This is why, under Obama, NASA’s primary task was to make Muslims feel good about their contributions to science. Obama had a different political purpose for NASA than Bush before him or Trump after him. The result was that for the eight Obama years, NASA was adrift with no real goals, explaining why NASA has only sent one rover to Mars in the past decade and the next Mars rover, intended to pick up the samples dropped by Perseverance, is such an incredible mess. It is also why the Space Launch System is such an expensive and complete failure.

The director of NASA tends to change with each new incoming presidential administration. This is because it is a political position, not a politically neutral one. Trump has nominated a non-political figure for director, but that is not a requirement for the position. Even so, Trump intends Isaacman to carry out political policy at NASA, and we all believe that Isaacman will be perfectly willing to do so. If he is going to give up almost four years of his dreams, including the dream of leading the mission of the first manned Starship, then he would have to have a good alternate goal to achieve as director. Otherwise he would have given up his dreams for naught.

That doesn’t really answer my question. Even if the incumbent president elects a “yes man” as NASA administrator, With the intention of driving his own agenda, is the position intrinsically political?

Looking on from the outside, I have seen administrations come and go, and their aims and methods come and go with them, but have never seen an obviously political agenda in place.

On a more worrying note, I recently heard that there are plans in place to slice the NASA science budget by 25+%.. this seems madness to me, as science is what NASA does best. There has been nothing reported on here, and given Trump’s general support for space “stuff” , and Elon’s obvious interest, I was very surprised. Are there any boots on the ground reports?

Actually, no, it isn’t. By law (the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958), the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator must be appointed directly by the president. They are not civil service jobs, even if it happens to be the case that some incumbents (like Paine, Low, Truly, Bolden, etc.) were previously NASA civil servants previously in their careers.

So the president has always been able to put political figures (or at least, people with no previous background in NASA) in the job. And in fact, that happened early on, when JFK appointed James Webb in 1961.

He may even see Jared’s dabbling on the other side of the aisle as a way to deflect any criticism that Trump only nominates GOP men—explaining why Jared did write checks—but never really was part of protest culture like David Fogg.

Now—that’s just speculation on my part.

I think Mike Griffin is correct for whatever reason.

I think Mike Griffin was wrong for very persuasive reasons.

The Alabama Mafia were well aware of where Atlas and Delta rockets were built. I think they also knew that using one or both for lunar return would be small fry even with distributed launch, compared to how many people would be employed in their state developing two monster rockets. And that’s just Alabama. They had friends with votes in other key states, too.

And because the Alabama Mafia won, here we are today, with a monster rocket and a capsule, and after $70 billion, we have exactly one launch to show for it.

I’m glad he killed it–too Rube Goldberg
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1447/1

Trying to say this is all on Shelby ignores the fact that Delta IV (and Atlas V) were ALSO Alabama rockets—more so than even SLS.

I think Mike Griffin is correct for whatever reason.

Handle propellants on the ground only—and get rid of it in exchange for inertia—and dare THAT to leak.

Alabama may actually have made more money if O’Grief had his way—and some Moon program got NASA to launch a slew of D-IVs.

It would still be the wrong way.

I like SLS because it is one big Coke can and two big rato units to give it a run and go.

The problem is that Boeing—which wanted D-IV–is building SLS….a rocket they themselves tried to block.

That’s the problem—they are not really standing behind it the way true believer Tory supports Vulcan.

Vulcan can neither carry as much LH2 as SLS and is more expensive that Falcon.

Vulcan is the rocket that should get all the hate.

Had not heard about that. I stand corrected!

Lady friend was having a virtue attack the other day about Musk’s many love interests and offspring. I asked her if she had ever read about the personal life of one A. Einstein? The term “relativity” has multiple meanings in his life!

Richard M: Actually Trump’s record is no longer perfect. Earlier today Dave Weldon withdrew his nomination for CDC head. Apparently the administration recognized they didn’t have the votes in the Senate.

VSECOTSPE’s working theory is that Mike is pro commercial when he thinks politics will allow him to get away with it (as visible in his last gig at DoD), but folds like a cheap tent when they don’t. He suspects that that Griffin had to make certain promises to Shelby and other AL, UT, FL, TX, and maybe CO appropriators to get their vote on his NASA nomination, and that’s where ESAS, Ares I, and Constellation really came from, and why he immediately abandoned O’Keefe’s EELV-leveraged procurement plan for a crew vehicle.

Then again, this may leave us wondering why he was still flogging an Old Space based retread of Constellation on the Hill last year. Some have speculated that he was angling for another crack at the NASA Admin job, but if he was, that seemed like a strange reading of Trump’s mindset even before Elon became his BFF. Maybe he’s just a hardener sinner now.

Unless something really dramatic pops up in Jared’s background, I think we can feel reasonably confident that a) Jared will get his hearing, and b) he will be confirmed.

It is worth bearing in mind that Trump is (checks notes) 29 for 29 on confirmation votes. He is batting 1.000! Yes, it’s been by the skin of his teeth on a couple, but he’s always been able to whip just enough GOP votes when he had to. Obviously, too, a 53 seat majority allows a buffer for the usual suspects to defect.

