Jared Isaacman at House hearing yesterday

There has been a lot of attention given by the propaganda press to the testimony yesterday by NASA administrator Jared Isaacman before the House Science Committee, with almost all of that coverage focused on two issues, Trump’s proposal to cut NASA’s budget significantly, and the public statement by Isaacman that two Lunar Gateway modules were delivered “corroded.”

On the corrosion issue, much of the press focused on whether Isaacman’s statement is true (contractors are denying it). I instead was struck by how little pushback there was overall from Congress about Isaacman’s proposal to cancel Gateway entirely. In two hours of testimony, only one congressman brought it up, and even he did not challenge Isaacman’s decision very strongly.

Put simply, it really didn’t matter whether these modules were corroded or not. Congress is not going to challenge Isaacman on this decision. Some politicians might use it in fund-raising letters or at press events as a hammer to win votes or donations, but when it comes time to approve NASA’s budget, they are willing to accept Isaacman’s overall judgment. Gateway will be gone.

As for the budget cuts, I was also struck by the lack of hard opposition from Congress, despite reporting from the propaganda press (like this story) suggesting the cuts were rejected outright. Though repeatedly Isaacman was questioned about those cuts — especially from Democrats — repeatedly he fought back hard, to good effect. He supports Trump’s cuts and does not want more money, because in reviewing NASA’s budget and recent actions, he has found there is ample cash available in Trump’s reduced budget by simply shutting down bad or duplicative projects and focusing his resources more effectively.

The only threatened program that seemed to generate any passion from Congress was Trump’s effort to eliminate NASA’s education STEM program. “We need this program to inspire kids!” they would say. Isaacman would bluntly respond “No we don’t,” noting that NASA issues millions in education grants outside that program (making that program duplicative and unnecessary), and that the best way NASA can inspire kids is to actually fly missions, not send money to some bureaucratic program. Isaacman wants to use that money to make building the lunar base more likely.

Over and over again Isaacman pulled the rug out from under this big-spending congress critters by simply pointing out the truth to them, with one exchange with Zoe Lofgren (D-California) quite typical. She clearly was opposed to Trump’s cuts and wanted to challenge any cancellations being put forth. To do so, however, she wanted Isaacman to provide more detailed information about those cuts. Issacman said sure, I’m glad to provide you everything you want, but then added this:

I am here at NASA for the mission. If there is a program that is under-performing, not meeting expectations, or not [using] the best resources, I can assure you and promise you I will over-communicate and make the case why those resources should be spent on something else that better serves NASA’s mission.

In other words, if Congress wants to fund useless pork, or a mission that can’t do what it promises, Isaacman was making it clear that he was going fight against it, and will use his public platform to do so.

This puts the pork-lovers in a difficult position. Isaacman now has clout with the public. To go against him will not win votes. Moreover, he is playing this game very smartly. They all want a successful government space program, and he is eager to give to them. He is just demanding they let him do it using his own judgment. He will not support any program he thinks is counter productive, and he said so candidly over and over.

As a result, there was little pushback from Congress during this hearing over Isaacman’s major reshaping of Artemis. And though it is very likely they will restore most of Trump’s cuts, it is also very likely Isaacman will convince them to give him more flexibility on how to use the money.

Using NASA wisely, for the first time in decades

Isaacman also argued strongly, with little opposition, that the goal should be to off-load as much of NASA’s work to the private sector. Let NASA do stuff the private sector can’t, but the instant the private sector can do it, NASA should back off, stop doing it, and move on to other stuff outside the realm of the private sector.

Overall, this hearing reaffirms my earlier conclusion that Isaacman’s political skills are far better than anyone expected. He is forcing Congress to shift its focus from funding pork to funding a real American space effort, and to do so in a way that will in quickly foster a vibrant American space industry, outside government.

Keep your fingers crossed. If Isaacman succeeds in this effort, he will profoundly change America’s future in space, and for the good.