Trump is withdrawing Jared Isaacman’s nomination for NASA administrator
Jared Isaacman
According to numerous reports in various news outlets today and first revealed at Semafor, President Trump has informed Jared Isaacman that he is withdrawing his nomination for NASA administrator.
The White House is pulling the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be the next NASA administrator, just days before he was set to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate, according to three people familiar with the matter and confirmed by the administration.
It must be emphasized that many of these stories speculate absurdly about the reasons for this decision, such as the Washington Post suggestion, underlined by conservative reporter Laura Loomer, that it was Isaacman’s links with Elon Musk that caused this decision, implying that Trump as problems with Musk, something that seems blatantly wrong based on Trump’s positive and many public expressions of support for Musk.
The Semafor story however indicated the most likely reason for this decision, by quoting one White House spokeswoman:
“It’s essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon,” said Liz Huston, a spokesperson for the White House.
This statement confirms something I sensed in March, before anyone else. I noted Isaacman’s past support for Democratic Party candidates and his apparent support in his companies for DEI, and wondered if the delay in getting him confirmed was due to headwinds in the White House and Republican Party over these issues. As I noted then:
These facts suggest to me that within both the Trump administration and among Republican in the Senate there are now second thoughts about Isaacman. Trump’s experience in his first administration, with federal appointees constantly sabotaging his efforts behind his back, has made him very determined to only bring people into his second administration he is certain to trust. Isaacman’s long support for the Democratic Party as well as DEI could be the reason the administration is delaying his confirmation.
More recently Isaacman has publicly expressed some concerns about the budget cuts at NASA proposed by the White House. Those tweets could have been the final blow to his nomination.
For Isaacman, this simply means that he can resume his own private Polaris space program, and align it with Musk’s parallel private Starship program to send humans to Mars, with both entirely without any government funding.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Jared Isaacman
According to numerous reports in various news outlets today and first revealed at Semafor, President Trump has informed Jared Isaacman that he is withdrawing his nomination for NASA administrator.
The White House is pulling the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be the next NASA administrator, just days before he was set to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate, according to three people familiar with the matter and confirmed by the administration.
It must be emphasized that many of these stories speculate absurdly about the reasons for this decision, such as the Washington Post suggestion, underlined by conservative reporter Laura Loomer, that it was Isaacman’s links with Elon Musk that caused this decision, implying that Trump as problems with Musk, something that seems blatantly wrong based on Trump’s positive and many public expressions of support for Musk.
The Semafor story however indicated the most likely reason for this decision, by quoting one White House spokeswoman:
“It’s essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon,” said Liz Huston, a spokesperson for the White House.
This statement confirms something I sensed in March, before anyone else. I noted Isaacman’s past support for Democratic Party candidates and his apparent support in his companies for DEI, and wondered if the delay in getting him confirmed was due to headwinds in the White House and Republican Party over these issues. As I noted then:
These facts suggest to me that within both the Trump administration and among Republican in the Senate there are now second thoughts about Isaacman. Trump’s experience in his first administration, with federal appointees constantly sabotaging his efforts behind his back, has made him very determined to only bring people into his second administration he is certain to trust. Isaacman’s long support for the Democratic Party as well as DEI could be the reason the administration is delaying his confirmation.
More recently Isaacman has publicly expressed some concerns about the budget cuts at NASA proposed by the White House. Those tweets could have been the final blow to his nomination.
For Isaacman, this simply means that he can resume his own private Polaris space program, and align it with Musk’s parallel private Starship program to send humans to Mars, with both entirely without any government funding.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
And repair / upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope? Pleeeeeeeease!
“For Isaacman, this simply means that he can resume his own private Polaris space program, and align it with Musk’s parallel private Starship program to send humans to Mars, with both entirely without any government funding.”
Good point.
Eric Berger has heard hints of who the replacement nominee might be:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/trump-pulls-isaacman-nomination-for-space-source-nasa-is-fed/
This is not confirmed, obviously.
But as you rightly observe, Bob, so much of what is being pumped out now about this story is not confirmed, either. I don’t think anyone really has a handle yet on why this decision was taken.
(It probably is the case that Kwast is at least being discussed, because Berger’s sources seem well placed to report this sort of thing. But they also don’t say he’s the pick, either. Just that he’s on the list.)
P.S. Yes, Eric couldn’t help editorializing there. Well, he’s still worth reading.
