Jared Isaacman nominated as NASA Administrator

[Don2]

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.

That's a poor argument. Nobody complained for a very good reason:
Dan Golden finished his job as NASA administrator on November 17, 2001.
The contract for building JWST was awarded to TRW on September 10, 2002

As in: Dan Goldin was NOT the NASA administrator when his former employer TRW was awarded the contract to build JWST. Therefore: NO conflict of interest.

The way the specs were written for JWST might very well have suited TRW. Did anybody else have the folding mirror technology? And a 25 year career is a much closer relationship than merely being a customer of SpaceX. In the case of Dan Goldin the issue was managed to everyone's satisfaction, and the same can be done for Isaacman.

The way things are done in the Pentagon is relevant because it demonstrate how far standards have fallen in DC in the past 25 years. Isaacman's issues are very minor compared to other things the Congress has found perfectly acceptable.

We should be realistic and accept that Isaacman is the best candidate that we are likely to get. Somebody who just sees NASA as a step to higher office might be willing to help the OMB dismantle the agency. Isaacman is passionate about space and he won't want to see the agency dismantled or the budget wasted on boondoggles. However, his budget is controlled by a hostile OMB and a Congress that has a pre-existing agenda. He lacks experience in managing a large bureaucracy and he doesn't have a lot of relationships with Congress. He will also have to deal with legacy contractors that have a lot of political power and an ability to shape NASA's spending.

[edzieba]

Notably, he has further distanced himself from the Athena document.

That's certainly some good news.

The way the specs were written for JWST might very well have suited TRW. Did anybody else have the folding mirror technology?

ITT/Excelis, who build the Segmented Mirror Telescope demonstrator for the NRO.

[yg1968]

I don't think that Isaacman distanced himself from the Athena plan all that much. He clarified that most of his recommendations weren't for all NASA programs but that was already clear if you read the document carefully.

[yg1968]

NASA’s next administrator, private astronaut Jared Isaacman, is expected to be confirmed by the full US Senate in the next week or so.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/12/in-a-major-new-report-scientists-build-rationale-for-sending-astronauts-to-mars/

 

[Jim]

The way the specs were written for JWST might very well have suited TRW. Did anybody else have the folding mirror technology?

TRW built the spacecraft and sunshield.  Goddard assembled the telescope in-house.

[Comga]

The way the specs were written for JWST might very well have suited TRW. Did anybody else have the folding mirror technology?

TRW built the spacecraft and sunshield.  Goddard assembled the telescope in-house.

The multi-segment alignment system was developed and prototyped at Ball Aerospace in Colorado. Ball personnel worked with the Goddard people all the way through.

I remember seeing in their largest cleanroom the subscale segmented development telescope that made the cover of Aviation Week (Photo by Ken Hutchison featuring the inverted image of Darvin Munoz.)

… if that matters to this discussion
Suffice it to say, in a tightly connected industry, people can suggest that association leads to bias,  but these things can be policed.

[woods170]

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.

That's a poor argument. Nobody complained for a very good reason:
Dan Golden finished his job as NASA administrator on November 17, 2001.
The contract for building JWST was awarded to TRW on September 10, 2002

As in: Dan Goldin was NOT the NASA administrator when his former employer TRW was awarded the contract to build JWST. Therefore: NO conflict of interest.

The way the specs were written for JWST might very well have suited TRW.

No offense, but it's my opinion that you've begun to grasp for straws. The reason that JWST has a folding mirror is because the 1990 Decadal Survey recommended that the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST, what eventually became JWST) should have a primary mirror with a diameter of no less than 6 meters, with an even bigger diameter of 8 to 10 meters viewed as the optimal solution. It was all about resolving power, to severely improve upon the optical resolution offered by earlier orbital telescopes. That Decadal Survey recommendation (6 meter diameter or bigger) is where the current 6.5 meter diameter of JWST's primary mirror is rooted in.
And mind you, that "6 meters or bigger" was determined by the Decadal Survey a full two years before Dan Goldin became the NASA administrator.

But, that "6 meter or bigger" came with a catch: NO launch vehicle at that time (even the projected future ones) had a fairing which could fit a space telescope with a 6-meter (or bigger) diameter primary mirror. So, the mirror would have to be folded or segmented, to fit inside the fairing, regardless of who would actually construct JWST. And mind you: the primary contractor for the JWST mirror was not appointed until six years AFTER that 1990 Decadal Survey.

There was no such thing as "writing specs for JWST to suit TRW". It was the science recommendation from the National Academies, the Space Telescope Science Institute and the "UV-Optical in Space Panel" of the Decadal Survey that led to the need to fold the mirror for JWST. Dan Goldin had no influence on this science recommendation whatsoever, and neither had Goldin's former employer TRW.

