logo
Trump Pulled His NASA Pick, But Jared Isaacman Would've Rebuilt the Moon Program

Trump Pulled His NASA Pick, But Jared Isaacman Would've Rebuilt the Moon Program

Gizmodoa day ago

Shortly after Donald Trump withdrew his nomination for Jared Isaacman to lead NASA, the billionaire private astronaut revealed what he would have changed at the agency had he been given the role of administrator. The most notable change would have been to NASA's Artemis program, which is struggling with cost overruns and a super expensive, disposable rocket.
During an interview with the All-in Podcast on Wednesday, Isaacman spoke about his nomination for the role of NASA administrator and where his priorities would have lied at the agency. 'Let's complete our lunar obligations, because that's a whole other story with China,' Isaacman said. 'At the same time, in parallel, develop the capabilities to get to Mars.' If Isaacman had taken the helm at NASA, however, he would've focused on reusable hardware to reach the Moon.
NASA's Artemis program has come under heavy criticism for its use of the agency's Space Launch System (SLS), an expendable super-heavy-lift rocket designed to launch the Orion capsule towards the Moon. The 5.75-million-pound rocket was built using components from NASA's Space Shuttle program, which ran from 1981 to 2011.
'It's a giant disposable rocket program that repurposes shuttle hardware,' Isaacman said during the interview. 'It's expensive, it's disposable. It is not the way to do affordable, repeatable, efficient exploration, whether it's to [the] Moon, Mars, or anywhere else.'
So far, NASA has poured billions into SLS before admitting that it's ultimately unaffordable. SLS has already gone $6 billion over budget, with the projected cost of each SLS rocket being $144 million more than anticipated. That would increase the overall cost of a single Artemis launch to at least $4.2 billion, according to a report released in May by the office of NASA's inspector general.
Instead of relying on SLS, Isaacman suggests focusing on reusable launch vehicles for Artemis 3 onwards. 'There's enough hardware now to fly a couple of missions and make sure you beat China back to the Moon,' Isaacman said. 'But you can't 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. And that obviously makes no logical sense whatsoever.'
He went on to criticize other aspects of NASA's Artemis program. 'We signed up a lot of international partners to support it because we like collecting flags, and it doesn't necessarily always mean that what they're contributing to is in the best interests of the program,' Isaacman said. 'This is going down a rabbit hole of a lot of things because of the shortcomings of the vehicle.'
This week, President Trump withdrew his nomination of Isaacman to lead NASA. The move was disappointing for the space community, which largely viewed Isaacman's prospective role as a welcomed change for the agency as it struggles with budgetary constraints and bureaucratic red tape.
Trump's decision coincided with SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk's supposed departure from the government, which Isaacman suggests was the reason behind the president's sudden change of heart. 'I'm not going to play dumb on this – I don't think timing was much of a coincidence,' Isaacman said. 'Obviously, there was more than one departure that was covered on that day. There were some people who had some axes to grind, and I was a good, visible target.'
With Isaacman gone, NASA's future is filled with uncertainty, particularly in relation to its Artemis program. The administration's proposed budget for NASA suggests phasing out its SLS rocket and the Orion capsule, and replacing them with commercial alternatives. There is a lot of emphasis on returning astronauts to the Moon, but no clear way on how to do it.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement

Washington Post

time12 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement

It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:

Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh
Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump dumps the Federalist Society — and even Republicans are shooketh

In a major about-face, Donald Trump is turning on the conservative powerhouse that built his judicial legacy, the Federalist Society. Yale Law professor Akhil Reed Amar warns that this break with the very group that helped propel him to power marks a dangerous shift. 'He just wants loyalty to himself—thugs and hacks,' Amar says, adding that Federalist Society judges are principled and loyal to the Constitution, not to Trump. 'The Senate needs to play a really important role now—especia

Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds

Forbes

time13 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds

Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store