Isaacman revisitedby Jeff Foust
|
| “I have not reviewed or been party to any official discussions, but a ~50% reduction to NASA’s science budget does not appear to be an optimal outcome,” Isaacman said. |
His confirmation hearing on April 9 allowed him to address key issues on the minds of senators, from the future of the Artemis lunar exploration campaign to his ties with Elon Musk (see “All of the above, or none?”, The Space Review, April 14, 2025). As with other confirmation hearings, senators sent additional questions to Isaacman, known as questions for the record, that he provided written responses to.
Last week, the committee published those questions and answers in two documents, one with questions from Republican senators and other from Democratic senators. They shed a little more light on Isaacman’s plans for NASA, particularly considering events that took place right after the hearing.
The biggest of those developments was the leak of the “passback” budget document delivered by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to NASA, publicized two days after the hearing. That budget, yet to be formally released, would propose cutting NASA’s overall budget by 20% in fiscal year 2026 but slash science by nearly 50%.
Democratic senators, unsurprisingly, had questions for Isaacman about the budget. “Yes or no: Would you support a 50 percent cut to NASA’s science budget?” asked the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Isaacman claimed he was unaware of the development of the budget proposal. “I have not reviewed or been party to any official discussions, but a ~50% reduction to NASA’s science budget does not appear to be an optimal outcome,” he responded.
He offered similar answers to more specific questions about NASA science programs and the budget, endorsing them in general while evading specifics about funding levels. “I have not been privy to any internal budgetary planning or decision making conversations at the Agency,” he told Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), adding he would work with both OMB and Congress on “the appropriate level of funding” for NASA. “That said, I will always be an advocate for NASA and its science portfolio.”
One break with the White House, though, involved the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which the passback reportedly proposed cancelling even though it is on budget and scheduled to launch as soon as the fall of 2026.
“To my knowledge, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is nearing completion and remains on schedule and within budget—something that is unfortunately rare for flagship programs at the agency,” he wrote when asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) about support for Roman. “I’m not aware of any reason why it should be canceled, and I would support its completion and successful deployment.”
One topic that did not get much attention at the hearing was the future of the International Space Station and NASA’s shift to using commercial space stations. Isaacman said then he did not support an immediate deorbiting of the ISS, as Musk had stated in February, and suggested that the agency benefit in some way from the shift to commercial stations so that it could become “a financially self-sustaining agency.”
| “We are on the clock with the ISS’s end of life timeline. If confirmed, I will do all I can to bring urgency and focus to ensuring a successful transition,” Isaacman said. |
Isaacman offered few details about how that would work when asked about it by Cantwell. “For over 60 years, American taxpayers have invested in the agency’s pursuit and exploration of the final frontier. Moving forward, those taxpayer contributions should increasingly be supplemented by the economic potential space has to offer,” he wrote. “Ideally, NASA should begin to explore mechanisms for generating offsetting revenue—similar in spirit to the FAA’s use of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.”
That trust fund, which covers the majority of the FAA’s expenses, is used for operations, facilities, research, and grants for airport improvement projects, and is funded by taxes on airline passenger tickets, air cargo, and aviation fuel. It’s unclear how that would be applied to NASA, since the agency is not a regulator and would be one of many customers of commercial space stations, not an operator of them or provider of services.
In response to questions from Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Isaacman said he would focus on the economics of commercial space stations. “First, we need to prioritize the highest-potential science and research on the ISS that could help ‘crack the code’ on a sustainable orbital economy,” he wrote. (He used the phrase “crack the code” regarding LEO commercialization at least a half-dozen times in his answers to various senators.)
He also said he would work to remove roadblocks of any kind—" technical, financial, regulatory, or bureaucratic”—to commercial stations. “We are on the clock with the ISS’s end of life timeline. If confirmed, I will do all I can to bring urgency and focus to ensuring a successful transition that doesn’t leave a gap in our presence in low Earth orbit or jeopardize the emergence of a true space economy.”
Isaacman offered similar responses to the committee’s chairman, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said in one of his questions that such “economic analysis may prove challenging” because NASA recently laid off its chief economist, part of the closing of the Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy.
Isaacman responses to Cruz that he would “absolutely seek out credible economic and market analyses” and even suggested he may reconsider closing of the office. “I’m aware that certain economic offices or roles were recently dissolved, and I’d want to review that rationale and determine whether that expertise should be restored or supplemented.”
In the additional questions from senators, Isaacman reiterated his comments at the hearing about his support for the current Artemis architecture, at least in the near term, including the Space Launch System and Orion as well as the lunar Gateway. That included stating that he was unaware of any proposals by the Trump administration to cancel SLS.
| “I no longer oppose lunar lander redundancy because the decision has already been made, and significant investments have been committed,” Isaacman explained. |
“I am not aware of any plans to cancel Gateway, and as I stated during the hearing, I am fully committed to following the law as written,” he wrote in response to a question by Cruz about the uncertain future of Gateway given proposed NASA cuts. In a followup on whether NASA would have to reimburse Gateway partners if the program is cancelled, he wrote, “I wouldn’t want to speculate on something I’m not aware is actually under consideration.”
