{"id":44104,"date":"2025-11-11T00:02:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-10T16:02:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/nasa-is-kind-of-a-mess-here-are-the-top-priorities-for-a-new-administrator\/"},"modified":"2025-11-11T00:02:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-10T16:02:10","slug":"nasa-is-kind-of-a-mess-here-are-the-top-priorities-for-a-new-administrator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/nasa-is-kind-of-a-mess-here-are-the-top-priorities-for-a-new-administrator\/","title":{"rendered":"NASA is kind of a mess: Here are the top priorities for a new administrator"},"content":{"rendered":"

After a long summer and fall of uncertainty, private astronaut Jared Isaacman has been renominated to lead NASA, and there appears to be momentum behind getting him confirmed quickly as the space agency\u2019s 15th administrator. It is possible, although far from a lock, the Senate could finalize his nomination before the end of this year.<\/p>\n

It cannot happen soon enough.<\/p>\n

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is, to put it bluntly, kind of a mess. This is not meant to disparage the many fine people who work at NASA. But years of neglect, changing priorities, mismanagement, creeping bureaucracy, meeting bloat, and other factors have taken their toll. NASA is still capable of doing great things. It still inspires. But it needs a fresh start.<\/p>\n

\u201cJared has already garnered tremendous support from nearly everyone in the space community,\u201d said Lori Garver, who served as NASA\u2019s deputy administrator under President Obama. \u201cThis should give him a tail wind as he inevitably will have to make tough calls.\u201d<\/p>\n

Garver worked for a Democratic administration, and it\u2019s notable that Isaacman has admirers from across the political spectrum, from left-leaning space advocates to right-wing influencers. A decade and a half ago, Garver led efforts to get NASA to more fully embrace commercial space. In some ways, Isaacman will seek to further this legacy, and Garver knows all too well how difficult it is to change the sprawling space agency and beat back entrenched contractors.<\/p>\n

\u201cExpectations are high, yet the challenge of marrying outsized goals to greatly reduced budget guidance from his administration remains,\u201d Garver said. \u201cIt will be difficult to deliver on accelerating Artemis, transitioning to commercial LEO destinations, starting a serious nuclear electric propulsion program for Mars transportation, and attracting non-government funding for science missions. He\u2019s coming in with a lot of support, which he will need in the current divisive political environment.\u201d<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a rundown of some of the challenges Isaacman must overcome to be a successful administrator.<\/p>\n

A shrunken NASA<\/h2>\n

At the beginning of this year, the civil servant workforce at the space agency numbered about 18,000 people. NASA said that about 3,870 employees exited this year under various deferred resignation, early retirement, or buyout programs. After subtracting another 500 employees who left through normal attrition, NASA\u2019s headcount will be down by 20 to 25 percent by the end of this year.<\/p>\n

The question is how impactful these losses are. A number of the departures were from senior positions, leaving important divisions\u2014such as Astrophysics\u2014with acting directors and interim people in key positions. Some people who left were nearing retirement, and this may ultimately benefit the space agency by allowing younger people to bring new energy to the mission.<\/p>\n

Yet there are very real concerns about NASA\u2019s ability to retain its best people. As the commercial space industry grows around some of its key centers, including Alabama, Florida, and Texas, these companies cherry-pick the best NASA engineers by offering higher salaries and stock options. These engineers, in turn, know who to hire at the local field centers who are most promising.<\/p>\n

This brain drain diminishes the engineering excellence at NASA. Can Isaacman do more with less?<\/p>\n

Very low morale<\/h2>\n

Isaacman also arrives after what has essentially been a lost year for NASA.<\/p>\n

Imagine you\u2019re a NASA employee. You came to the agency to lead exploration of the Solar System and beyond. Then the second Trump administration shows up and demands widespread workforce cuts. The White House subsequently also proposes a 25 percent hit to the space agency\u2019s budget and draconian cuts for NASA\u2019s science programs.<\/p>\n

Then, to cap off the spring of 2025, Isaacman\u2019s nomination was pulled for purely political reasons. Not everyone at NASA liked Isaacman. There was genuine concern that he would shake things up and rattle cages. But Isaacman was also perceived as young, dynamic, and well-liked by the broader space community. He genuinely wanted to see NASA succeed. And then\u2014poof\u2014he\u2019s gone. This only exacerbated uncertainty about the agency\u2019s future.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy provides remarks at a briefing prior to the Crew 11 launch in August.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Isaacman\u2019s de-nomination was followed by the appointment of Sean Duffy, a former reality TV star serving as the Secretary of Transportation, to lead NASA on an interim basis. Duffy was a wild card, but it soon became clear he saw NASA as a vehicle to further his political career. And even if Duffy had been focused on solutions, he knew little about space and already had a full-time job leading the Department of Transportation. NASA employees are not fools. They saw this and understood this move\u2019s implications.<\/p>\n

