NASA needs reform—but is this billionaire the right person to lead it?
Billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman envisions a future where space travel is accessible to all. In 2021, he embarked on his first privately funded space mission, reportedly costing around $200 million (£160 million), with the goal of expanding space travel beyond the 600 individuals—mostly NASA astronauts and wealthy adventurers—who have experienced it so far.
“We want that number to be 600,000,” he declared.
Isaacman, who built much of his $1.9 billion (£1.46 billion) fortune from the payment processing company he founded at age 16 in 1999, has long been passionate about aviation and space. His enthusiasm drove him to sponsor the rest of the four-person crew on the SpaceX mission. Since then, his spacefaring ambitions have only grown.
Last year, he took part in another daring venture, flying in an upgraded SpaceX capsule and conducting the first commercial spacewalk. During this mission, he tested a prototype spacesuit and trialed a new cost-saving approach for exiting and re-entering the spacecraft without an airlock. A now-iconic photo of Isaacman silhouetted against Earth reinforced the idea that he wasn’t just another billionaire indulging in a science fiction fantasy—he was pushing the boundaries of what modern technology could achieve.
More recently, Isaacman has drawn even greater attention after being nominated by Donald Trump in December to lead NASA. His selection raises questions about Trump’s motivations, particularly given the former president’s appointment of SpaceX owner Elon Musk to a government role tasked with cutting $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) from the federal budget. While the NASA administrator role requires Senate confirmation, Isaacman’s appointment could significantly impact both the agency’s future and the broader vision of space travel for the masses.
A New Era of Space Exploration?
Historically, NASA administrators have come from diverse backgrounds, including former astronauts like Bill Nelson and government officials like Michael Griffin. Some, like entrepreneur Dan Goldin, focused on reducing costs. However, all previous leaders have been committed to NASA’s mission and values.
Isaacman, along with Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, represents a new breed of space pioneers—wealthy entrepreneurs challenging traditional aerospace models. Their efforts have accelerated innovation and significantly reduced the cost of spaceflight.
Upon his nomination, Isaacman shared his vision on social media: “This second space age has only just begun. A thriving space economy will emerge, creating opportunities for countless people to live and work in space. At NASA, we will usher in an era where humanity becomes a true spacefaring civilization.”
While many U.S. presidents have spoken about returning astronauts to the Moon since the Apollo era, Trump was the first to take concrete steps by authorizing the Artemis program. However, two major developments may have influenced his perspective: NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) has faced delays and budget overruns, while private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have been developing reusable, cost-effective lunar rockets.
The Future of NASA’s Moon Rocket
A key issue for NASA is the future of the SLS rocket. In 2021, NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that each SLS launch costs approximately $4.1 billion (£3.3 billion). By comparison, SpaceX’s Starship is estimated to cost around $100 million (£80 million) per launch, with Musk aiming to reduce that further to $10 million (£8 million). Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket, which launched for the first time in January, is expected to cost around $68 million (£54.5 million) per launch.
Reusability is a major factor in these cost differences. Unlike SLS, both Starship and New Glenn are designed for multiple flights. However, cost efficiency is also influenced by project management: SpaceX operates under fixed-price contracts with financial incentives for efficiency, whereas NASA’s traditional cost-plus contracts encourage spending without strict accountability.
NASA’s struggles with cost overruns are not new. The James Webb Space Telescope, for example, was originally budgeted at $1 billion (£800 million) with a planned launch in 2010 but ended up costing ten times that amount and launched in 2021. Similar challenges arose with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.
Despite these issues, NASA’s achievements—such as landing humans on the Moon, advancing astronomy, and inspiring technological innovation—have historically justified its spending. But with evolving priorities, experts like Professor John Logsdon of George Washington University believe a shift in NASA’s approach is overdue.
Reshaping NASA’s Approach
Traditionally, NASA has awarded cost-plus contracts to major aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, covering their expenses while ensuring a profit. While this model provided financial stability for ambitious projects, it also lacked incentives for cost control and efficiency.
In 2009, President Obama introduced fixed-price contracts for private companies, giving them room to innovate while ensuring they stayed on budget. SpaceX benefited from this shift, developing its Falcon rockets and Dragon capsules for ISS missions. Boeing, which received a similar contract for its Starliner spacecraft, has faced multiple delays and technical issues, highlighting the inefficiencies of the traditional approach.
With Isaacman at the helm, NASA could see a greater shift toward privatization, with more reliance on companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin. However, such changes may face resistance in Congress, where lawmakers prioritize funding for NASA-related jobs in their states.
A Potential Space Industry Shake-Up?
Professor Logsdon predicts that under Trump, Musk, and Isaacman, NASA will see major transformations—potentially cutting programs, shutting down NASA centers, and outsourcing more work to private firms. Isaacman has criticized SLS as “outrageously expensive” and argued that traditional aerospace contractors are incentivized to be inefficient.
However, drastic changes won’t come easily. While Trump’s party controls Congress, NASA’s budget is tied to political interests, with lawmakers keen to protect funding for programs benefiting their constituencies.
Despite cost concerns, NASA’s contributions to scientific discovery remain invaluable. Its work on reusable spacecraft, space telescopes, and planetary exploration has expanded human knowledge. Even as private companies take a larger role, experts caution against discarding the agency’s traditional strengths.
While some speculate that NASA might abandon its Moon program in favor of Mars exploration—an idea Trump has hinted at—others fear cuts to Earth observation and robotic science missions.
The Role of SpaceX
Isaacman’s close ties to Musk have raised concerns about favoritism toward SpaceX, which has already secured $20 billion (£16 billion) in government contracts since 2008. If SLS is scrapped and NASA shifts its Moon program to private contractors, SpaceX could gain even more dominance in the space sector.
However, the U.S. government has a history of preventing monopolies to foster competition. Additionally, Isaacman, despite his collaborations with Musk, is seen as independent-minded.
Ultimately, Isaacman’s appointment signals a pivotal moment for NASA. Whether it leads to greater efficiency or increased private-sector involvement, the agency’s future—and the broader trajectory of human space exploration—hangs in the balance.
Leave a Reply