Two days after being confirmed as NASA’s new administrator, Jared Isaacman held a town hall to speak to answer questions from the workforce on Friday, December 19.
The town hall was opened with a recorded message from Isaacman which included this statement which would set the tone for event, “America will lead in the ever expanding high ground of space. We will never come in second place. To succeed, NASA must focus on achieving the near impossible, doing what no other agency or organization or nation is even capable of accomplishing.”
This was followed by NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens laying out how the Q&A session would proceed. Isaacman then came to the podium to address the workforce and then answer questions.
During his address he mentioned the new White House national space policy “Ensuring American Space Superiority” of which he said, “in my view, it’s one of the most significant commitments to America’s space program by any administration since the Kennedy era.”
The new space policy includes a directive that says NASA must return “Americans to the Moon (surface) by 2028 through the Artemis Program.” A goal that’s only two years away and with no lunar lander close to being ready.
Isaacman spoke to directly to workforce ethic as well, saying “NASA must be one of the hardest, most demanding places to work in this country because lives depend on our work and the world is counting on our breakthroughs and discoveries… The expectations are rightfully very high.”
Five key takeaways
On accelerating the Artemis program – Isaacman emphasized a “relentless focus on the mission” to return American astronauts to the Moon. A key directive is to pull forward the Artemis schedule “to the limits that physics and safety afford.” This includes immediate preparation for Artemis II and ensuring international and commercial partners deliver the necessary vehicles, suits, and habitats to establish an enduring lunar presence.
On igniting the orbital and lunar economy – Isaacman made it clear that the “perpetual taxpayer-dependent model won’t fund the future.” The goal is to transition from the government-owned International Space Station (ISS) to multiple commercial stations. This involves actively fostering demand from non-traditional space sectors—such as pharmaceuticals, biotech, and on-orbit computing—to justify the costs of orbital outposts.
On operational efficiency and bureaucratic reform – In light of “fiscally challenging times,” Isaacman intends to minimize “bureaucratic drag” and flatten the organizational structure. The objective is to increase “decision velocity” and eliminate obstacles that slow down engineers and scientists. He explicitly stated that NASA cannot achieve its objectives by doing things the way they have been done in recent years.
On maximizing science as a “force multiplier” – Isaacman aims to reduce the “time to science” and maximize the value of every dollar. This involves a “full menu of possibilities,” including taking smarter risks (similar to the Commercial Lunar Payload Services model) and leveraging commercial constellations for Earth science data. He also highlighted a renewed focus on Aeronautics (the “first A in NASA”) through X-planes and investing in next-generation technologies like nuclear surface power and propulsion.
On empowering the workforce and accountability – Isaacman stressed the need to push responsibility down to the talent capable of doing the job, noting that young engineers took NASA to the Moon in the 60s. He plans to hold commercial and international partners to the same high pressure and standards as NASA itself.
Town Hall Transcript
This transcript has been edited-for-clarity. Questions from the NASA workforce were moderated by NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens.
Administrator Jared Isaacman opening comments: So, good afternoon. I am really honored to be here today as NASA’s 15th Administrator, serving under President Trump’s leadership and working alongside some of the greatest scientific and engineering minds this nation has to offer. I feel like I am living the dream right now.
This is the agency that captivated me as a child, inspiring me to grow up reading every book on the subject I could, on all of NASA’s amazing accomplishments and all the pioneers and heroes that showed up to work here every day. This is the agency that has inspired the world again and again with images from our telescopes, our probes, and our rovers. This is the agency that sent astronauts to and from the Moon at a time when we knew so little but believed we could do the impossible. So honestly, there’s nowhere else I would rather be than right here, right now, alongside all of you at the most accomplished space agency in the world.
I understand that with any leadership change comes some anxiety and uncertainty. But between two hearings, a few podcasts, and a document that circulated a little wider than expected, there should really be no mysteries as to how I’m thinking about things. But more importantly, the President has released a National Space Policy, and in my view, it’s one of the most significant commitments to America’s space program by any administration since the Kennedy era. It lays out a very clear vision, provides unambiguous priorities, and sets time frames for achievement. And as it’s always been, the honor and exceptional responsibility rightfully falls on all of us here at NASA to deliver.