Finally, in a coup de gr\u00e2ce, the government shut down on October 1. The majority of NASA\u2019s civil servant workforce has been sitting at home for six weeks, not getting paid, not exploring, and wondering just what the hell they\u2019re doing working for NASA.<\/p>\n

Arte-miss?<\/h2>\n

As NASA has struggled this year, China has made demonstrable progress in its lunar program. It is now probable that China\u2019s Lanyue lander will put humans on the lunar surface by or before the year 2030, likely beating NASA in its return to the Moon with the Artemis Program.<\/p>\n

NASA\u2019s lunar program was created during the first Trump administration, but then NASA leader Jim Bridenstine was unable to secure enough funding (remember the whole Pell Grant fiasco?) before he left office in early 2021. This left NASA without the resources it needed to build a management team to lead the program and support key elements, including a lander and lunar spacesuits.<\/p>\n

These problems more or less persisted under President Joe Biden and his NASA Administrator, Bill Nelson. From 2021 to 2024, the leaders of NASA essentially said everything was fine and that a lunar landing by 2026 was on track. When reporters, including myself, would ask the leaders of the Artemis Program, we were effectively shouted down.<\/p>\n

For example, in January 2024, I pressed NASA\u2019s chief of deep space exploration, Jim Free, about the non-viability of a 2026 human landing date.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s interesting because we have 11 people in industry on here that have signed contracts to meet those dates,\u201d Free replied during a teleconference, which included representatives from SpaceX, Axiom, and the other companies. \u201cSo from my perspective, the people in industry are here today saying we support it. We\u2019ve signed contracts to those dates on the government side based on the technical details that they\u2019ve given us, that our technical teams have come forward with.\u201d<\/p>\n

A shorter version of that might be: \u201cShut up, we know what we\u2019re doing.\u201d<\/p>\n

NASA has already delayed the lunar landing officially to 2027. And no one believes that date is real. One of Isaacman\u2019s first jobs will be to conduct an honest assessment of where the Artemis Program truly is and to rapidly take steps to get it on track. I think we can be confident he will do so with eyes wide open.<\/p>\n

Human Landing System<\/h2>\n

So what will he do about this? The biggest challenge involves the Human Landing System (HLS), a necessary component to get humans to the surface from lunar orbit and back.<\/p>\n

Ars explored how NASA found itself in this predicament in a long article published in early October. As for what to do now, NASA basically has two realistic options going forward. It can light a fire under SpaceX to prioritize the HLS component of its Starship program, and possibly adopt a simplified architecture. Or it can work with Blue Origin to develop to a human system using its Blue Moon Mk. 1 lander (originally intended for cargo) and a modified Mk. 1 lander for ascent purposes. (Blue says it is game). Beyond that, there is no hardware in work that could possibly accommodate a landing before 2030.<\/p>\n

Duffy initially blustered about American capabilities. Repeatedly, he said, \u201cWe are going to beat the Chinese to the Moon.\u201d It sounded good, but it underlined his inexperience with spaceflight because it was just not true.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Less than a month ago, Duffy changed his tune. He blamed SpaceX and its Starship vehicle for delays to Artemis, and he said he was \u201copening up\u201d the lander competition. The problem is that Duffy\u2019s solution was to raise the prospect of a \u201cgovernment option\u201d lunar lander. He had been having discussions with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and others about the possibility of issuing a cost-plus contract to build a smaller lunar lander in 30 months.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

An artist\u2019s illustration of multiple Starships on the lunar surface, with a Moon base in the background.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n SpaceX<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Duffy should have known that this timeline was completely unrealistic. Moreover, a rapidly built lunar lander (think five years, at a bare minimum) would likely cost on the order of $20 billion, which NASA did not have. But no one in his inner circle, including Amit Kshatriya, NASA\u2019s associate administrator, was telling him that. They were encouraging him.<\/p>\n

Isaacman is not going to be snowed under by this kind of (preposterous) proposal. Most likely, he will push SpaceX to prioritize HLS and be eager to work with Blue Origin to develop a human lander based on Mk. 1 technology.<\/p>\n

His first call as administrator may well be to Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos.<\/p>\n

Commercial LEO Destinations<\/h2>\n

Another looming problem involves commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit, which are supposed to be flying before the end of 2030 when the International Space Station is due to be retired.<\/p>\n

