Jared Isaacman nominated as NASA Administrator

[yg1968]

I was a bit surprised that nobody challenged Isaacman more directly on NASA's earth-science mission given the president's well-known skepticism.

I think they know it's out of his control. Isaacman can't publicly oppose  the President's position and still remain the nominee. Smart senators would realize the best they can realistically hope for is someone who cares about science and could be an internal advocate for it. Duffy certainly doesn't seem that interested in it.

Isaacman did address climate science. He essentially said that NASA should continue obtaining the earth science data and that researchers in universities can then use that data for their research. Bolden had taken a similar position a few years ago.

[yg1968]

For those of us that didn't watch – did anything worth noting happen? Thanks!

Markey asked the “Elon in the room” question again, which Jared dodged like last time.

This may have already cost him the nomination. In fact, I think it’s a lose-lose the moment that question was asked. If Jared answered “yes” directly, there probably would be controversial allegations that would put Jared at risk.

I agree that no good answer was possible, but I think it was just a bit of routine points-scoring, an attempt to tar Isaacman and, by association, Trump by linking them to the unpopular Musk. I doubt it will cost Isaacman the nomination.

Isacman explained that it was a ball room and that people were in and out of the room. You can probably infer from this that Musk was likely in the same room at some point in time but his interview was with the President, not with Musk. But Isaacman made a good point that there is no picture of him and Musk because they are rarely together despite the news calling them allies, friends, etc.  In any event, even if they were friends that doesn't disqualify him from the job.

[edzieba]

I believe he did state that he will publicly divulge how much he paid SpaceX for his spaceflights.

What I recall was two steps removed from committing to publicly divulging the cost: he said he had no problem asking SpaceX to release him from the relevant NDA.

Personally, I think this particular point is really a non-issue and just another example of political points-scoring.

We already know. Inspiration4 was estimated to be about $200M in a number of articles. Isaacson in his book on Musk said that Isaacman agreed to pay $500M for the Polaris missions. Only one Polaris mission was flown, so he likely didn't pay for the second and third missions that are on hold.

Disagree. "We" (the general public) don't know.

You just confirmed this fact in your very own post:
- The $200M number for Inspiration4 is an estimate, from uninformed people outside of SpaceX and the Inspiration4 team. So it's likely to be off-base, in either direction. The exact number is not known to the general public (which includes most folks here).
- The $500M figure was for all three Polaris missions. How much of that was allocated for Polaris Dawn is, once again, unknown outside of SpaceX and the Polaris Dawn team. So we, the general public, don't know.

The exact figure doesn't matter. It's approximately $200M but you get a discount if you buy 3 missions.

So we've progressed from "we already know" to "we don't know beyond loose estimates, and it doesn't matter". Well, maybe 'progress' is the wrong term there.

Presumably he'll be filling out new financial disclosure forms as part of the nomination process. Maybe we'll learn what major donations he made after May 2025.

One of the highlights (or one could easily just as well say lowlights) was Isaacman's confirmation that since his first nomination was withdrawn, he has made $2 million in Repubilcan donations.

That fact will be used by Isaacman's political opponents as "proof" that Jared "bought" himself the position of NASA administrator. And I don't blame them for pointing this out because, on the surface, that's exactly what it will look like to the general public.

It only looks that way to people that are pre-disposed to see it that way. Isaacman had explained (in a podcast) prior to his re-nomination that he wasn't done with politics despite his nomination being withdrawn and so his political donations are a reflection of that.

If we were instead discussing Isaac Jaredman, well known associate of the Boeing CEO, who had recently been a large Boeing customer (potentially to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, with the actual full amount still not disclosed), who had been recommended twice by the Boeing CEO for the role, and who had paid several million dollars to the campaign funds of a current government official before being re-appointed by that official, for a role that directs contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing, would similar benefit-of-the-doubt be given?

I get people like Isaacman as a person, but the potential for conflicts of interest are very real, and the questions being asked require full and satisfying answers rather than just dismissal.

[spacenut]

It would be hard to get someone with engineering and space background that would not have a conflict of interest with whatever company he came from or was associated with.  I think Jared would be honest and do what is right for space related things that NASA is involved with. 

[yg1968]

So we've progressed from "we already know" to "we don't know beyond loose estimates, and it doesn't matter". Well, maybe 'progress' is the wrong term there.

Does the exact number really matter? It's likely between $150M and $200M. Will your opinion change if it's only $150M and not $200M? Isaacman disclosed that it was above $50M but the exact number wasn't required to be disclosed. 

If we were instead discussing Isaac Jaredman, well known associate of the Boeing CEO, who had recently been a large Boeing customer (potentially to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, with the actual full amount still not disclosed), who had been recommended twice by the Boeing CEO for the role, and who had paid several million dollars to the campaign funds of a current government official before being re-appointed by that official, for a role that directs contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing, would similar benefit-of-the-doubt be given?