So, let me outline the direction that we’re going to take together. America will lead in the peaceful exploration of space. We will bring extreme focus to the mission and realize our near-term objectives of returning American astronauts to the Moon and establishing an enduring presence to unlock the scientific, economic, and national security potential on the lunar surface. We will look for every opportunity to pull forward the Artemis program to the limits that physics and safety afford while increasing the flight cadence across the architecture authorized in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
The next most significant milestone, of course, is Artemis II, launching on a historic mission early this coming year. At the same time, we will prepare for the inevitable return by working with our commercial and our international partners to ensure they are aligned with our programmatic objectives and acting with the urgency needed to deliver the launch services, the vehicles, the suits, the habitat, surface power, and rovers required for frequent, affordable missions to the lunar environment.
And our journey does not end on the Moon. As directed in the National Space Policy, we will accelerate investments in next-generation programs that only NASA is capable of leading, including nuclear surface power and propulsion—technologies that will usher in the next giant leap in space exploration and discovery.
Now, we must ignite the orbital and eventual lunar economy. For more than a half-century, the space economy has been terrestrially anchored in launch communication and observation, with world governments as the primary customer. That perpetual taxpayer-dependent model won’t fund the future we’ve all imagined. Alongside industry and academia, we must uncover the long-awaited promise of pharmaceuticals, biotech, on-orbit computing—anything that can contribute to and perhaps someday entirely justify the cost of maintaining inhabited orbital outposts and generating value far in excess of what it costs to operate in space.
Working with industry and academia, we will do all we can to maximize the remaining life of the International Space Station, prioritizing the highest potential science and research with the aim of determining this new orbital economy. So that in the future, we will transition from one station to many. NASA will become a force multiplier for science. With an immense hunger for the data and enthusiasm to deliver the world-changing headlines that only NASA is capable of achieving, we will endeavor to reduce the time to science and maximize the scientific value of every dollar that’s available.
Now, I do not believe this is a one-size-fits-all approach. We will embrace a full menu of possibilities. So, that includes bespoke missions to extraordinary destinations and expanded CLPS-style (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) missions that accept more risk for faster discovery. Partnering with industry to gather Earth observation data more efficiently and affordably without sacrificing continuity, and lending NASA expertise and resources to enable academic institutions to take on bold scientific missions. Some approaches may be a flavor of the way it has always been done, and some will be a new way. But in all cases, we will challenge the process in every way with the goal of arriving at the desired results as expeditiously and affordably as possible. Because if NASA doesn’t do it, no one else will.
Now, accomplishing our mission will not be easy. But at NASA, it never was and it never should be. Engineering and program management challenges are just part of the story. We have a great competitor that is moving at absolutely impressive speeds, and it’s unsettling to consider the implications if we fail to maintain our technological, scientific, or economic edge in space. And the clock is running.
These are fiscally challenging times, and I do support the President and his goal to get spending under control and bring down the national debt. Now, this is hardly NASA specific, but we as a nation can’t spend our way out of every problem and believe it will lead to better outcomes. So, I don’t know where the budgets will land, but I will always advocate passionately for the agency, knowing we will make the most of every dollar entrusted to us.
And I’m not arriving with all the answers. I do know this: we cannot achieve our objectives by doing things the way they’ve been done in recent years. And we know most of the NASA IG reports would echo this sentiment. So we must do all we can to minimize the bureaucratic drag that can slow us down and slow down the great engineers and scientists, and eliminate obstacles that impede progress. Flatten the organizational structure to improve information flow and accelerate sound decision-making, and push responsibility down to the talent that is more than capable of getting the job done. And when we do, we must rightfully recognize and reward the contributors that bring the near impossible to reality.
NASA must be one of the hardest, most demanding places to work in this country because lives depend on our work and the world is counting on our breakthroughs and discoveries. It’s why you see the NASA logo anywhere you travel. I mean, people the world over know what we are capable of accomplishing, and the expectations are rightfully very high. We are not alone in the need to evolve to meet the moment. Our international and commercial partners have made commitments as well, and we must place as much pressure on them to deliver as we do on ourselves.
