WASHINGTON, DCOver the course of a nearly three-hour committee hearing Wednesday, the nominee to lead NASA for the Trump administration faced difficult questions from US senators who sought commitments to specific projects.However, maneuvering like a pilot with more than 7,000 hours in jets and ex-military aircraft, entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman dodged most of their questions and would not be pinned down.
His basic message to members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was that NASA is an exceptional agency that does the impossible, but that it also faces some challenges.
NASA, he said, receives an extraordinary budget, and he vowed to put taxpayer dollars to efficient use in exploring the universe and retaining the nations lead on geopolitical competitors in space.I have lived the American dream, and I owe this nation a great debt, said Isaacman, who founded his first business at 16 in his parents' basement and would go on to found an online payments company, Shift4, that would make him a billionaire.
Isaacman is also an avid pilot who self-funded and led two private missions to orbit on Crew Dragon.
Leading NASA would be the privilege of a lifetime, he said.The hearing took place in the Russell Senate Office building next to the US Capitol on Wednesday morning, in an expansive room with marbled columns and three large chandeliers.
There was plenty of spaceflight royalty on hand, including the four astronauts who will fly on the Artemis II mission, as well as the six private citizens who flew with Isaacman on his two Dragon missions.This may be the most badass assemblage weve had at a Senate hearing, said US Sen.
Ted Cruz, R-Texas, chair of the committee, commenting on the astronauts in the room.Committed to staying at the Moon?However, when the meeting got down to brass tacks, there were sharp questions for Isaacman.Cruz opened the hearing by stating his priorities for NASA clearly and explicitly: He is most focused on ensuring the United States does not cede any of its preeminence to China in space, and this starts with low-Earth orbit and the Moon.Make no mistake, the Chinese Communist Party has been explicit in its desire to dominate space, putting a fully functional space station in low-Earth orbit and robotic rovers on the far side of the Moon, he said.
We are not headed for the next space race; it is already here.Cruz wanted Isaacman to commit to not just flying human missions to the Moon, but also to a sustained presence on the surface or in cislunar space.In response, Isaacman said he would see that NASA returns humans to the Moon as quickly as possible, beating China in the process.
This includes flying Artemis II around the Moon in 2026, and then landing the Artemis III mission later this decade.The disagreement came over what to do after this.
Isaacman, echoing the Trump administration, said the agency should also press onward, sending humans to Mars as soon as possible.
Cruz, however, wanted Isaacman to say NASA would establish a sustained presence at the Moon.
The committee has written authorizing legislation to mandate this, Cruz reminded Isaacman.If thats the law, then I am committed to it, Isaacman said.
NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, left, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen watch as Jared Isaacman testifies on Wednesday.
Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, left, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and CSA (Canadian Space Agency) astronaut Jeremy Hansen watch as Jared Isaacman testifies on Wednesday.
Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls Cruz also sought Isaacmans commitment to flying the International Space Station through at least 2030, which is the space agencys current date for retiring the orbital laboratory.
Isaacman said that seemed reasonable and added that NASA should squeeze every possible bit of research out of it until then.
However, when Cruz pressed Isaacman about the Lunar Gateway, a space station NASA is developing to fly in an elliptical orbit around the Moon, Isaacman would not be drawn in.
He replied that he would work with Congress and space agency officials to determine which programs are working and which ones are not.The Gateway is a program championed by Cruz since it is managed by Johnson Space Center in Texas.
Parochial interests aside, a lot of space community stakeholders question the value of the Gateway to NASAs exploration plans.Ten centers and the future of SLSOne of the most tense interactions came between Isaacman and Sen.
Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who wanted commitments from Isaacman that he would not close any of NASAs 10 field centers, and also that the space agency would fly the Artemis II and Artemis III missions on the Space Launch System rocket.Regarding field centers, there has been discussion about making the space agency more efficient by closing some of them.
This is a politically sensitive topic, and naturally, politicians from states where those centers are located are protective of them.
At the same time, there is a general recognition that it would be more cost-effective for NASA to consolidate its operations as part of modernization.Isaacman did not answer Cantwell's question about field centers directly.