I get people like Isaacman as a person, but the potential for conflicts of interest are very real, and the questions being asked require full and satisfying answers rather than just dismissal.

Being a customer of SpaceX doesn't disqualify Isaacman. The conflicts of interests are those that exist while you are Administrator, not the fact that you were once a customer of SpaceX. Anyone that comes from the industry will have a past. As Isaacman said, SpaceX is the only American company that brings astronauts to space (so it's not like he had a choice between them and another company) and he does not currently hold any interest in SpaceX. Isaacman abided by all of the ethics rule of the Senate.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1996612737825112112

https://twitter.com/Astro2fish/status/1996610692040757329

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1996709227633787120

[clongton]

I don't care if Mr. Musk was in the room.
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman has donated to political causes or persons. He has donated million$ to BOTH parties!
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman paid SpaceX (*not* Mr. Musk) to "rent" a Falcon 9 and a Dragon spacecraft. He rented a ride from the ONLY company on the face of the earth that was capable of providing it. RENTED. When I rent something I don't go around telling people how much I paid. It's nobody's business.
The ONLY thing that I care about is whether or not - from among the available candidates - is he the best choice to be NASA Administrator? For those who think not then I ask that you tell us who - again, from among the available candidates - is the better candidate. Who else is even willing to put that target on their back? Who? Tell me. Give me a name.

NASA needs a functioning and Senate-confirmed Administrator. Like yesterday!
Let's get past the petty stuff and get on with getting a functioning Administrator in place.

YMMV

[DaveS]

I don't care if Mr. Musk was in the room.
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman has donated to political causes or persons. He has donated million$ to BOTH parties!
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman paid SpaceX (*not* Mr. Musk) to "rent" a Falcon 9 and a Dragon spacecraft. He rented a ride from the ONLY company on the face of the earth that was capable of providing it. RENTED. When I rent something I don't go around telling people how much I paid. It's nobody's business.

It is everyone's business as it creates a physical tangible link between Isaacman and SpaceX. Back in the 70's when the Space Shuttle contracts were awarded, then NASA Administrator Dr. James Fletcher took a lot of heat for awarding the Orbiter Production contract to Rockwell Intl., which operated out of California. The reason for the heat was that it was seen as a move to please Nixon who's homestate was California.

So while Dr Fletcher himself didn't have any ties to either California or Rockwell, his boss (POTUS Nixon) did and that created that physical tangible link. The contract award was protested with the GAO who performed an investigation and found no wrong-doing so they gave NASA two options: Let the award stand or re-compete it. NASA decided on the former to allow the program to continue.

So you might see how every dealing with SpaceX from Isaacman could come under serious scrutiny and Musk himself is very involved with SpaceX by his own admissions. And this administration is known for very backhanded and under the table dealings, as loyalty above experience and knowledge outweighs everything.

[woods170]

I don't care if Mr. Musk was in the room.
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman has donated to political causes or persons. He has donated million$ to BOTH parties!
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman paid SpaceX (*not* Mr. Musk) to "rent" a Falcon 9 and a Dragon spacecraft. He rented a ride from the ONLY company on the face of the earth that was capable of providing it. RENTED. When I rent something I don't go around telling people how much I paid. It's nobody's business.

It is everyone's business as it creates a physical tangible link between Isaacman and SpaceX. <snip>

Exactly. Just like Darleen Druyun had a tangible link with Boeing. She was eventually sent to nine months in federal prison because she helped Boeing get a multi-billion dollar contract while serving as the USAF acquisition chief, while at the same time failing to disclose her other links with Boeing.

Any contract awarded by NASA to SpaceX, during Isaacman's tenure as NASA administrator, will face serious scrutiny, exactly because of the tangible link between Isaacman and SpaceX. In a worst-case scenario, Isaacman might even become the subject of a criminal investigation.

And IMO that's not wishful thinking on my part. It's IMO a real possibility as long as Isaacman doesn't provide 100% crystal clear insight, including all the nasty little details, into his dealings with SpaceX (and Musk).

[clongton]

Every contract that NASA has awarded to SpaceX in the past was won by competitive bid on the open market. SpaceX won those contracts because they were the lowest bidder. So long as NASA continues to award contracts to SpaceX because they actually underbid the competition while Mr. Isaacman is Administrator, there doesn't need to be any further "scrutiny" than that. If Mr. Musk were the nominee then I'd agree that a LOT MORE scrutiny would be needed. But he's not. Mr. Isaacman is the nominee. And oh by the way, they know each other. Oooooo! Heads up: Mr. Isaacman is NOT going to award a contract - any contract - to SpaceX that the company didn't legitimately win.

As far as any insinuation that Mr. Isaacman having flown to space on a SpaceX rocket (astronaut twice) should disqualify him from being NASA Administrator, I will remind you that three other astronauts have become NASA Administrators in the agency’s history (as full, Senate-confirmed Administrators).