No changes happen in a vacuum. I plan to speak with many of you, the leadership teams, the engineers, scientists, astronauts, our program managers, and the people in the field doing the work. I will visit every center in the weeks ahead and engage with our international and commercial partners. I want to hear directly what is broken so we can work together to fix it, and where we are excelling so we can do a lot more of it.
It’s been a year, but we have real momentum now. NASA has the enthusiastic interest of President Trump, the Vice President, the Cabinet. We have bipartisan congressional support. We have a National Space Policy outlining the most righteous and inspiring objectives. We have the mandate. We have the talent, the partners, and the resources to get the job done and bring billions of people along with us on this journey. I don’t think there are many NASA employees standing next to you who served during the Apollo era. They have retired. In many cases, they’ve passed on, leaving their extraordinary accomplishments behind for us to celebrate. But now, you will be the ones in the room when we return. You will be part of the next chapter of this history. And this time when we make the grand return, we stay. Thank you.
Q&A Session
Bethany Stevens: Okay. And with that, we will get right back into the questions that are coming. But I know that one of the questions that was submitted was asking what your plans are for your first 60 days. So I’ll let you take it from here.
Administrator Isaacman: What are my plans for the first 60 days? Well, there is an awful lot to learn. There are volumes of materials on my desk right now to get through. But I think our major priorities are overwhelmingly clear, and it’s the first part of the President’s National Space Policy. We have to return to the Moon. We have Artemis II that’s on deck. I mean, again, just weeks away from potentially launching. So, I think making sure we concentrate a lot of our resources rightfully in that direction is most appropriate. But there’s an awful lot to get done, and this is the agency that can do it. I mean, this is an agency with a lot of proud history taking on multiple parallel world-changing programs. So, I think again, we know what our near-term responsibilities are, but I’m looking forward to learning as much as I can, getting out interacting with all of you on that road show that I mentioned coming up, and getting things going.
Bethany Stevens: Awesome. And Elizabeth Hook Rogers from NASA HQ, thank you for that question. I will kick it to Samantha Yousef from Glenn. She asked:
“Do you have any insight into when the current hiring freeze may be lifted and whether candidates who are already selected and given start dates will need to recompete for their positions?”
Administrator Isaacman: Well, it’s a good question. I think somewhere around 28 hours or so on the job, so there are certain things that I still need to chase down. But as I said many times through two hearings, in order to do the near impossible, it’s going to take the contributions of the best and brightest from across the nation. I have no doubt there are areas within the agency where we’re going to have to hire. So I look forward to getting more familiar with where we stand on some of these policies.
Bethany Stevens: Great. Fernando de la Yaka from Johnson said:
“NASA FOD presented at MCC a state-of-the-art holographic AI tech from AXA. Will NASA incorporate AI and holography in the future?” Definitely butchered that word.
Administrator Isaacman: Well, I mean certainly sounds like the right direction. I mean, almost every good space sci-fi movie I’ve seen incorporated both AI and holographs, so that’s good. I mean in all seriousness, we absolutely have to. So I am not familiar with where we are at this present moment. I am familiar with the pages and pages of policies, regulation, documentation history this agency possesses, and it would certainly seem to make sense to me that as a good first step, we could try and incorporate some of that, and AI might make it easier to find some of the materials we need. But look, if we think about where the destinations will eventually take us, we’re going to… I mean, eventually, whether it’s Mars and beyond, just transmission delays alone are going to take us, or at least evolve the current mission control concept where we’re going to have to rely on more onboard decision-making where I could see AI playing a role. What a fun thing to imagine at some point in the near future.
Bethany Stevens: And also just a reminder, we do have a mic in the room if anybody wants to get up and ask a question. Betty Lynn Mason from Marshall asks:
“Do you see new technology development more by hands-on engineering work here at NASA or through NASA consulting with industry and why?”
Administrator Isaacman: I think it’s both. And I’m sure many of you—well I don’t know, you probably have a lot of better things to do than hear what I’m saying to Congress all the time. But this question comes up a lot. It almost goes to the relevancy of the agency. Like, “Why do we need a NASA and we have all these great commercial companies doing all these things?” It’s like, wait a second, let’s go back to the 1960s during the space race where we did the near impossible. We worked alongside industry. I mean we had partners. You have Boeing and McDonnell Douglas and Northrop back in the 1960s, and those names are still with us today, and certainly, there are some new names out there.
