It's about time. Leaving NASA this long without a senate-approved leader hasn't done the agency any favors. Better to have someone who actually cares about space science, human spaceflight, and aviation as a voice for sanity, instead of just letting OMB guys who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing be the only voice in the room for budget discussions.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 05/23/2025 10:19 pmIt's about time. Leaving NASA this long without a senate-approved leader hasn't done the agency any favors. Better to have someone who actually cares about space science, human spaceflight, and aviation as a voice for sanity, instead of just letting OMB guys who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing be the only voice in the room for budget discussions.~JonIs it the typical kind of gap for these things, or has this been longer than normal for the process?
Quote from: Star One on 05/24/2025 03:11 pmQuote from: jongoff on 05/23/2025 10:19 pmIt's about time. Leaving NASA this long without a senate-approved leader hasn't done the agency any favors. Better to have someone who actually cares about space science, human spaceflight, and aviation as a voice for sanity, instead of just letting OMB guys who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing be the only voice in the room for budget discussions.~JonIs it the typical kind of gap for these things, or has this been longer than normal for the process?It's actually quicker than normal. Bridenstine took more than a year.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nasa-killing-goose-laid-golden-egg-phil-mcalister-unaleQuote from: Phil McAlisterNASA is often seen as the catalyst behind the development of the commercial space industry in the United States. Perhaps that is justifiably so. NASA’s commercial crew and cargo programs (also known as COTS and CCP) were significant breaks from historical spaceflight development efforts, they were very successful, and they happened right around the time that new commercially-oriented space companies were emerging, most notably SpaceX but others also. Other stuff happened during the last 20 years that helped the industry. But, NASA certainly gave the industry a jolt of energy, funding, and technical expertise at a pivotal time.But then, a very sad thing happened. Rather than expand on this success and incorporate more commercial practices and partnerships into future acquisitions, NASA turned away from most of the practices that made COTS and CCP so successful. Ironically, it is now the Department of Defense that is leading the way with tapping into commercial space company capabilities and nurturing those businesses while NASA is destroying them. Not deliberately, but through lack of understanding, lack of will power, and unwillingness to change.I tried to stop this happening while I was at NASA, but I was unsuccessful. I gave briefing after briefing to my NASA counterparts on “lessons learned” from COTS and CCP. I sat down for countless interviews and “knowledge capture” activities. I sent my staff members to train other NASA project personnel on partnerships and best practices. I even started an annual “NASA Public-Private Partnership Roundtable” in 2016 to establish and sustain connections across the agency between NASA personnel involved in managing or executing partnerships at NASA. My boss told me to shut it down after one year.Some progress was made during that time, mostly through the acceptance of fixed price contracting. But, NASA applied fixed price contracting to projects ill-suited for its application and without making the other changes necessary to make fixed price contracts successful. [...]
NASA is often seen as the catalyst behind the development of the commercial space industry in the United States. Perhaps that is justifiably so. NASA’s commercial crew and cargo programs (also known as COTS and CCP) were significant breaks from historical spaceflight development efforts, they were very successful, and they happened right around the time that new commercially-oriented space companies were emerging, most notably SpaceX but others also. Other stuff happened during the last 20 years that helped the industry. But, NASA certainly gave the industry a jolt of energy, funding, and technical expertise at a pivotal time.But then, a very sad thing happened. Rather than expand on this success and incorporate more commercial practices and partnerships into future acquisitions, NASA turned away from most of the practices that made COTS and CCP so successful. Ironically, it is now the Department of Defense that is leading the way with tapping into commercial space company capabilities and nurturing those businesses while NASA is destroying them. Not deliberately, but through lack of understanding, lack of will power, and unwillingness to change.I tried to stop this happening while I was at NASA, but I was unsuccessful. I gave briefing after briefing to my NASA counterparts on “lessons learned” from COTS and CCP. I sat down for countless interviews and “knowledge capture” activities. I sent my staff members to train other NASA project personnel on partnerships and best practices. I even started an annual “NASA Public-Private Partnership Roundtable” in 2016 to establish and sustain connections across the agency between NASA personnel involved in managing or executing partnerships at NASA. My boss told me to shut it down after one year.Some progress was made during that time, mostly through the acceptance of fixed price contracting. But, NASA applied fixed price contracting to projects ill-suited for its application and without making the other changes necessary to make fixed price contracts successful. [...]
[...] This situation is putting at risk almost all of the gains of having a vibrant commercial space industry. NASA is essentially driving some of these companies into the ground instead of helping them reach the stars. Although it is not too late to turn things around, it won’t be easy. Most of the issues are cultural, not necessarily contractual, and cultural issues are the most difficult to address. The new NASA Administrator and his team will have their work cut out for them.
@elonmusk criticizes NASA's Artemis program, saying, "I think we should adapt Artemis; let's have a base on the Moon, not just like, go do a remake" of the Apollo missions.Important note: Artemis is and always has been billed as a plan to establish a permanent lunar base.
Pretty incredible to get this kind of footage from the extreme environment of reentry. Appreciate the transparency--and bringing us space enthusiasts along through the highs and lows of a test program.Some may focus on the lows, but behind the efforts of Starship--and other programs like New Glenn, Neutron, Vulcan, Terran, Stoke, etc--is a massive space economy taking shape: tens of thousands of jobs, billions in private investment, all aimed at truly opening the last great frontier. When these capabilities arrive, they will spearhead a new era of exploration and discovery--and the lows will become a chapter in a much longer story.
My position on the subject [on the cancelation of SLS] is simply that of a somewhat informed, lifelong space enthusiast cheering on NASA and industry. I remain nothing more than that until the Senate decides if I am fit for a new job or not. That said, the answers I submitted to the Commerce Committee’s questions for the record remain my position. For those curious, I would recommend reading the answers carefully, as many draw conclusions based on what they think they know about me vs. what I have put in writing.As I mentioned in my earlier post, I am thankful for the private investment fueling progress in reusable launch vehicles--this is vital to our national security and the scientific and economic competitiveness of the nation. I would much rather see launches like yesterday than not see them attempted at all. Regarding Artemis II and III, they do represent the fastest path back to the Moon and they are supported by the President’s skinny budget.Now for Artemis III landing to succeed, one or more commercial providers will need to have perfected their reusable heavy-lift launch capabilities. At that point, we should have several viable options that can compete to launch routine and affordable deep space missions--including to the Moon.I would hope all space enthusiasts support a future where many people are regularly traveling to space--to LEO, Moon & Mars--underpinned by an orbital and lunar economy, and at a cadence far greater than one mission every few years because it is affordable.
News: White House likely to pull NASA nom Isaacman's nomination just days before a vote @ShelbyTalcotthttps://www.semafor.com/article/05/31/2025/white-house-expected-to-pull-nasa-nominee-isaacman
More: WH confirms Isaacman's out, says replacement coming soon @ShelbyTalcott. "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," Spox says.
https://www.semafor.com/article/05/31/2025/white-house-expected-to-pull-nasa-nominee-isaacmanI have a hard time believing this [Hypothetical: Hurt Musk by removing Isaacman, under perception that Isaacman is Musk's man]. [deleted]
“The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump’s bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars. 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.
The President proposes, the Congress disposes.
From the tweet/article above, making clear who said what today:https://www.semafor.com/article/05/31/2025/white-house-expected-to-pull-nasa-nominee-isaacmanQuote“The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump’s bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars. 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.
