Isaacman Insists NASA Can Pursue Moon and Mars Goals Simultaneously

At his confirmation hearing today, NASA Administrator nominee Jared Isaacman told Senators that returning astronauts to the Moon and sending them to Mars is not an either/or choice. The two can proceed on parallel tracks along with science programs, operating the International Space Station and building a commercial economy in low Earth orbit, all with NASA’s current budget. He was evasive in answering questions about Elon Musk’s role in getting him the nomination, however, but directly responded “no” when asked if he has been communicating with Musk since President Trump formally nominated him.

Isaacman appeared before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee accompanied by his wife and two daughters as well as his six crewmates from the Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions. NASA’s four-person Artemis II crew was also in the room, making a total of 10 astronauts. Committee chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) joked it “may be the most bad-ass” Commerce committee hearing he’s seen. (There actually were 11 including Isaacman.)

Nomination hearings are opportunities for nominees to share their visions for whatever agency they’re going to run, and for Senators to convey their expectations and concerns.

Isaacman spelled out his vision for NASA in his testimony, basically that he will reinvigorate the agency, find out why “most” programs are over cost and behind schedule, fix what’s broken, and ensure the United States is never second in space.

As for the Senators, a key issue was whether Isaacman is committed to returning astronauts to the Moon before going to Mars, and not just once, but as part of a sustainable lunar exploration and utilization future.  Trump’s endorsement of sending people to Mars in his Inaugural Address and March speech to Congress, echoing the passion of his close advisor, Elon Musk, is raising questions about whether Isaacman will pivot the Artemis program to Mars instead of the Moon.

Congress has steadfastly backed a Moon-to-Mars program on a bicameral, bipartisan basis since the George W. Bush Administration as codified in NASA authorization bills since 2005.

On Monday, Cruz tweeted that he’d gotten a commitment from Isaacman that the Moon would be first, but Isaacman’s testimony wasn’t as definitive:  “As the President stated we will prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars” and “[a]long the way, we will inevitably have the capabilities to return to the Moon…”

Cruz honed in on the question today. Isaacman said he agrees with Trump’s “ambitious goal” to send astronauts to Mars, but pointed out Trump “didn’t say we shouldn’t go to the Moon.” Isaacman fully endorses getting astronauts back to the Moon as soon as possible, before China gets there, and accepts that using NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket is the fastest way to do that even though he doesn’t see SLS as a long term answer for deep space human exploration.

Somewhat surprisingly, his position is that NASA can do both at the same time, Moon and Mars, on parallel tracks.  “We don’t have to make a binary decision.”

Not only that, but he believes NASA can do human missions to the Moon and Mars, science missions, and “all the other things” with the current budget.

Sen. Cruz:  Given the current NASA budget, if we assume for a moment we’re not going to see a dramatic shift and NASA’s budget double tomorrow, do you believe it is possible to stand up a full mission to the Moon and a full mission to Mars simultaneously?

Isaacman: … I think we can absolutely do that. We can figure out the space economy in low Earth orbit. We can run more scientific missions. This is the agency that went from sending Alan Shepard on a suborbital mission and eight years later we saw Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the Moon. Do I think that we can get back to the Moon, chart a course for Mars, and do all the other things? Absolutely, Senator.

He gave the same answer to other Senators and told Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) that NASA has an “extraordinary budget” that is “close to every federal law enforcement agency combined times two” and with it “we can do the near-impossible.”

If confirmed to lead the agency, he may discover money is, in fact, part of the problem. The nation’s investment in NASA today, about $25 billion a year, is a fraction of what the country was spending in the 1960s. The Apollo program alone cost $25.8 billion over the years 1960-1973, which is $257 billion when adjusted to 2020 dollars according to The Planetary Society. That didn’t include NASA’s science or aeronautics programs.

Isaacman also was asked about his commitment to operate the International Space Station until 2030. Musk recently called for the ISS to be deorbited two years from now instead of 2030, the current plan.

As with Moon-to-Mars, congressional support for the ISS hasn’t wavered and the 2030 date was codified in the 2022 NASA authorization act. Cruz emphasized the bill passed the Senate “100 to nothing.” Isaacman assured him as well as Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ranking Member of the space subcommittee, that he wants to “use up every bit of life” it has left. He wants to understand Musk’s “rationale,” but “I do not think we should deorbit it now.”

He also agreed there should not be a gap between ISS and the U.S. commercial space stations NASA expects to replace it lest China become the only country with a space station in low Earth orbit (LEO).

“We cannot cede low Earth orbit to the Chinese. …

“And I think we need to maximize the return the taxpayers have invested in that orbital laboratory [the ISS], use every bit of time we have to crack the code on the space economy and give commercial LEO destinations a fighting chance when they inevitably take over.”  — Jared Isaacman

Isaacman’s relationship with Musk and SpaceX was another top issue. Isaacman has personal and business ties to both, posing conflict of interest concerns since SpaceX is NASA’s second largest contractor.  Isaacman’s company Shift4 processes payments for SpaceX’s Starlink broadband Internet satellite system and the Wall Street Journal reports Shift4 invested in SpaceX as did Isaacman. Isaacman also bought the Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn flights on SpaceX Crew Dragons, with two more (one Crew Dragon, one Starship) on the books.

After recounting that Isaacman told him earlier that he is not “beholden” to Musk in any way, Peters asked Isaacman to state for the record if he’d had “any communication, email, texts, or calls” with Musk since he was nominated about how he would manage NASA. Isaacman replied: “Not at all Senator.” Peters then asked what steps he would take to ensure Musk didn’t exert undue influence in awarding contracts. Isaacman said his loyalty is to the nation and NASA.  While he welcomes input from any of NASA’s contractors, “they’re the contractors, NASA is the customer, they work for us, not the other way around.”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) pursued it further, asking if Musk had been at Mar-a-Lago when Isaacman was there to interview for the job. Isaacman insisted he was there to be interviewed by Trump and might have had a conversation in passing with Musk, but when Markey zeroed in on whether Musk was in the room when Trump offered him the position, Isaacman was evasive. Each time Markey asked, Isaacman replied that he was being interviewed by the President. He wouldn’t address whether Musk was there or not. Markey finally said “I assume you don’t want to answer the question directly because Musk was in the room.”

Isaacman fielded questions on a broad range of other issues including reorganization and personnel plans, but demurred since he doesn’t have the information he needs. “I read what’s on NASAWatch and in the news” and he is “eager to understand all the considerations.”  He did commit to working with Congress before making decisions about closing any NASA centers.

Basically he came across as a NASA enthusiast who believes the agency can do the “near-impossible” if it’s managed properly. Money is not the problem. The future is bright and NASA can continue to inspire the next generation — its “fundamental obligation” — by executing on its mission.

A schedule for when the committee will vote on his nomination hasn’t been announced.  Assuming he clears committee, he still must be voted on by the full Senate, another process without a timetable.

 

This article has been updated.