I do think it’s NASA’s job to focus on the near impossible, and we figure those things out. We can hand them off to some of our industry partners where we can let innovation take off and the competitive forces drive down costs, and we just recalibrate next. So look, it’s going to be both. The National Space Policy, something I’ve spoken about extensively, talks a lot about investments in nuclear programs, nuclear surface power, nuclear propulsion. Now, there is an emerging industry that’s capable of supporting that, but I think a lot of that is what NASA should be taking on. And then there are certainly areas where we pioneered technology decades ago where we’re very comfortable working alongside our commercial partners to get the job done. I don’t see that balance ever changing. And especially on the science side. Back to my commentary before: If NASA isn’t out there trying to unlock the secrets of the universe, no one else is going to do it.
Bethany Stevens: Rita Sam Bruna from Goddard said:
“Welcome Administrator Isaacman. I was gratified to hear you say that one of the goals of your administration is to make NASA a force multiplier for science. I’m wondering what the word science really means. Is it only the science that serves directly Moon to Mars, space weather, robotics, propulsion science, surface exploration, and more? Or more generally, all science we currently do at the agency, even if not directly linked to Moon to Mars, for example, is traditional astrophysics studying the universe included?”
Administrator Isaacman: Of course. I mean, I think just fundamentally, what are we here to do? We’re here to answer the questions that went through every kid’s mind when they looked up at the stars at night and wondered what’s out there and why it’s the way it is. I mean, so we play that role across all of our mission directorates. So, of course, human space exploration is a major component to that, but as is our entire science program and our technology development initiatives. I mean, we’re focused in all the right places to try and solve the mysteries in air and space.
Bethany Stevens: Ben Jung Wang Lee from Johnson says:
“If China can air fry barbecue chicken on Tiangong, should we re-evaluate rigid and somewhat outdated NASA requirements and use modern tech to turn survival into thriving to attract commercial investment?” This was an air fryer.
Administrator Isaacman: I had cold pizza in space. That’s cool. That’s an upgrade on that. Yeah, I look, as I alluded to in some of my remarks before, I think it’s absolutely healthy for any organization to constantly challenge the way they do things, knowing that what we’ve done in the past is not necessarily the right approach to get to the future. I mean, we are on the brink of a massive transformation right now. You can see all the various commercial providers building their own launch vehicles with rapid reusability. I mean, this can be a light switch type moment where you have numerous commercial and NASA missions being operated near simultaneously. We could have multiple space stations. We are certainly going to build a lunar base in line with the President’s direction and look even further outward. Like, we’re going to have to challenge some of these things that might have been rigid in the past during less mature times.
So, I know air fryers is just the example, but I imagine there are many things that we have historically maybe not prioritized or thought were of a greater risk that we should be re-evaluating. I think that goes across the entire portfolio of our responsibilities at NASA. And I will hand the mic over for the question here in house.
Kelly Fast (Acting Planetary Defense Officer): Thank you. Kelly Fast, Acting Planetary Defense Officer. And I was one of those astronomer kids looking at the skies, but also being an astronomer also here having to use infrastructure that perhaps is aging. It’s not as flashy to work on budget software and procurement software and awards management software, and I know that often we have to throw people at such situations because it’s certainly flashier to do the next cool thing. But do you have any thoughts on how we can maybe handle things that are under the surface on which we rely in order to do the impossible that we’re trying to do here?
Administrator Isaacman: Well, you guess from an infrastructure perspective, and I guess including a lot of the core systems that allow the agency to function, I do think we should be applying a lot of the brain power that is available to us at this agency to try and find ways to do it better. To free up resources to work on those exciting things. I mean I hope everyone kind of almost regardless of their function is trying to find a way to do whatever their current job is better. Whether there’s means to automate it or software to alleviate some of their responsibilities so they can repurpose their time on the more exciting things to work on. But yeah, I have to imagine that if there’s any agency in the United States government that can find a way to do some of those responsibilities a little bit better to free up resources, we should be capable of doing it. Thank you. I love your area of responsibility, too. I think that’s one we should keep a good eye on. We don’t want to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Bethany Stevens: Lisa Link from Goddard says:
“Can you speak to the reorganization discussed in the Project Athena document and what impacts we can expect?”