Patrick Underwood: A point that I intend to underline in an essay on Monday. The space community is of course panicking, see this as a disaster. We should look at it from a different perspective that could in fact indicate it is a blessing.
The New York Times (Kenneth Chang with two others on the byline) now has a story up, which gives us the rationale (or so their sources claim): If true, it does pick up on your concern from several weeks ago, Bob:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/us/politics/trump-nasa-nominee-musk.html
To all: It is important to say this over and over again: Any story in the propaganda press that relies on anonymous sources (such as this NYT article) is highly suspect. These swamp creatures play games, and use this compliant press like game pieces to get what they want.
This NYT article might confirm what I suspected before, but the spin is suspect. I can’t believe Trump did not know of Isaacman’s previous campaign contributions. To state this is to deflect from Isaacman’s apparent opposition to Trump’s cuts. Based on the facts as known, I think Trump was willing to live with those donations until Isaacman started to appear to him as a quesling working against Trump.
Yes, still worth reading, while simultaneously being exceedingly tiresome.
Seeing a lot of “Trump demands loyalty” and I’m thinking… right, the first President in history to do so. Eye roll emoji.
Richard M: Of the other two in the byline, Maggie Haberman has been clearly documented as suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Be warned.
Hi Bob,
No, it’s a fair point.
I only posted it because it is the only real substantive stab we have had at a rationale. Obviously, given that it is the New York Times means that the claim has to be treated with, uh, great care.
I likewise am a little surprised at the idea that Trump had no idea at all about Isaacman’s campaign donation history. I mean, most of it has been in the public realm since December, hasn’t it?
It could in fact be Isaacman’s’s comments about the OMB budget. It could be something else that happened that we still do not know about.
Richard M: Don’t misunderstand. I ain’t objecting to linking to the NYT or Washington Post. I just think it always wise to put a warning label on whatever these rags publish.
FYI, I emailed you. Did you get it?
A yes man being more important than competency.
Hi Bob,
Which email address did you send it to?
The new one (I am using it for this post) has nothing, not even in the spam folder. The old one is…currently on hiatus, til I decide what to do with it., if Google can sort it out for me.
Laura Loomer seems to have scooped even Semafor. She has an interesting take: that “Deep State” operatives tricked Trump into rescinding his nomination in an effort to sabotage the Trump administration. It seems to back up what the New York Times is reporting.
”Isaacman was on track to get over 70 Senate votes. So why the sudden reversal and talks to pull his nomination?
Because the Deep State doesn’t want President Trump to have allies like this in his administration.”
Is this really the case? I don’t know. It’s Laura Loomer, and she has a……track record. I bring this up because things like this happen when you value personal loyalty over competence in your employees.
PS: I’m getting the “posting too fast” error multiple times again trying to post this. FYI.
Political positions of Donald Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump
The objections to budget cuts for NASA didn’t go down well with the inner circle folk.
Seriously, directing us to wikipedia for Trump’s politics? Why not direct us to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion for insight into Judaism?
Robert Zimmerman wrote: “The space community is of course panicking, see this as a disaster. We should look at it from a different perspective that could in fact indicate it is a blessing.”
Well, yeah. The blessing that I see is that a commercial space customer will continue to advance commercial space. He may have been able to do something good at NASA with respect to commercial space, but I appreciate his willingness to be very public about his help with innovation as a test pilot and test engineer.
I see NASA as having been corrupted by politics. I noted in a previous post ( https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/may-21-2025-quick-space-links/#comment-1588475 ) a recent video by Amy Shira Teitel, space historian, on why we haven’t gone back to the Moon. Part of what she shows is that NASA was not a research organization, like NACA, but was always a political tool: John F Kennedy chose James Webb not for scientific prowess but for policy prowess.
“I need somebody who understands policy. You’ve been undersecretary of state, and director of the budget. This program involves great issues of national and international policy, and that’s why I want you to do it.“ — John F Kennedy to James Webb, to convince him to be administrator of NASA.
I believe that NASA should be turned into an organization that works more like the NACA, where research for better technologies is the goal. We already have people like Peter Beck, Jeff Bezos, Jed McCaleb (Vast), Elon Musk, Eren & Fatih Ozmen (Sierra Space), and a whole host of others who are aggressively performing the kinds of space research and utilization that We the People have long desired, and they are doing it on investor money (even when they are the investor), not taxpayer money. NASA was not set up to satisfy We the People, but to achieve governmental goals at taxpayer expense.
