Quote from: Blackstar on 12/06/2025 10:51 pmAnother example is the recommendation to turn all cost plus contracts into fixed fee contracts ("if possible"). If the government terminates an existing contract, they probably have to pay a termination fee. In addition, they probably have to re-compete that contract and cannot simply turn it into a different kind of contract. Because of sovereign immunity, they never have to pay a termination fee; the government cannot be sued without its permission.
Another example is the recommendation to turn all cost plus contracts into fixed fee contracts ("if possible"). If the government terminates an existing contract, they probably have to pay a termination fee. In addition, they probably have to re-compete that contract and cannot simply turn it into a different kind of contract.
Wherever possible, renegotiate or require a re-bid on a fixed firm price basis all contracts regardless of dollar amounts.
Fortunately, none of this was approved by the full House. The point is, that termination fees are routine and taken seriously, even by the US government.
I think people are being silly. Dan Goldin came to NASA after a 25 year career at NASA contractor TRW. He backed the James Webb Space Telescope, and the contract for that then went to TRW. Nobody complained.
Jim Beggs came to NASA after working for General Dynamics.
Isaacman isn't the first Administrator to be linked to a contractor.
It's worse at the Pentagon.<snip>
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/06/2025 06:31 pmAthena was a preliminary plan he put together when he was offered the job initiallyAs one person commented in one of the articles about Athena, this was a "rookie mistake." In Washington, you don't write something like that down and give it to somebody unless you are willing to have it leak.
Athena was a preliminary plan he put together when he was offered the job initially
I'm also surprised at the chutzpah it took to write a NASA administrator's speech before you even have the job.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/06/2025 06:31 pmAt this point, he needs a plan to do what the president wants him to do now. A lot has happened in the last seven months. presumably he has such a plan. The condition of NASA is also significantly different than it was in the spring. The agency has lost 20% of its workforce, many of them in key areas. Also, young engineers no longer want to work for the federal government, because they saw all the mass firings, layoffs, and hiring freezes enacted early in the year. This also extends out to the contractors and researchers who are not civil servants, but work on NASA contracts and research. There are some science organizations/departments in the US that have lost most of their people because the grants were canceled. So if the agency says "Let's go look for organics on Mars" the people who did that work 8 months ago have now left the field. Some facilities at NASA field centers have now been shuttered. Goddard practically has a "going out of business" sign on their front gate. That wasn't true when he wrote his document, it is true now. He'll have to deal with that.Wait until Isaacman gets in the job and finds out the current condition of the agency. As one example, NASA lost a lot of people in its contracting office, meaning that it is now taking the agency longer to review and sign contracts. It will be harder to pursue bold new initiatives when the contracting office is severely understaffed.
At this point, he needs a plan to do what the president wants him to do now. A lot has happened in the last seven months. presumably he has such a plan.
Quote from: Greg Hullender on 12/06/2025 11:21 pmBecause of sovereign immunity, they never have to pay a termination feeI suspect the termination fee provision is included in the original contract. Maybe not all of them. But back in the spring I was talking to a NASA official who said that those projects that were canceled in the president's proposed budget had cancellation fees attached to them, and the cost of the cancellation had not been included in the budget proposal, meaning that the hits to the overall programs were going to be higher as they had to find additional money to pay for them.
Because of sovereign immunity, they never have to pay a termination fee
Correct. Isaacman is not the first Administrator to be linked to a contractor. However, he IS one (of several) administrator candidates to intentially obscure the details of his dealings with NASA contractors.
You know that Mr. Isaacman is bound by NDAs, which he has stated he is willing to ask to be released from in order to provide clearer answers. It is unconscionable for certain senators to attempt to make him look like a liar by publicly asking for details that they KNOW he is not at liberty to answer. They KNOW he can't publicly answer, but publicly ask anyway. You are being sucked in by the machinations of those disgusting and unscrupulous persons.
These are the same questions he was asked at the first hearing over half a year ago. Even assuming he had never considered that the question would be asked the first time around, this time around he had more than sufficient opportunity to arrange an NDA release well in advance in order to be able to answer the question, rather than merely offering willingness to maybe answer the question at some indeterminate point in the future a second time.