Cantwell brought up apparent criticism of NASA’s selection of Blue Origin for a second Human Landing System (HLS) award by Isaacman last year before he was nominated. “Spend billions on lunar lander redundancy that you don’t have with SLS at the expense of dozens of scientific programs. I don’t like it,” he tweeted in March 2024.
“Are you still opposed to redundancy? Or do you now support human lunar lander redundancy?” asked Cantwell, whose state is home to Blue Origin’s headquarters.
“At the time, I found it difficult to reconcile having no redundancy for transporting astronauts to lunar orbit—given our reliance on a single vehicle like SLS—while simultaneously funding multiple redundant systems for the landing itself,” Isaacman wrote, but said his views had changed.
“I no longer oppose lunar lander redundancy because the decision has already been made, and significant investments have been committed,” he explained. “As a result, the United States now has an additional commercial provider with heavy-lift launch capability, which enhances national resilience and capacity in space exploration.”
That comment appears to confuse cause and effect. Blue Origin will use its New Glenn rocket to launch the Blue Moon lunar lander, but the company had been working on the vehicle for many years when it received the HLS award for New Glenn. The US would likely have that additional commercial provider with heavy-lift launch capability even if Blue Origin never received that HLS award.
Perhaps the closest thing that passed for drama at the confirmation hearing was the exchange between Isaacman and Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA), where Markey repeatedly asked if Musk was in the room when President-elect Trump offered Isaacman the NASA job and Isaacman repeatedly declining to answer.
A version of that exchange repeated itself in the questions for the record, with Markey asking Isaacman three questions about that meeting and whether Musk was there. “My interview was with the President of the United States. The person asking me questions—and ultimately offering me the opportunity—was the President himself,” Isaacman wrote in response to all three.
Isaacman, in answering questions from Markey and other Democratic senators, downplayed his ties to Musk. “I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Musk,” he told Cantwell. “While I’ve spoken with him occasionally over the years in my capacity as a SpaceX customer, I would describe our interactions as professional.”
That included, he said, calling “1000% false” reports by the Wall Street Journal in March that Musk called Isaacman to ask if he would be interested in running NASA. Isaacman also denied that he talks frequently with Michael Altenhofen, a former SpaceX executive now a senior advisor at NASA.
Isaacman said he was contracted by Howard Lutnick, then co-chairing the Trump transition team (he is now Secretary of Commerce), about the NASA job. He was vague about just how his name got to the attention of Lutnick and his team, but seemed to bristle when Cantwell asked if it was linked to a $2 million contribution to Trump’s inauguration, made about a week before Trump announced the nomination: “I reject the premise of this question, and no one ever suggested that a contribution would position me for a nomination.”
| “I’m not here for a title. I’m here to help the agency, not dismantle it.” |
“I’ve heard that several retired Generals and Admirals I worked with while running my defense company had recommended me for different positions,” he told Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a reference to Draken International, a company he founded to provide flight training services. He also noted that he commanded “a record-breaking space mission” in the form of Polaris Dawn two months before the election that would have attracted attention.
“So, while the nomination personally came as a surprise and an honor, it does not seem that unusual that my name was being circulated,” he wrote. (His nomination, though, took many in the space industry by surprise, although in many cases a pleasant one.)
Isaacman confirmed in the questions that he has terminated contracts with SpaceX for future Polaris missions and had been refunded the advanced payments he made for them. He declined, though, to say how much he had paid SpaceX for the Inspiration4 and Polaris Dawn missions: “The amount I paid to SpaceX for past missions is subject to confidentiality obligations in my contractual agreements with SpaceX.”
He sidestepped questions about whether he would recuse himself from any decisions involving SpaceX or notify Congress of any meetings he had with Musk. He will retain his stake in his Shift4 payments company, which has a contract with SpaceX for Starlink payment processing services worth $10–16 million a year, but said he will surrender his majority voting stake.
“Upon confirmation, I will execute my duties as Administrator consistent with applicable government ethics laws and regulations and based on guidance from the NASA’s General Counsel or other designated agency ethics officials,” he said in response to several questions about his ties to Musk and SpaceX.
“I’m stepping away from my business career—and my commercial spaceflight career—because I believe I owe a debt to this nation and want to contribute to NASA’s extraordinary mission,” he stated in a response to a question from Peters about retaining NASA talent given buyouts and the threat of layoffs. “I’m not here for a title. I’m here to help the agency, not dismantle it.” NASA, and the nation, will soon find out how much, or how little, he can help the agency.
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.