Isaacman is a leader in the space community in a similar way that these innovators are, and that is a reason why Trump chose him in the first place. Why Trump is now rejecting him may never be known, but Trump will undoubtedly give some reason.
_______________
John hare: “A yes man being more important than competency.”
I think you misunderstand. Loyalty does not mean “yes man.” Loyalty and competence are not mutually exclusive. It is not yes men that Trump looks for but people who will do as he wishes rather than stab him in the back. He still has knives protruding from the last time he chose poorly. Choosing a competent but wrong person, can result in disaster. You need everyone to row together and in the same direction, otherwise the consequences are chaos and calamity.
I see the question of the NASA budget cuts being in the hands of Congress. The NASA administrator can be a lobbyist…pushing for what he/she thinks is the right way to go. But basically they administer. And I didn’t imagine very many people listening to Isaacman.
Back when Isaacman was first mentioned I said “who?”. Internet said he’s a billionare from a finacial intermediary blah blah. And he’s a customer of Elon Musk, obviously. OK I thought, if Elon doesn’t object, then who cares, and anyway it doesn’t matter because NASA has become as effective and relevant as an IBM Selectric typewriter.
But then somebody must have done a real backgroung check on the guy. Oops. Bye.
Quote Deplorable Dave “NASA has become as effective and relevant as an IBM Selectric typewriter.”
Bingo!
Please—anybody but an Air Force man…
I am going to be sick.
I disagree with Jared about SLS…but he was badly used.
All that time having to deal with DC when he could have been doing anything else.
I wouldn’t treat my worst enemy that way.
It will be very interesting to learn the why of pulling this nomination. If I had hired someone that had the drive, determination, and intelligence that I knew would do a good job, and he wanted more money. I would say “Go for it”. The reason for me would be if this employee was wildly successful through drive and innovation, by golly, it would make ME look good! And Trump always wants to look good, be a winner, be the “first” etcetera. So I will be very curious to learn about the actual reason. Let’s not eliminate that Isaacman might be a type A personality. That could eat at Trump more than all the rest. Just sayin. I’ll check here often to see if BtB members/contributors can uncover the truth.
Trump himself has now said it was due to “prior associations”, lending credence to the New York Times article, as well as other theories.
“After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA.”
Hopefully we’ll learn more on Monday. I wouldn’t be surprised if Eric Berger has a scoop by then. He seems to have the best sources.
mkent: If true, then my March speculation was right on the money. However, despite what Trump says now, I also think that Isaacman’s apparent opposition to cuts in the NASA budget triggered this action.
He looks like Alfred E. Neuman.
Deplorable Dave-
You had no idea who Isaacman was?
Draken, Polaris Dawn, private spacewalk, raised St Jude’s $200 Million dollars?
Unfortunately, the public thought of him as “just another Billionaire.”
Too bad for NASA, I think he would’ve been great.
All: We must also note that Trump has plenty of long time former Democrats within his administration, many in very high positions of power (Robert Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard come immediately to mind). He is not necessarily bothered at all with “prior associations”. What matters is his impression of where that person stands in connection with Trump’s goals.
I strongly suspect that the administration and Trump increasingly became dissatisfied with Isaacman’s take on the budget cuts. I also suspect that Isaacman himself became increasingly unhappy with their differences.
In fact, it is quite possible that Isaacman is now sighing in relief, glad to be free again to follow his own path.
I would like to know the whole story regarding Isaacman writing a number of bad checks not to long ago.
He does not deny that he wrote them.
Something like this needs to be taken into account for any individual to be placed in a position of public trust.
It may be that someone finally got the whole story on this and it cannot ne ignored which seems like was happening.
There’s something fishy in all of this.
That’s pretty near my working hypothesis, too; and, in fact, it may even turn out to be the case that Isaacman had a more direct confrontation with Trump, or the more “Trump-aligned” people in the administration behind these cuts, and that confrontation proved to be a final straw for Trump, or for both men.
Former Democrats like Tulsi, RFK, Scott Bessent, Musk et al had made a very public and voluntary sign of submission to Trump before he appointed them to anything. That was not the case with Isaacman, who, one might think, never had that kind of maneuvering room to begin with.
Then there is this:
Isaacman assured the committee that the behavior was in his past.
Still, while orbiting Earth in a SpaceX capsule in 2021, he placed the first sports bet in Las Vegas from space.
I think the guy is compromised.
