America's Next NASA Administrator Will Not Be Former SpaceX Astronaut Jared Isaacman (arstechnica.com) 41
In December it looked like NASA's next administrator would be the billionaire businessman/space enthusiast who twice flew to orbit with SpaceX.
But Saturday the nomination was withdrawn "after a thorough review of prior associations," according to an announcement made on social media. The Guardian reports: His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision... In [Isaacman's] confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon...
Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce.
"It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman," the article adds, though "One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US Space Force..."
Ars Technica notes that Kwast, a former Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, has a background that "seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield — decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration."
But Saturday the nomination was withdrawn "after a thorough review of prior associations," according to an announcement made on social media. The Guardian reports: His removal from consideration caught many in the space industry by surprise. Trump and the White House did not explain what led to the decision... In [Isaacman's] confirmation hearing in April, he sought to balance Nasa's existing moon-aligned space exploration strategy with pressure to shift the agency's focus on Mars, saying the US can plan for travel to both destinations. As a potential leader of Nasa's 18,000 employees, Isaacman faced a daunting task of implementing that decision to prioritize Mars, given that Nasa has spent years and billions of dollars trying to return its astronauts to the moon...
Some scientists saw the nominee change as further destabilizing to Nasa as it faces dramatic budget cuts without a confirmed leader in place to navigate political turbulence between Congress, the White House and the space agency's workforce.
"It was unclear whom the administration might tap to replace Isaacman," the article adds, though "One name being floated is the retired US air force Lt Gen Steven Kwast, an early advocate for the creation of the US Space Force..."
Ars Technica notes that Kwast, a former Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, has a background that "seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield — decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration."
Past Associations? (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that Trump is willing to employ people who have past associations with white supremacists I wonder who this guy was hanging out with.
Maybe he was hanging out with trans civil rights lawyers or something... How frightening!
Re:Past Associations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably a woke lunatic who believes in a spherical earth and heliocentrism. Doubtless the Administration has a Pentecostal pastor who believes in Creationism and the healing power of CO2 to run the agency.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump doesn't take kindly to failure. Musk didn't come close to his promised 2 trillion in savings.
Re: Past Associations? (Score:2)
It is also possible that a close relationship presents too much of a potential conflict of interest. That could have messed up sending contracts to SpaceX. Whether or not they were valid and fair, it would have given critics a leg to stand on.
Better to have someone who is not so visibly inclined to favor Musk.
Re: Past Associations? (Score:5, Insightful)
In more normal times I would say this is possible but this admin is a just foundationally constructed of conflicts of interest, it's practically executive policy at this point.
Re: Past Associations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, given the observed behaviors of Trump's cabinet and advisors - I think it's the opposite. While Elon was part of Trump's team, Trump picked the guy Elon wanted specifically to tilt things in favor of SpaceX. But, now that Elon has left, our transactional president sees no point in allowing Elon to participate in the ongoing grift.
Re: Past Associations? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were actually running proper audits and evaluating what people are doing and weighing that against costs I would likely agree with you. Given the track record they've had with lay offs though they're clearly just firing people based on whether their job title fits right wing ideology with no intelligent evaluation happening. How else does one end up firing FDA chicken inspectors during as bird flu pandemic, people vital to our nuclear arsenal, or any one of the many other positions they had to bring
Re:Past Associations? (Score:4, Funny)
Trump doesn't take kindly to failure.
Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
> Trump doesn't take kindly to failure
Trump doesn't give a shit about failure. Trump had Musk thrust upon him, who spent most of his time acting as the one who was in charge, people ridiculed Trump for his relationship with Musk, and for a man with an ego the size of Trump's the entire thing was humiliating. He almost certainly hates Musk with a passion. Musk could have saved trillions and Trump would have hated him. Likewise Musk could have done nothing but sat on his ass the whole time, but not continu
Re: (Score:1)
Well, good. (Score:1)
Given the destruction his girlfriend elona did to the rest of the US government, putting someone that is less obviously a grifter would be nice.
But let's see what unqualified puppet will be proposed.
so la Presdienta should leave the WH? (Score:5, Informative)
The Ultimate Sin: according to the NYT, "Mr. Trump told associates in recent days that he decided to pull back the nomination after learning that Mr. Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur, had donated to prominent Democrats, according to three people with knowledge of the deliberations who were not authorized to discuss them publicly."
Didn't la Presidenta also commit this unforgivable sin? Mars is merely another misdirection from the WH. "See that Blibbering Humdinger in the window?"
Re: (Score:2)
Trump only cares who you support when Trump himself is in the election.