Did anybody else have the folding mirror technology?

The "folded mirror" technology is a direct extension of the "segmented mirror" technology which has been around since 1952 (first pioneered by an Italian astronomer in Arizona). In the 1980s the segmented mirror technology was further developed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California. The first Earth-based telescopes to have segmented primary mirrors came into existence in the early 1980s, with segmented mirror technology being fielded by companies such as Corning, Itek Optical Systems and Perkin-Elmer. Eastman-Kodak did early work on optical alignment of mirror segments (which the folded mirror relies on heavily) in the 1980s. Ball Aerospace went into that direction as well and eventually built the optical alignment system for JWST.

Merely adding a hinge to fold (forward or backwards) a section with mirror-segments is no technological leap forward. There is no such thing as a single company "being the only one having this technology". Precisely hinging large structures is a technology offered by dozens (if not hundreds) of companies worldwide, since the first half of the 20th century.

[Don2]

Thanks for the briefing on the origins of segmented mirror technology. It was very interesting and there were plenty of things I had not heard about before.

However, my original point was that Isaacman's relationship with SpaceX was a minor concern that could be easily managed. Why is it more of a concern that Goldin's 25 year career at TRW, Mike Griffin's links to Orbital, or James Begg's links to General Dynamics?

Mike Griffin appears to have worked at Orbital for 7 years in the 90s. In 2008, when he was NASA Administrator, Orbital was awarded a Commercial Resupply Services contract. His Wikipedia page has this to say about the award:

Reports circulated that the larger aerospace companies that considered competing for COTS were chased off by Griffin.[14] Griffin later said he assigned the award selection decision to Scott “Doc” Horowitz--a friend and fellow Mars Society member--"I explained my intentions and he carried it off."

@woods170....NASA awarded a $400 million contract to build the Aqua and Aura earth observing satellites to TRW in 1995 when Dan Goldin was Administrator. This shows that there are ways to manage a situation where an Administrator has a close relationship with a contractor.

[Blackstar]

However, my original point was that Isaacman's relationship with SpaceX was a minor concern that could be easily managed. 

The issue that was brought up in the confirmation hearings was not so much his business relationship (purchasing services) as his relationship with Elon Musk. It has been alleged that Musk recommended him for the job (all those questions about whether Musk was in the room when he met with the president). If Musk recommended him for the job, and he gets the job because of that, then he could have a potential conflict of interest regarding providing contracts to Musk's company. Note that ethics concerns have cropped up for other administration officials.

[lrk]

When do we expect the full senate confirmation vote to take place?

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1999198999677382919

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
NASA may have a new Administrator as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week.

[yg1968]

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
NASA may have a new Administrator as soon as Monday or Tuesday of next week.

Great! The sooner, the better! After the full Senate votes on the nomination, the Administrator has to be sworn in. I am guessing that VP Vance will do that but we will see.

[clongton]

Great! NASA needs an Administrator. Like yesterday.

[yg1968]

This interview is from last July. I hadn't watched it before but it's actually very good and very much relevant today. Isaacman explains among other other things, his donations to Mark Kelly. He talks a lot about China's ambitions, his relationship with Musk (which is only a professional relationship), etc.



There is also this video from June 30th:

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/2000014762940485806

[yg1968]

Senator Markey Slams SpaceX for Covering Up Financial Ties to NASA Administrator Nominee Isaacman:
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-slams-spacex-for-covering-up-financial-ties-to-nasa-administrator-nominee-isaacman

[yg1968]

Senator Markey Slams SpaceX for Covering Up Financial Ties to NASA Administrator Nominee Isaacman:
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-slams-spacex-for-covering-up-financial-ties-to-nasa-administrator-nominee-isaacman

For what it's worth, I am not surprised that SpaceX didn't answer this Senator's request. The request doesn't come from the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee or the Senate Ethics Committee and no matter what SpaceX answered, he still would have used their answer to further his talking points.

[clongton]

Senator Markey Slams SpaceX for Covering Up Financial Ties to NASA Administrator Nominee Isaacman:
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-slams-spacex-for-covering-up-financial-ties-to-nasa-administrator-nominee-isaacman

For what it's worth, I am not surprised that SpaceX didn't answer this Senator's request. The request doesn't come from the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee or the Senate Ethics Committee and no matter what SpaceX answered, he still would have used their answer to further his talking points.

It's called character assassination. It's what low value people do when there is nothing real available to fit their agenda.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/2001097936352969024

https://twitter.com/SenatePress/status/2001097937770659891

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/2001111549616828697

[hektor]

https://twitter.com/SenateCloakroom/status/2001298413954998665?s=20