Patrick Underwood:
Did you look? Or just make assumptions?
Eric Berger is feeling more confident today in predicting that General Steven Kwast is going to get the nomination now, but also adds an interesting point:
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1928990950891634993
Isaacman can now do all the DEI he wants and the only harm will be to his own business.
Also I’m suspicious of anyone who is a gambler.
The whys and wherefores behind this audible called at the line of scrimmage will emerge in due course. Isaacman would, I think, have been good for NASA, but he’s hardly irreplaceable in the Administrator role and is now free to continue the Polaris project and – as I expect to be the case – serve as Commodore of the first Starship fleet to Mars that carries humans. Both are more important jobs than being NASA Administrator IMHO.
The brutal truth of things is that NASA has been fading in importance for a long time and this process is only going to pick up speed no matter who is sitting in the Administrator’s chair. NASA will be entirely out of the manned spaceflight business – except for buying rides – after two more SLS-Orion missions and its unmanned science probe component seems almost as rudderless and managerially incompetent as its manned spaceflight directorates. More and more even of basic science in space is going to be done via the equivalent of GoFundMe efforts by upstart wannabe Principal Investigators who would otherwise be casualties of the NASA science bureaucracy. Applied science in space, of course, will be entirely privatized within a decade as some of it already has been.
Gen. Kwast, if he turns out to be Isaacman’s substitute, is well-qualified for the NASA Administrator’s job by conventional standards. But, as a career military man, he’s never had to meet a payroll or oversee significant belt-tightening due to budget cuts – two items I expect to feature prominently on his to-do list if he gets the job. I’m sure he’d much rather have Gen. Guetlein’s job running Golden Dome but that billet is already filled.
”If true, then my March speculation was right on the money.”
Yup. I was skeptical at the time, but you called it. I wonder which way things are going to go now.
mkent asked, “I wonder which way things are going to go now.”
I plan to make my next prediction on this subject tomorrow (Monday).
Kwast was raised in Cameroon?
Did Trump ask for his birth certificate?
Seriously—putting an Air Force Man over NASA ranks right down there with making Greta Thunberg CEO of EXXON.
To steal a quote, airpower advocates were able to
“silence Clausewitz in WWI… to render him obsolete in WWII…to ignore him in Korea…to co-opt him post-Vietnam, and to celebrate his demise after the Gulf War.”
Medaris of the ABMA warned us that the USAF was not based on a mission—but a weapon…the airplane.
Instead of having Dyna-Soar atop Saturn IB—USAF wanted it all. They and their spooky friends interfered with shuttle. The Challenger Disaster started with segmented solids needed by Titans to match Saturn.
Not only did they not like Griffin, but they and their buddies at Aerospace Corp tried to freeze Elon out.
If you want to kill American Spaceflight for good—yeah—you go ahead and put a Blue-Suit in as NASA Chief.
A flat earthier in that office couldn’t do any more damage.
An entertaining rant, Jeff. But NASA, as an institution, is now in roughly the same shape as an 8th Air Force B-17 returning from a particularly nasty mission over Regensburg or Schweinfurt – shot full of holes with half the elevator missing and one engine out and trailing smoke. It just may take a USAF guy in the left seat to put this bird down easy enough that she doesn’t ground loop and kill everybody.
CNN shows video clip last night of what appears to be a small drone flying near the Venera 7 probe on Venus. Followed by a small explosion. Grainy clip however. Waiting for confirmation.
By suggesting the withdrawal was not due to apartness between Musk and Trump, you seem to suggest that his nomination in the first place was due to Musk. And now since Musk is kinda history so is this nomination.
If any person would like to hear what Kwast actually says I think that one should listen to the Shawn Ryan pod cast. I don’t think he fits the stereotypical profile that some may have of a military professional.
Dick Eagleston said: “But, as a career military man, he’s never had to meet a payroll or oversee significant belt-tightening due to budget cuts… ”
Respectfully disagree. He graduated USAFA in 1986 and went into pilot training. He lived thru the post-cold war and Clinton budget cuts as an operator. He lived thru the O’Bama years as a GO and managed to keep the lights on. Even spent time in the Sandbox like most military did. I would say he has been thru the mill and can do whatever needs to be done. Cheers –
Jared Issacman was classy in his Tweet:
Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman
I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.
It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission. That was on full display during my hearing, where leaders on both sides of the aisle made clear they’re willing to fight for the world’s most accomplished space agency.