There is much uncertainty over whether the primary companies involved in this effort\u2014be it for financial, technical, regulatory, or other reasons\u2014will be able to launch and test space stations by 2030 in order to allow NASA to maintain a continuous presence in low-Earth orbit. The main contractors are Axiom Space, Voyager Technologies, Blue Origin, and Vast Space.<\/p>\n

This is one area in which Duffy took action. In August, he signed a document that implemented major changes to the Commercial LEO Destinations program. One of the biggest shifts was a lowering of the minimum requirements. Instead of fully operational stations, the new directive required only the capability to support four astronauts for 1-month increments in low-Earth orbit.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

However, it is unclear that Duffy fully understood what he was signing, because there was an immediate pushback. Moreover, prior to the government shutdown, there was a lot of discussion about ripping up the directive and reverting to the old rules for commercial space stations. Everyone in the industry is scratching their heads about what comes next.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, the space station companies are trying to raise funds, design stations for uncertain requirements, and prepare for competition for the next phase of NASA awards. This program needs more funding, clarity, and urgency for it to be successful.<\/p>\n

Earth science<\/h2>\n

In recent days, there has been some excellent reporting about the fate of Earth science at NASA, which is part of the space agency\u2019s core mission. Space.com published a long feature article about the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to undermine Maryland\u2019s Goddard Space Flight Center, which is NASA\u2019s oldest field center.<\/p>\n

Goddard houses the largest Earth science workforce at the agency, and its study of climate change is at odds with the policy positions of the Trump administration and many members of a Republican-controlled Congress. The result has been steep funding cuts, canceled missions, and closed buildings.<\/p>\n

One of Isaacman\u2019s most challenging jobs will be to balance support for Earth science while also placating an administration that frankly does not want to publish reports about how human activity is warming the planet.<\/p>\n

In remarks on the social media site X, Isaacman recently said he wanted to expand commercial partnerships to science missions. \u201cBetter to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission,\u201d he wrote. Isaacman said NASA should also buy more Earth data from providers like Planet and BlackSky, which already have satellites in orbit.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Planetary science<\/h2>\n

Another area of concern is planetary science. When one picks apart Trump\u2019s budget priorities, there are two clear and disturbing trends.<\/p>\n

The first is that there are no significant planetary science missions in the pipeline after the ambitious Dragonfly mission, which is scheduled to launch to Titan in July 2028. It becomes difficult to escape the reality that this administration is not prioritizing any mission that launches after Trump leaves office in January 2029. As a result, after Dragonfly, the planetary pipeline is running low.<\/p>\n

Another major concern is the fate of the famed Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The lab laid off 550 people last month, which followed previous cuts. The center director, Laurie Leshin, stepped down on June 1. With the Mars Sample Return mission on hold, and quite possibly canceled, the future of NASA\u2019s premier planetary science mission center is cloudy.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A view of the control room at NASA\u2019s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Isaacman has said he has never \u201cremotely suggested\u201d that NASA could do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.<\/p>\n

\u201cPersonally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue,\u201d he wrote on X.<\/p>\n

That is likely true, but charting a bright course for the future of planetary science, on a limited budget, will be a major challenge for the new administrator.<\/p>\n

New initiatives<\/h2>\n

All of the above concerns NASA\u2019s existing challenges. But Isaacman will certainly want to make his own mark. This is likely to involve a spaceflight technology he considers to be the missing link in charting a course for humans to explore the Solar System beyond the Moon: nuclear electric propulsion.<\/p>\n

As he explained to Ars earlier this year, Isaacman\u2019s signature issue was going to be a full-bore push into nuclear electric propulsion.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe would have gone right to a 100-kilowatt test vehicle that we would send somewhere inspiring with some great cameras,\u201d he said. \u201cThen we are going right to megawatt class, inside of four years, something you could dock a human-rated spaceship to, or drag a telescope to a Lagrange point and then return, big stuff like that. The goal was to get America underway in space on nuclear power.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another key element of this plan is that it would give some of NASA\u2019s field centers, including Marshall Space Flight Center, important work to do after the seemingly inevitable cancellation of the Space Launch System rocket.<\/p>\n

Standing up new programs, and battling against existing programs that have strong backing in Congress and industry, will require all of the diplomatic skill and force of personality Isaacman can muster.<\/p>\n

We will soon find out if he has the right stuff.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

After a long summer and fall of uncertainty, private astronaut Jared Isaacman has been renominated to lead NASA, and there appears to be momentum behind getting him confirmed quickly as the space agency\u2019s 15th administrator. It is possible, although far from a lock, the Senate could finalize his nomination before the end of this year. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":44106,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9521,9473,190,21],"class_list":["post-44104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-challenges","tag-isaacman","tag-nasa","tag-space"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44104"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44104\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44106"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}