government. Funds are then allocated for that program with understanding there is no profit margin because it is doing science. While commercial companies built Voyager, Kepler, New Horizons, Hubble they did not have to show profits like building cars.
Well right now it is a few words on a leaked document that is probably going to be totally overhauled.
No one doubts that Mr. Isaacman likes science. His heart is in the right place. However, there is science and there is NASA science. His views about purchasing earth science data from the private sector betray a knowledge chasm. He should engage with the scientists at the centers if he wants to understand the issue. I suspect that SMD and center management are likely to tell him what the wants to hear.
from a NASA presentation,
Engineering & Science: How do YOU define them?
Engineering is “mechanical;” science is study of the natural world.
Science = natural study
Engineering = application of that knowledge
Science – producing new knowledge to produce new tools Engineering – producing new tools to produce new knowledge
Science searches for new information, engineering attempts to solve problems with existing knowledge.
Engineering is building things. Science is about research of the world, not application.