The President, NASA and the American people deserve the very best–an Administrator ready to reorganize, rebuild and rally the best and brightest minds to deliver the world-changing headlines NASA was built to create.
I have not flown my last mission—whatever form that may ultimately take–but I remain incredibly optimistic that humanity’s greatest spacefaring days lie ahead. I’ll always be grateful for this opportunity and cheering on our President and NASA as they lead us on the greatest adventure in human history🇺🇸
https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1928995338729435432
To Mr. Eagleson
I would suggest that most of the holes in NASA came from “friendly fire.”
I remember a school trip not just to the Space and Rocket Center–but to Marshall itself.
It was…mid/late 1970’s…a dismal time.
I remember an older gentleman…balding…older then than I am now.
I asked him why couldn’t the Saturn IB at least be saved…looking dejected, he talked about Washington wasn’t going for that…and how shuttle was going to be re-usable…rolling his eyes as he did so.
He was a Saturn man….one of America’s greatest men made slave to some punk’s idea of what MSFC should or shouldn’t do. The left hated Marshall, and the right turned on them in the end.
The names change Proxmire, Mondale, Nate at Space News–these are the folks responsible for the holes you see.
But as Ed Tom said, even in the contest between man and steer the outcome isn’t certain :)
Don C.,
I don’t know what you saw on CNN but it wasn’t what you said. If that’s what CNN said, then that’s just one more bit of evidence for the case of CNN being a fake news operation. This sounds, frankly, more like something one would find in Weekly World News.
Venera 7 landed on Venus over 54 years ago and carried no camera. The first probe to send back an image of the Venusian surface was Venera 9. It shot stills, not video. There has never been a “drone” of any kind sent to Venus by anybody. There is no shortage of footage of drones exploding, but all of it comes from Ukraine and Russia, not Venus.
DEEBEE,
Your “logic” seems pretzel-ish. The enemies of both Trump and Musk have been trying to gin up some sort of “let’s you and him fight” scenario between the two ever since Musk threw in with Trump’s campaign last year. Musk is not “history,” he’s just not full-time at DOGE anymore per governmental special employee regulations. He’s back at his “day jobs” now where he will be making quite a bit more history I assure you.
agimarc,
I’ll readily concede that being a general officer of the non-woke persuasion during the bleak Obama years would have been no one’s idea of a picnic. If Gen. Kwast winds up running NASA I can only wish him well. The place is a mess and he will have his work cut out for him.
Jeff Wright,
My analogy is, admittedly, not accurate in one important respect. The battle damage to my notional B-17 would have been inflicted by the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe. In the case of NASA, all the bullet holes come from inside the aircraft as NASA – MSFC in particular – has repeatedly shot itself in the feet.
Proxmire has been dead for two decades. Mondale is more recently deceased but was last in any sort of political office over four decades ago. You sound a bit like lefties who still like to dig up Nixon’s corpse for some more ritual abuse every now and then.
As for Nate in the Space News comment threads, I wish he did own a machine gun he could train on NASA, but he doesn’t. NASA is dying of terminal incompetence and irrelevance, not the actions of outsiders.
Perhaps it would take someone like LTG Kwast to right things.
But I am not sure they can, as is.
The proposed budget cuts are one thing, but the current structure is another.
IMHO, NASA does not need budget cuts, NASA needs to be cut up.
Return the aviation related stuff to a NACA like org.
Separate space and space related operations. Call it the American Space Agency, or whatever name suits you.
Pull the the Office of Space Stuff (I do not remember the official name) from the FAA and fold it into the Space Agency.
That makes the new Agency in charge of planning and executing science missions and regulatory oversite of the commercial space sector limit the FAA to atmospheric regulation.
Get NASA out of the transportation business.
They should never build a new rocket again. SLS should be proof of this.
Since those science missions are driven mostly by the National Science Foundation, that should a source of money for developing new instruments and science packages whenever they push new projects.
Yes this is very simplistic, and would be way more complex than what I suggest. But the structure we have right. initiated in the late 50’s, now serves all of the missions poorly.
I wonder how Elon got his black eye–a fall?
Jeff Wright wrote: “I would suggest that most of the holes in NASA came from ‘friendly fire.’ … The names change Proxmire, Mondale, Nate at Space News–these are the folks responsible for the holes you see.”
I wouldn’t put Proxmire or Mondale down as friendly. They were most definitely hostile.