Rather, he said he had not been fully briefed on the administrations plans for NASAs structure.
Senator, theres only so much I can be briefed on in advance of a hearing, he said.
In response to further prodding, Isaacman said, I fully expect to roll up my sleeves when it came to ideas to restructure NASA.Cantwell and other Senators pressed Isaacman on plans to use NASAs Space Launch System rocket as part of the overall plan to get astronauts to the lunar surface.
Isaacman sounded as if he were on board with flying the Artemis II as envisionedno surprise, then, that this crew was in the audienceand said he wanted to get a crew of Artemis III to the lunar surface as quickly as possible.
But he questioned why it has taken NASA so long, and at such great expense, to get its deep space human exploration plans moving.He noted, correctly, that presidential administrations dating back to 1989 have been releasing plans for sending humans to the Moon or Mars, and that significantly more than $100 billion has been spent on various projects over nearly four decades.
For all of that, Isaacman and his private Polaris Dawn crewmates remain the humans to have flown the farthest from Earth since the Apollo Program.
They did so last year.Why is it taking us so long, and why is it costing us so much to go to the Moon? he asked.In one notable exchange, Isaacman said NASAs current architecture for the Artemis lunar plans, based on the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, is probably not the ideal long-term solution to NASAs deep space transportation plans.
The smart reading of this is that Isaacman may be willing to fly the Artemis II and Artemis III missions as conceived, given that much of the hardware is already built.
But everything that comes after this, including SLS rocket upgrades and the Lunar Gateway, could be on the chopping block.
Ars wrote more about why this is a reasonable path forward last September.Untangling a relationship with SpaceXSome of the most intelligent questions came from US Sen.
Andy Kim, D-New Jersey.
During his time allotment, Kim also pressed Isaacman on the question of a sustained presence on the Moon.
Isaacman responded that it was critical for NASA to get astronauts on the Moon, along with robotic missions, to determine the economic, scientific, and national security value of the Moon.
With this information, he said, NASA will be better positioned to determine whether and why it should have an enduring presence on the Moon.If this were so, Kim subsequently asked what the economic, scientific, and national security value of sending humans to Mars was.
Not responding directly to this question, Isaacman reiterated that NASA should do both Moon and Mars exploration in parallel.
NASA will need to become much more efficient to afford that, and some of the US Senators appeared skeptical.
But Isaacman seems to truly believe this and wants to take a stab at making NASA more cost-effective and "mission focused."Throughout the hearing, Isaacman appeared to win the approval of various senators with his repeated remarks that he was committed to NASAs science programs and that he was eager to help NASA uphold its reputation for making the impossible possible.
He also said it is a "fundamental" obligation of the space agency to inspire the next generation of scientists.A challenging moment came during questioning from Sen.
Edward Markey, D-Mass., who expressed his concern about Isaacmans relationship to SpaceX founder Elon Musk.
Isaacman was previously an investor in SpaceX and has paid for two Dragon missions.
In a letter written in March, Isaacman explained how he would disentangle his "actual and apparent" conflicts of interest with SpaceX.However, Markey wanted to know if Isaacman would be pulling levers at NASA for Musk, and for the financial benefit of SpaceX.
Markey pressed multiple times on whether Musk was in the room at Mar-A-Lago late last year when Trump offered Isaacman the position of NASA administrator.
Isaacman declined to say, reiterating multiple times that his meeting was with Trump, not anyone else.
Asked if he had discussed his plans for NASA with Musk, Isaacman said, I have not.Earlier in the hearing, Isaacman sought to make clear that he was not beholden to Musk in any way.My loyalty is to this nation, the space agency, and its world-changing mission, Isaacman said.
Yes, he acknowledged he would talk to contractors for the space agency.
It is important to draw on a broad range of perspectives, Isaacman said.
But he wanted to make this clear: NASA works for the nation, and the contractors, he added, work for us.A full committee vote on Isaacman is expected later this month after April 15, and if successful, the nomination would pass to the full Senate.
Isaacman could be confirmed late this month or in May.