Administrator Isaacman: Sure. I mean, look, that, as I think a lot of people probably know, was formulated a time earlier this year where… I mean I was a nominee, so I can only see what’s being reported, but there was a lot of various reorganization plans that seemed to be considered at the time. A lot of phase one, phase two… I don’t know how much everyone was tracking that. But from my perspective, having worked on a number of large organization reorg type efforts, it’s better to do a single data-informed plan rather than anything that involves needless pain over a period of time. Now that’s five, six months ago. A lot has happened since then. As I mentioned before in my remarks, my objective is to get up to speed as quickly as possible.
Now there are some things that I did just more or less communicate in my statement. Like, I do believe in flat organization structures. I like to know things as quickly as we possibly can. Increase the decision velocity to the greatest extent possible. Push responsibilities down. I think you look at that—I mean we had a lot of young engineers and scientists and researchers that took us to the Moon and back. I like pushing responsibilities down to the greatest extent possible. These don’t necessarily involve major changes to personnel or dramatic reorganizations, but they’re directions I think we should be looking to move into. And at the right time, and we have the right information. Drawing on hopefully a lot of conversations from people in this room.
Bethany Stevens: You were asked earlier about the first 60 days, but Mark Cerna from Kennedy Space Center says:
“What organizational or investment decisions will you prioritize in the next 12 to 18 months to ensure Artemis stays on schedule?”
Administrator Isaacman: Yeah. Well, I think there’s already quite a few binders up there with some high priority decisions that need to be made. But this is really—this journey began today. I mean, we’ve had a number of meetings asking to gather as much data as possible so we have good situational awareness to make the right decisions. I mean, conceptually we should be doing everything we can, as I mentioned, to the limits of physics and safety afford to pull in every Artemis mission. I mean we want to have as many opportunities to achieve our objectives before our great rival as possible. So I’ll be interested in information that helps us beyond the Artemis II time frame. And as I also said in my remarks, look, I think we should be feeling a lot of the pressure to deliver. This is what this agency is capable of doing. It’s what we’ve done throughout our history. The pressure also exists on our international partners, our commercial partners as well to ensure they deliver, and I will for sure be having conversations across the board.
Bethany Stevens: Reminder that the microphone in the room is open. Felicia Stevens from Marshall asks:
“With NASA’s organizational structure being divided by 10 centers, do you have any reorganizational plans for how to fully integrate the agency as one NASA to help us operate more efficiently?”
Administrator Isaacman: I would say I certainly have some thoughts, but those are thoughts that you would get based on information external to the agency. I think my goal is to get up to speed as quickly as I can and talk to a lot of the right folks that are in this room and across our various centers to ensure that we have a well-informed plan. Generally speaking, I do think… you want to make sure that all of the contributors, whether that’s the centers and our various partners, bubble up to the major mission objectives that we’re trying to accomplish. Like, we want to find every opportunity to ensure information transfers efficiently so we can make faster decisions. But yes, everything is just purely conceptual at this point. My job for the foreseeable future, immediate future, is to gather as much information as I can from the right people to make sure we’re making the right decisions.
Bethany Stevens: Craig Hunter from Langley asks:
“The loss of telework and remote work flexibility have hurt productivity, work and family life balance, and morale. How do you plan to address those issues?”
Administrator Isaacman: I certainly understand the question. I would just say that at least my experience is that when you’re trying to do big, bold, very challenging endeavors, having all the right minds in the right location is just works better. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t scenarios where exceptions make sense. As I’ve said before, it does take the contributions of the best and brightest from across the nation in order to achieve the near impossible. But generally, I do think it’s pretty important to bring all the right people together under the same roof in order to work with the speed, the urgency that’s necessary for what we’re trying to accomplish.
Bethany Stevens: Roger Weiss from Johnson says huge congratulations on your confirmation.