* Richard H. Truly - Administrator: 1989–1992 - Flew on STS-2 and STS-8. Notable as the first former astronaut to lead NASA.

* Charles F. Bolden Jr. - Administrator: 2009–2017 - Flew on STS-31, STS-45, STS-60 and STS-61C

* Bill Nelson - Administrator: 2021–2025 - Flew on STS-61-C

Those 3 Administrator Astronauts flew to space on the ONLY human-rated American spacecraft in existence at that time. Likewise, Administrator/Astronaut Isaacman flew to space on the ONLY human-rated American spacecraft in existence at that time.

I really, really don't understand all the hubris around Mr. Isaacman's nomination. Can **ANY** of you point to anything untoward that Mr. Isaacman has done in the past that can legitimately call his nomination into question? If you can't then PLEASE quit the character assassination innuendos. Don't say "but he "might" do this or that". That's bull-shit. Anybody "might" do "something". You guys are turning this thread into a back-biting gossip tabloid like the Daily Mirror (UK) or the National Enquirer (USA). Can we please get back to fact-based discussion? Got something to say? Provide references. I would personally, genuinely love to read them to understand your pov. Then we can discuss the "on-the-ground" facts and debate their applicability. Otherwise all this reminds me of a bunch of teenage girls at a Sting concert. Not a good look.

[Proponent]

Nobody is suggesting the mere fact that the Isaacman has been to space is disqualifying or even deserving of scrutiny.

EDIT: "ir" -> "or"

[Hyperborealis]

The actual physical tangible link is a contract duly executed between Isaacman and SpaceX. Is your claim that any person or organization that has made a flight contract with SpaceX is dubious and disqualified from working with or at NASA?

[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.

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.
Mark Esper was Raytheon's top lobbyist before becoming SecDef in 2019.
Lloyd Austin was on the board of Raytheon before becoming SecDef in 2021.
Bill Perry worked for a Silicon Valley defense electronics firm before becoming SecDef in 1994.

Welcome to the revolving door.

[yg1968]

I don't care if Mr. Musk was in the room.
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman has donated to political causes or persons. He has donated million$ to BOTH parties!
I don't care how much Mr. Isaacman paid SpaceX (*not* Mr. Musk) to "rent" a Falcon 9 and a Dragon spacecraft. He rented a ride from the ONLY company on the face of the earth that was capable of providing it. RENTED. When I rent something I don't go around telling people how much I paid. It's nobody's business.

It is everyone's business as it creates a physical tangible link between Isaacman and SpaceX. <snip>

Exactly. Just like Darleen Druyun had a tangible link with Boeing. She was eventually sent to nine months in federal prison because she helped Boeing get a multi-billion dollar contract while serving as the USAF acquisition chief, while at the same time failing to disclose her other links with Boeing.

Any contract awarded by NASA to SpaceX, during Isaacman's tenure as NASA administrator, will face serious scrutiny, exactly because of the tangible link between Isaacman and SpaceX. In a worst-case scenario, Isaacman might even become the subject of a criminal investigation.

And IMO that's not wishful thinking on my part. It's IMO a real possibility as long as Isaacman doesn't provide 100% crystal clear insight, including all the nasty little details, into his dealings with SpaceX (and Musk).

The example that you are giving is completely different. Isaacman has already disclosed that he had a contract with SpaceX. He has complied with all ethical Senate requirements.  It's unlikely that Isaacman will help SpaceX get a contract that it wouldn't otherwise win. You need to make more responsible posts and stop making false accusations based on pure speculation.

[yg1968]

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.
Mark Esper was Raytheon's top lobbyist before becoming SecDef in 2019.
Lloyd Austin was on the board of Raytheon before becoming SecDef in 2021.
Bill Perry worked for a Silicon Valley defense electronics firm before becoming SecDef in 1994.

Welcome to the revolving door.

Yes, like I said before, an administrator is allowed to come from the industry. However, once that Isaacman is administrator, if he holds shares in a company (for example, his shares in Shift4), he couldn't be involved in decisions that involve that company.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/dansgoldin/status/1997118925285261553

[laszlo]

...However, once that Isaacman is administrator, if he holds shares in a company (for example, his shares in Shift4), he couldn't be involved in decisions that involve that company.

Unless he changed his name to Trump.

[catdlr]

https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1997153483166736883

Jared Isaacman's project Athena

62 pages

Here is the PDF:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/16j95BNM4wDRD2bcHFhYJ7m-L3pAThuUf/view

[catdlr]

As reported back on Nov 4: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61990.msg2731346#msg2731346

Here is that document


Project Athena Summary From Jared Isaacman

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 4, 2025

Keith’s note: this was posted on Twitter by Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman on 4 November 2025: “It is unfortunate that NASA’s team and the broader space community have to endured distractions like this. There are extraordinary opportunities and some risks ahead and so the focus should be on the mission. With many reporters and other interested parties reaching out, I want to help bring some clarity to the discussion… unfortunately, that means another long post”: [Full posted text below]