Quote from: edzieba on 12/08/2025 03:26 pmThese are the same questions he was asked at the first hearing over half a year ago. Even assuming he had never considered that the question would be asked the first time around, this time around he had more than sufficient opportunity to arrange an NDA release well in advance in order to be able to answer the question, rather than merely offering willingness to maybe answer the question at some indeterminate point in the future a second time. NDAs are not just secrets that you promise to keep. They are legally binding contracts that have severe legal consequences if one violates the contract.I have personally been required to sign an NDA many times over the years. So I have experience with this. And yes, it is true, that there are occasions where a signer can be released from the NDA, but only when the signee agrees that it is necessary and justified, and even then the release will always be under certain legally binding conditions. For example, the release could apply to only a specific person, in a secure setting, and then the person receiving the information becomes legally bound themselves to the terms of the NDA. Asking for a release from the NDA because some senator might ask for the information at some future time is a sure guarantee that the release will not be granted. We all know that Mr. Isaacman has stated that he is willing to ask for a release, but to my knowledge, no one has actually requested that he do that. Without that specific request, there are no grounds for Mr. Isaacman to seek the release from the contract. I am happy to be corrected on that point if anyone can point to a specific conversation where the request was actually made.
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1995650949051011199https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/12/chairman-cruz-announces-executive-session-for-december-8th
Marcia Smith@SpcPlcyOnlineWell, the Sen Cmrc Executive Session where they are voting on Isaacman's nomination is NOT being livestreamed. Just spoke to the cmte and they apologize, their press release was in error, they never planned to livestream it. They'll issue a press release later w/results.
Jeff Foust@jeff_foustThe Senate Commerce Committee has released the questions for the record from Jared Isaacman's second confirmation hearing last week, ahead of this afternoon's committee vote.Rep Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/47066FFE-3D17-4C53-B054-552065AE6353Dem Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/103818D3-119E-4C54-8E8D-2F93E6FFA979
Eric Berger@SciGuySpaceIsaacman advances to full Senate.
Ryan Caton@dpoddolphinproBREAKING: The Senate committee overseeing @NASA nominations has voted in favour of Jared Isaacman (@rookisaacman).One hurdle cleared, one to go.Next: The Full Senate vote.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1998115427244028075QuoteJeff Foust@jeff_foustThe Senate Commerce Committee has released the questions for the record from Jared Isaacman's second confirmation hearing last week, ahead of this afternoon's committee vote.Rep Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/47066FFE-3D17-4C53-B054-552065AE6353Dem Q's: https://commerce.senate.gov/services/files/103818D3-119E-4C54-8E8D-2F93E6FFA979
Artemis Mission Supply ChainIn response to a question regarding the One Big Beautiful Bill’s funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) for Artemis missions through Artemis V, you seemed to indicate that by that point, there will be other heavy lift options available and thus revised architectures may be possible. However, hardware is in flow now that supports SLS and Orion for flights beyond Artemis V. To interrupt the existing supply chain would risk putting in place another gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability – and as you rightfully stated in your testimony, we can never afford to let that happen again.Question 16: Mr. Isaacman, since we may not know the status or success of these alternative launch vehicles and landers for at least 3-4 more years, will you commit to maintaining the existing supply chain and progress on hardware to support future Artemis missions beyond Artemis V at least until such time as we have a new vehicle (or vehicles) in place that is fully certified to fly with humans?Answer: I will certainly commit to working with Congress and will always follow the law. As it stands, the One Big Beautiful Bill contemplates funding through Artemis V, and in that respect, I agree that SLS and Orion are the most expeditious path to meeting near-term lunar objectives. However, it is worth acknowledging the cost of SLS as highlighted by NASA’s Inspector General, and recognizing that if we want an enduring presence on the Moon--with mission cadence greater than every few years--and future missions to Mars and beyond, it will be imperative to eventually pivot to an architecture that enables more frequent and affordable launches.
The places where the document discusses the centers is a good example of how little he understands what NASA does and how and where it does it. The centers perform various missions, but these "goals/focus areas" are often not even the most important ones. Ames, for instance, also does astrobiology, and flight research. Armstrong as an "aviation center of excellence" is odd. Armstrong does flight research in the form of flying aircraft. But the wind tunnels and other major flight research facilities (not to mention the people) are at other centers like Langley, Glenn, and Ames, and they cannot be moved to Armstrong. He wrote that Marshall should do nuclear and electric propulsion. But all the people, facilities, and equipment to do nuclear are at Glenn (I've seen some of that). The people, facilities, and equipment to do electric propulsion are also at Glenn. But that's probably not all that important. As somebody told me a few weeks ago while discussing the document, one value is that it informs the NASA people what they need to brief him about when he's administrator. For instance, show him where all the facilities are located and what they actually do.