“Might you become the first in-office administrator… oh my goodness… administrator to venture on a space mission?”
Administrator Isaacman: No. That has not crossed my mind. I think we have an awful lot that needs to be accomplished over the next three years. The priority list is near endless. The President has placed enormous importance on it. I mean my first day on the job and you’re in the Oval Office, the President signs a National Space Policy. I mean, I think that signifies the… it certainly reinforces the importance this administration is putting on achieving these objectives as quickly as we possibly can. I hardly imagine I’ll find time for any of these other activities. So, thank you.
Bethany Stevens: Tara Halt from headquarters says:
“Many projects are significantly delayed due to poor contractor performance. The OIG has noted that NASA has limited leverage to incentivize improved contractor performance. How do you plan to address this?”
Administrator Isaacman: I’m… again, maybe it’s just being hours on the job, but I am not aware of any limitations in ensuring that that would be, or roadblocks in place to prevent us from holding our partners accountable. So, look, I said this in my first hearing like: they work for us, not the other way around. I think that’s how it was done in the 1960s. NASA should be incredibly demanding to our various partners and ensuring they can deliver the capabilities that we were promised on time, on budget, so we can deliver on our world-changing objectives. I think there’s certainly things we can probably do here as an agency. I’m very interested in what knobs we can turn in order to get to the correct outcome faster. So we’ll certainly look within when there’s opportunities to do so. But, as I said before, we’re going to put as much pressure on our partners, international and commercial, as we do on ourselves.
Bethany Stevens: Rich Walls from Langley says:
“We hear next to nothing about aeronautics. What are your thoughts on the future of the first ‘A’ in NASA?”
Administrator Isaacman: Oh, I mean, this is an area that I’m incredibly passionate about. So I mean look, I love the history of the aeronautics program at NASA and I think it’s important that we try and get back to that as quickly as we can. And what I mean by that is lots of exciting X-planes. Look, this is an environment for us to learn. But it’s also another tool for inspiration. You know, look, rocket launches are great for inspiration. Astronauts. Certainly landing on the Moon is great for inspiration, but NASA’s portfolio in aeronautics should be out there, too. I mean, it’s another opportunity to get people to look up and imagine what’s possible. So, I love aeronautics. I’d love to see an expanded X-plane portfolio. I’d love to see us collaborating in ways with other agencies as we did in the past. I mean, the thrust vectoring technology on the F-22 can trace its roots back to NASA fly-by-wire technology, wing designs. I’d love to see us pushing the boundaries in radical airframe designs and propulsion. So, it’s certainly an area that I’m passionate about.
Bethany Stevens: Someone else has braved the mic in the room, so I will toss it over to you.
John Truss (Mission Support Director, HQ): Wonderful. Hello, sir. I’m John Truss, NASA Headquarters Mission Support Director. I was wondering, I’m sure you’re familiar with NASA’s footprint across the United States. I was wondering if you have any general ideas of the infrastructure, what you want to do, any immediate plans for growing, shrinking, or retiring buildings?
Administrator Isaacman: Yeah, I mean, it’s a great question. This is an area I am eager to receive more information on. I would like… I think that the worst outcome, right, is the limited resources that we have available to us investing it in infrastructure capabilities that don’t have demand and come at the expense of infrastructure that needs to be modernized, maintained so we can increase throughput for it, or infrastructure we should be building to better account for the future direction we’re seeing in air and space. So um yeah, this is certainly something I want to get my arms around. If we have infrastructure that is not required anymore, it’s not needed for us, it would be a travesty to have money continue to go into that when we know there are so many exciting areas we need to be prioritizing our resources. So, I’d love to make sure we’re taking a good, holistic agency-wide view of this and concentrating our firepower on the real needle movers, which is generally a statement, I think, for everything we’re going to try and accomplish at the agency with the resources afforded to us by Congress.
Bethany Stevens: Charles Wilder from Stennis says:
“How will you help streamline NASA’s processes to enable faster, cheaper missions without compromising safety or quality?”
