This week the Senate Commerce Committee will hear from President Trump's nominee to be NASA Administrator, Jared Isaacman. During our meeting, Mr. Isaacman committed to having American astronauts return to the lunar surface ASAP so we can develop the technologies needed to go on to Mars. The moon mission MUST happen in President Trump's term or else China will beat us there and build the first moonbase. Artemis and the Moon-to-Mars Program are critical for American leadership in space!
Very grateful for your support Mr. Chairman.
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1909701371705647583
Trump's NASA pick wants to prioritize Mars, setting stage for tense Senate hearing:https://www.reuters.com/science/trump-nasa-nominee-says-agency-will-prioritize-mars-mission-2025-04-08/
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/08/2025 10:37 pmTrump's NASA pick wants to prioritize Mars, setting stage for tense Senate hearing:https://www.reuters.com/science/trump-nasa-nominee-says-agency-will-prioritize-mars-mission-2025-04-08/So we have a single reporter who's produced nearly diametrically opposite stories on two successive days.
So we have a single reporter who's produced nearly diametrically opposite stories on two successive days.
The most interesting comment is Britt’s tweet. Unlike Cruz, she holds real power on appropriations. And she inherited Shelby’s Alabama seat. Yet she did not mention SLS...
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 04/08/2025 11:26 pmSo we have a single reporter who's produced nearly diametrically opposite stories on two successive days.It ain’t the reporter’s fault. The subject matter went in diametrically opposite directions within a couple days.Isaacman met with Cruz. Cruz tweeted that they had a discussion about staying the course towards the Moon. Isaacman tweeted thanks in response. Reporter reported such.A day or so later, reporter got ahold of Isaacman’s testimony, which make Mars central. Reporter reported such.Typical Trump II crosscurrents. Par for the course with this Administration. Not any journalist’s failing.The most interesting comment is Britt’s tweet. Unlike Cruz, she holds real power on appropriations. And she inherited Shelby’s Alabama seat. Yet she did not mention SLS...Maybe just an oversight on her or her staff’s part. Or maybe an indication there has been a deal with the White House that approps will let SLS die in exchange for something(s) else that keep MSFC and allies central.Moon versus Mars is a meaningless debate as long as the US human space exploration program has to go through Orion/SLS. SLS can’t support Mars, and Orion/SLS will struggle to deliver half the Apollo flight rate, at best. Get off Orion/SLS, however, and human Mars missions or supra-Apollo lunar mission rates — or both — become possible.The only thing that really matters is getting off Orion/SLS. And Britt’s comment is the only one that impinges on that, and then only by omission.If Isaacman endorses Orion/SLS tomorrow, nothing else discussed regarding human space exploration will matter much over the next four years.. If Isaacman does not endorse Orion/SLS, explicitly or by omission, then there’s still some room for change over the next four years.FWIW...
NASA stream for the confirmation hearing:
I don’t think SLS/Orion matter that much. The pot of money isn’t needed from them.
If your point is that the private sector, especially SpaceX and Blue Origin, don’t need NASA money to send people to Mars or the Moon, I agree. Especially in the case of SpaceX, NASA’s most important role going forward is as a well of technical expertise and federal funding is really secondary given massive StarLink revenue.
However, if NASA wants to go to the Moon but SpaceX is not really interested, then NASA must pay SpaceX enough to provide at least a small profit on the incremental cost of the Moon portion of the Starship program.
The most interesting comment is Britt’s tweet. Unlike Cruz, she holds real power on appropriations. And she inherited Shelby’s Alabama seat. Yet she did not mention SLS...Maybe just an oversight on her or her staff’s part. Or maybe an indication there has been a deal with the White House that approps will let SLS die in exchange for something(s) else that keep MSFC and allies central.
We will focus our technology development efforts on the world’s greatest engineering challenges, such as the practical application of nuclear propulsion, so that we can truly unlock humankind’s ability to explore among the stars.
She inherited Shelby's seat, but not his seniority.
Following up on my post yesterday...Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 04/09/2025 04:03 amThe most interesting comment is Britt’s tweet. Unlike Cruz, she holds real power on appropriations. And she inherited Shelby’s Alabama seat. Yet she did not mention SLS...Maybe just an oversight on her or her staff’s part. Or maybe an indication there has been a deal with the White House that approps will let SLS die in exchange for something(s) else that keep MSFC and allies central.Based on Isaacman’s testimony, there may be a deal, and the deal may be SLS dies and MSFC gets more nuke propulsion funding:QuoteWe will focus our technology development efforts on the world’s greatest engineering challenges, such as the practical application of nuclear propulsion, so that we can truly unlock humankind’s ability to explore among the stars.https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/AF1E2124-BB39-4160-A28C-1F6CC2F020FDIn what’s otherwise very high level and rather bland testimony, nuclear propulsion kind of sticks out as a rather specific detail.I could be wrong — it may just be the example that came to mind when Isaacman was writing this. But it smells like a deal was struck.FWIW...