My suspicion though is that's a nice bit of parallel construction, if he was a known Trump-crony and not a Musk-crony there'd be no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like 2011 is the turning point when Trump stopped donating money to the democrats. https://ballotpedia.org/Histor... [ballotpedia.org]
Re:so la Presdienta should leave the WH? (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't la Presidenta also commit this unforgivable sin?
As the man says, Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi. It's the Republican way: when we do it it's good. When somebody else does it, it's the greatest crime ever.
What we're seeing now is just a continuation of the profound hypocrisy that characterizes the Republican party. Not that Democrats are saints, but Republicans have been and still are completely shameless in their double standards. For example, as the Dubya admin was pushing the American deficit to unprecedented heights, Cheney famously said "Deficits don't matter" - and the Republican party applauded. As soon as Democrats came into power, Republicans instantly turned into deficit hawks, attacking Obama for the deficit they themselves had created. There are even worse examples out there, but I don't want to make this rant too long. And sadly, it's not only Republican politicians who are guilty of that; regular Republican voters are by now quite versed in double-think.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, Trump has several Democrats IN HIS CABINET!
Who?
if you say rfk or gabbard it shows you are not a serious person and a liar. your depiction of trump as a 1980s democrat does apply, to trump in the 1980s, not president trump who in 5 years of being president has opposed all those things you list. stop lying
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RFK Jr. is what republicans think a democrat is.
Re: (Score:2)
Where’s the lie? RFK jr and Gabbard are both cabinet level, were both recently considered to be prominent democrats.)
RFK jr. announced that he was quitting the Democratic party on Oct. 9, 2023.
Tulsi Gabbard announced that she was quitting the Democratic party on October 11, 2022.
If these are intended to be examples of Democratic party members who were appointed to Cabinet positions by DT, you are incorrect. Neither one was a member of the Democratic party when nominated.
If the assertion were modified to state that DT has appointed former Democrats to Cabinet positions, it would be accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
> were both recently considered to be prominent democrats
Yes, but they're not now, are they?
The question was about people who are Democrats in Trump's cabinet, not about former Democrats. This isn't like, say, Ray LaHood, who was a Republican in Obama's cabinet and considered a Republican by Republicans and himself.
Fuck, Kennedy actually ran as a third party in the last election until he was persuaded to withdraw. And Gabbard has been considered persona-non-grata within the Democratic Party for nearly a
Re: (Score:2)
> NYT? What a joke! The same ones who helped in the Biden dementia coverup?
Is this a joke? The NYT was at the forefront of the "Biden must go" bullshit. Also dementia is a specific thing, Biden doesn't have it. He's in failing health, yes, and he's not as sharp as he used to be, but you can't just call any old person who doesn't think as quickly as he used to a dementia sufferer.
It's all the more ludicrous for the right to harp on about this because Biden's opponent in both elections has shown far more o
Re: (Score:2)
No, see, those were bribes, er, lobbying. Strictly business.
It Won't Be Me Either! (Score:5, Funny)
It won't be me either!
I just thought you should know.
SpaceX Astronaut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Space... the final frontier? (Score:3)
Ars Technica notes that Kwast, a former Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, has a background that "seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield — decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration."
Perhaps "final frontier" as in "that's the frontier at which human civilization gets bombed back to the stone age - or worse, ends altogether".
Chaos sucks (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a long time NASA contractor. The vibe I got from my management and agency communications was that we could have at least lived with Isaacman - he at least believed NASA did valuable things, things worth preserving and defending. Maybe that's what got him rejected, ultimately.
Now we're back to the drawing board again.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't have a rich guy in the big chair. They need someone who can be promised a seven-figure job after the stint if he is generous to the right people. A billionaire who wants the job and is a space nut would be too focused on program goals.
In that case I nominate Katee Sackhoff (Score:3)
She was totally kick-ass as Captain Kara "Starbuck" Thrace
in Battlestar Galactica, and she's hawt. The Base will love her
He deserves a fair hearing. (Score:2)
"Ars Technica notes that Kwast, a former Lieutenant General in the U.S. Air Force, has a background that "seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield — decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration."
What NASA needs is administration skills. Whether he has those, or not, is the question.
If during the confirmation hearing he starts slavering for war like Bolton always does then there are ample grounds to reject h
He's holding out for P Diddy (Score:2)
Coombs is an Astronaut. He uses lots of Astrolube.
"Looking at the facts" right now.
Go Team! (Score:2)
Let's hope their Mars plans are as expedited as the plans to replace the social security codebase in few months. And I think it would be good for Elon and other folks to show faith in the project and be on the first manned trial.
Musk is available now, right? (Score:1)
During the process he defines himself as a founder of NASA.
Result: Musk invented space travel.
I'm surprised What's-his-face isn't throwing rumors of picking Musk out on social media just for the fun of it.