Administrator Isaacman: It’s a good question. Look, I think generally doing things differently is not… there is no magic wand on these kind of things. Like, this is a lot of littles that happens over time where you can shift directions. But I will say look, in terms of the safety card, we have to separate out human spaceflight missions where we will never take needless risk. We will do everything we possibly can to protect the lives of our crews. From other missions… you know I love the flagship missions that we have in the science portfolio. Like I just want to see more of them as everybody does. Be great if we were launching flagship missions with even a greater cadence. And some of those, if definitionally you’re going to spend a billion dollars on them, you want them to work and get them right.
There are other categories that are already, you know, already exist within the science portfolio where maybe we can challenge some of our approach on these things similar to CLPS, where we’ll have some successes and we’ll have some failures and we should do it eyes wide open and accept that over time that curve should improve and we should get better outcomes and we have helped industry or academia develop capabilities to launch additional missions. That’s how we become that force multiplier. So can’t be one, as I mentioned in my remarks, a one-size-fits-all in these things.
Bethany Stevens: And we have a question submitted from out in California from Fidel Vasquez at JPL. He says:
“Welcome and how will JPL fit into NASA’s plans?”
Administrator Isaacman: I think JPL is one of our great science centers. Um so from my perspective, I look at it kind of similar to every other center within the agency on how can we increase the scientific value of every dollar, how can we increase the output or get to the desired objectives faster. So JPL has built some extraordinary hardware. I think pretty much every hardware that we’ve landed on Mars—somebody I know will fact check me on this—probably originated from JPL. I’m good? Okay. My memory was correct on that. So how do we get more of it? I mean we know that would be a question I would ask out there is: is there any knobs again that we could be turning to increase the output so we can get after the science that much faster? JPL is going to play a huge role in that.
Bethany Stevens: Daniel Hoffbar from Langley says:
“What is the best way to provide suggestions to improve NASA going forward?”
Administrator Isaacman: That’s a great question. So, something I was… I had to look into this, but I recalled earlier in the year that we had, you know, there was an inbox established for whether anonymous suggestions or otherwise on areas for improvement, and not really sure what came of it. And if it no longer exists or it does, we’re definitely going to reinvigorate it or bring greater attention to it because I would love to have inputs from many on ways we could be doing things better. With the resources available, but in addition, plan to get out in the field. And I can tell everybody now and you can consider a direction on this: when I do come and visit anyone, please no red carpet or dog and pony show. I am there to learn about everything that’s going right so we can increase it and do more of it, and where their problems are so we can try and make it better. And that’s not going to be limited to leadership levels. I plan to have as many conversations I can recognizing I mean we do have thousands of people, but I am very interested. I’m not going to formulate my positions on things in a vacuum.
Bethany Stevens: Angela Bartalamino from Goddard asks:
“How will you address the loss of personnel through the DRP?”
Administrator Isaacman: I mean, as I’ve said many times, I think for us to do what we’re supposed to be doing, which is achieving the near impossible, it’s going to take the best and brightest from across the nation. So, I think it’s… a lot has happened this year. So this is something I need to get my arms around and I’m hoping to be able to do that through various leadership discussions, but I could certainly see a world where in order to achieve our important objectives, we do need to do some hiring. So that is something that I’ll need to get my arms around.
Bethany Stevens: Jeff Brewaker from Johnson asks:
“Do you have any examples to share with us of using blockchain technologies to ensure integrity of safety critical data like inspection reports?”
Administrator Isaacman: Do I have any examples? Well, I mean, I do think there is a lot of utility in blockchain technology. I don’t know of any uses to date inside the agency or any immediate problems we’re going to attempt to solve with it, but I’m open-minded.
Bethany Stevens: This is just a reminder that we are grabbing these questions live and the link is open if you would like to submit any questions. Peter Zhaw from Johnson asks:
“What is your strategy to promote space travel and space exploration interest across America and partnering countries?”
Administrator Isaacman: That’s a great question. So, and a lot of people have raised it in some form or another, right? I mean, the space race was a real thing in the 1960s and everybody followed it quite closely. It was also at a time when there were three TV networks and there was no Netflix and such. So there’s a lot—or Instagram or any of the other reels that capture people’s attention—I guess is there’s a lot of things to occupy people’s time and that’s unfortunate because we’re about to do some pretty impressive and cool things.
