{"id":44204,"date":"2025-06-05T18:31:02","date_gmt":"2025-06-05T10:31:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/jared-isaacman-speaks-out-and-its-clear-that-nasa-lost-a-visionary-leader\/"},"modified":"2025-06-05T18:31:02","modified_gmt":"2025-06-05T10:31:02","slug":"jared-isaacman-speaks-out-and-its-clear-that-nasa-lost-a-visionary-leader","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/jared-isaacman-speaks-out-and-its-clear-that-nasa-lost-a-visionary-leader\/","title":{"rendered":"Jared Isaacman speaks out, and it\u2019s clear that NASA lost a visionary leader"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a revealing interview published by the All-In Podcast<\/em> on Wednesday, the private astronaut nominated to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman, spoke at length on what he thought about the nomination process, how he would have led NASA, and the factors that led to the abrupt rescission of his nomination by President Trump.<\/p>\n

\u201cI got a call Friday, of last week, that the president has decided to go in a different direction,\u201d Isaacman said. \u201cIt was a real bummer.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a real bummer for most of the space community, myself included. To be clear, I am biased. I have gotten to know Isaacman over the last five years rather well, talking with him about his passion for spaceflight, what is working, and what is not. What I have discovered in Isaacman is a person who cares deeply about the future of US spaceflight and wants to make a meaningful contribution to its advancement. To see him done wrong like this, well, it\u2019s a very sordid affair.<\/p>\n

A lot of Isaacman\u2019s intellect and thought on these issues was evident in the podcast. Here\u2019s a look at some of the things that we heard for the first time, publicly, from Isaacman on Wednesday.<\/p>\n

On what NASA is doing<\/h2>\n

\u201cThe agency is doing a lot of littles, a lot of things that other agencies, departments, companies are capable of doing,\u201d Isaacman said. \u201cThat\u2019s not why the taxpayers fund NASA. NASA\u2019s funded to do the near impossible that no one else can do.\u201d<\/p>\n

So, what are the needle-moving projects that NASA should be focused on?<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s leading in the high ground of space,\u201d he said of his priorities. \u201cLet\u2019s complete our lunar obligations, because that\u2019s a whole other story with China. At the same time, in parallel, develop the capabilities to get to Mars. Help the commercial industry develop the rapid, reusable, heavy-lift capability that allows us to go anywhere. Pivot from competing with industry to doing what no company would ever do, which is build nuclear spaceships.\u201d<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Isaacman referenced the recent cancellation of the DRACO project, which aimed to develop a nuclear thermal propulsion engine. He supports this, saying NASA should fund a much larger project that is applicable in the real world and focus on nuclear electric propulsion.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s subscale,\u201d Isaacman said of the DRACO program. \u201cIt\u2019s a program that sits in a lab forever. Like what you need in nuclear electric\u2014I\u2019m passionate on the subject. You need us to get back to the good old days. We went from the atomic bomb in 1945 to laying the keel on the Nautilus<\/em> [the world\u2019s first nuclear submarine] in 1951. Five, six years. We didn\u2019t keep it in the lab forever. We said, you know what? We\u2019re going to do big, bold things. And that\u2019s what we need to be doing in space when it comes to nuclear.\u201d<\/p>\n

On Artemis<\/h2>\n

It\u2019s clear that Isaacman was not overly enamored with the Artemis Program to land humans on the Moon, viewing it as a program built around using the large, expendable Space Launch System rocket.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s a giant disposable rocket program that repurposes shuttle hardware,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s incredibly expensive. We signed up a lot of international partners to support it because we like collecting flags, and it doesn\u2019t necessarily always mean that what they\u2019re contributing to is in the best interests of the program, case in point, you know, Gateway, man. This is going down a rabbit hole of a lot of things because of the shortcomings of the vehicle. But it\u2019s expensive; it\u2019s disposable. It is not the way to do affordable, repeatable, efficient exploration, whether it\u2019s to [the] Moon, Mars, or anywhere else.\u201d<\/p>\n

Isaacman said NASA should fly Artemis II and Artemis III using this SLS rocket and then proceed toward deep space programs focused on reusable hardware. Later in the interview, he continued to assail the expensive, expendable hardware NASA has been developing for two decades.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s enough hardware now to fly a couple of missions and make sure you beat China back to the Moon,\u201d he said. \u201cBut you can\u2019t be stuck on this forever. This is literally the equivalency, by the way, of taking P-51 Mustangs [a fighter aircraft] from World War II and using them in Desert Storm, because we got to keep the plants open.\u2029And that obviously makes no logical sense whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n

On his de-nomination<\/h2>\n

Isaacman said he is, politically, a moderate, although he leans right. He supports Trump\u2019s desire to cut alleged waste and fraud from the US government, and that is what he intended to do at NASA. He also did not blame Trump for his departure, saying that a president makes a thousand decisions a day, often with a few seconds of information.<\/p>\n

He also said he enjoyed the Senate confirmation process, which allowed him to candidly discuss his positions on NASA with individual US senators.<\/p>\n

As for why he was removed, Isaacman said the following: \u201cI had a pretty good idea, I don\u2019t think the timing was much of a coincidence,\u201d he said. \u201cObviously, there was more than one departure that was covered on that day.\u201d<\/p>\n

The phone call to Isaacman saying his nomination was being pulled came the same day that SpaceX founder Elon Musk left his position as a special advisor to the president. Musk had been supportive of Isaacman\u2019s nomination. However, in his time running the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk had made enemies within the US government.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target,\u201d Isaacman said. \u201cI want to be overwhelmingly clear: I don\u2019t fault the president.\u201d<\/p>\n

Although Isaacman did not name anyone, multiple sources have told Ars that it was Sergio Gor, an official in the White House Presidential Personnel Office, who moved against Isaacman after Musk left the White House. Gor was irked by Musk\u2019s failure to consult him and other personnel officials on some decisions.<\/p>\n

As a result of what appears to be political pettiness, NASA lost a visionary leader who had the potential to lead the space agency into the middle of the 21st century at a time when an aging agency needs to modernize. If you listen to him, losing that potential in such a way is downright painful. It\u2019s a damn shame.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a revealing interview published by the All-In Podcast on Wednesday, the private astronaut nominated to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman, spoke at length on what he thought about the nomination process, how he would have led NASA, and the factors that led to the abrupt rescission of his nomination by President Trump. \u201cI got a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":44205,"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":[720,190,21],"class_list":["post-44204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-jared-isaacman","tag-nasa","tag-space"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44204"}],"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=44204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44204\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44205"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}