And frankly, even with these little revelations, Isaacman is obviously not remotely the lightning rod that (fairly or not) Hegseth, RFK, or Gabbard were.

Also for the record, Trump has so far nominated for 235 total positions in the executive branch. 29 down, 206 to go…which is actually somewhat more than Biden at this juncture in time, according to the Washington Post’s tracker graph. So…frustrating as it is, maybe we should not be surprised that Isaacman has yet to get a vote. At least, for now.

Bob Wilson: “spate” is more correct, though looking at the definitions “spat” might also work, though not as well. I have made the change. Thank you.

He did think the primes and the AF were trying to foist EELVs upon NASA.

There has been a history of the USAF meddling…killing Saturns…. making Shuttle orbiters too big, etc

Mike really did believe in Arsenal method– he was thinking Ares I was going to be quick and dirty–only one liquid engine–J-2.

This was when we first heard the phrase “NASA shouldn’t build rockets but buy rides.”

But that phrase wasn’t NewSpace–the EELV providers came up with that slogan.

But when Elon showed up as a TRUE commercial alternative–then what would become ULA started to sound like Mike–talking about preserving in house capability.

I share that view with Griffin–but ULA tried to have it both ways.

They should have been punished with the down select going to Falcon and Omega.

OldSpace forced Elon off the coast under the aegis of “range safety,” proving Mike correct in NOT trusting vendors.

It sounds nice to just buy what a vendor makes–but that can get you in trouble…

Griffin’s idea was a lot like what my Dad told me about auto mechanics.

Don’t walk in and say “my car’s broke.”
That shows weakness.

Come up with a good idea as to what the problem is–and you tell the mechanic what you want done–and you tell him to only work on that.

Delta IV based hydrogen depots would doubtless be a bucket with a hole in it–so Griffin’s idea was an SD-HLLV. Boeing wanted EELVs, because boil-off was a feature.

So while folks have this imaginary concept of Mike Griffin being OldSpace–consider how he mentored Elon—vertical integration–don’t trust businessmen.

Patton always talked to lower ranking folks who would speak truly.

After a fashion–arsenal method is why SpaceX succeeds. Elon, unlike Beal–toughed it out.

Falcon does well enough–but, as the kids say “it’s mid ”

That is why an individual who literally wrote the book on spacecraft design–needs to be NASA Chief and that be a lifetime appointment.

I think Elon is in over his depth with Starship–which is why engineer Mike Griffin needs the appointment more than an adventure tourist who may (or may not) be a staunch DEI defender.

Grammar police. 2nd to last paragraph spat -> spate?

There are, but they tend to be Old Space affiliated guys.

“Former Senator John Tower’s nomination was blocked for being drunk and silly, but not drunk and silly enough to be a Senator again.” — PJ O’Rourke

By the way, here are 30 major companies that ditched their DEI departments after the election (which means, of course, they *had* DEI departments *before* the election). Truly, there is absolutely nothing remarkable about Isaacman supporting DEI during or even before the Biden administration.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/life/2025/03/13/30-companies-that-removed-dei-programs-trump/82268705007/

I don’t see the DEI problem. Just about EVERY company in the Anglosphere and Europe jumped on the DEI bandwagon during the time concerned. Why Isaacman should be singled out for that is beyond me.

If one of your top policy objectives as a Republican Senator, or indeed a Republican President, is to stomp out all signs of DEI in hiring, procurement, or outreach at NASA, then….it’s a valid line of inquiry in exercising your “advice and consent” role. I like Jared, or what I have seen of him, but I confess that if I were such a senator, I would want to get him for a personal interview to ask him about just what the nature of these DEI programs at Draken and Shift4 were, why they happened, what his role in erecting and maintaining them were.

It’s quite possible that even if he had some culpability, I could still vote for him if he seemed genuinely converted on the issue, and resolutely committed to administering NASA that way. (I note for the record that RFK Jr had to exactly this one-on-one kind of commitment with GOP senators in regards to handling abortion at HHS, as a result of his past enthusiasms for abortion rights. Apparently, he persuaded them.) It might be that Isaacman’s corporate DEI programs were not especially egregious. But certainly, something to do my homework on as a senator.

The gambling stuff bothers me less (and will likely bother senators less) if there have been no recurrences of it since 2009. It sounds like the sort of thing that a high risk entrepreneur techbro might do in his wild and woolly 20’s.

I’m wondering if he doesn’t need to unwind some financial/business arrangements before going to the Senate. Doing those can take time. He IS a billionaire CEO, after all (dang sarc filter keeps tripping).

Robert’s speculation may well be correct, but as Richard points out, that hasn’t kept RFK and Tulsi out, although they had very spirited hearings. I can’t imagine seeing the same level of passionate discourse over a NASA admin.

I would also point out that he is buddies with Musk, and that might be the BIGGEST resistance point, from the D side. You all know how thoughtful and rational they can be.

They are just not aerodynamic.

Timely article, considering Glenn Beck‘s program this morning revealing NASA’s DEI involvement… All set into motion while we were distracted by the catastrophe in the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
https://www.glennbeck.com/research/documents-nasa-dei-glenn-tv

The actual whistleblower NASA documents are available on his site, free to download.