So it is an area that I fully intend to speak with our coms team about to try and focus. I mean one area I’ve said it before is I’d love to see us focus a lot on our quality of our content. I do believe in the past there’s been a lot of quantity that’s been shared. But we want to put out the absolute best stuff that’s going to captivate people’s interest. And then almost back to… what else do we need to? We this goes back to looking for every opportunity to pull forward Artemis schedule into the limits possible alongside all of our other missions. Is that you want to get the world’s interest? It’s going to be there on Artemis II. There’s no question about it. But you know, a lot of time can transpire between Artemis II and Artemis III, and that’s like waiting a very long time for the next season to come out. We got to make sure we’re continuing to put that really engaging content out there to maintain people’s interest in what is something extraordinary. It is. I’ve said it many times. This is the greatest adventure in human history. People should be following it very closely. We’ll do everything we can to make sure they do.
Bethany Stevens: Jade Zeros from Kennedy says:
“In your time preparing for your new role, is there anything you’ve changed your mind about pursuing as administrator?”
Administrator Isaacman: That is a great question. I just I need to think about it. It was a long time in between the first and second stint here. I tried to find as many entertaining and distracting things to occupy my time in between. Yeah, I am sure it is an endless list really right. You know there is a lot that has transpired over the last 6 months but I’d say probably look this is not necessarily what’s changed for me but what has me so energized right now is this complete administration—almost whole of government—support for what we’re trying to accomplish here at NASA.
The President releases National Space Policy on day one in the job. I probably spoke with him at least four or five times about space priorities prior to being renominated for the job. I’ve spoke to him several times since. And the enthusiasm, the excitement from human space flight to… we were discussing robotic Mars missions. Like these are things that are all very exciting, but it doesn’t stop there. The Vice President, the leadership across the White House. Obviously you’ve seen how much Congress got engaged across two hearings both sides of the aisle excited and fighting for the agency. So from my perspective, sure I’m sure a lot has evolved in my thinking over that time period right now, but what’s I think most encouraging right now is how the entire United States government is getting behind this agency and what we’re going to need to accomplish in the years ahead. That’s pretty exciting.
Bethany Stevens: David Reid from Marshall says:
“Administrator Isaacman, welcome. How do you see NASA working with other agencies such as Space Command, NIST, and others to leverage shared capabilities to develop the space infrastructure needed for ensuring we build the future in space?”
Administrator Isaacman: That’s a really great question. It comes back I think to the National Space Policy yesterday which was clearly covered more than just NASA’s responsibility in space. And where did it come from? An incredibly capable Office of Science Technology and Policy. Director Katzios and the team he’s assembled over there, which many came from NASA, are really brilliant and they have the top level picture of what we’re looking to do here at NASA, what DOE is working on, what DoD is working on, so that we can be efficient with our resources. Again back to the realities are we are in a fiscally constrained environment. So hey, let’s not build four different bespoke nuclear reactors across four different programs if there’s some commonality here. We can be smarter, more efficient, and give by the way the programs a greater chance of success when we’re all aligned around it and sharing some resources towards it. So I think that this is not something that is broken. This is actually working and we need to lean into it really well. I think again Director Katzios and OSTP has a great vision here. They’re looking at the complete picture across agencies that have some of this overlap so we can be very smart and efficient with our resources.
Bethany Stevens: Christian Maciel from Goddard asks:
“If you could send a message to every new mission team just starting their formulation phase today, what is the primary north star or priority you would want us to emphasize to them right from day one?”
Administrator Isaacman: It’s another good question. I think that we certainly understand what our mission is and we should be working urgently towards solving it. Never let a day go by for something that can be solved today because the world is waiting. I mean, you’re here at NASA. We have the most extraordinary mission of any government agency out there. And you know, we have the direction from the President. We have the resources. We have the will to accomplish it. Don’t let a day go by for something we can accomplish today because the world is waiting.
Bethany Stevens: Paul Goldsmith from JPL says:
“How do you see continuing support for science at NASA given the pressure to deliver hardware?” And I think that goes hand-in-hand with two other questions we have from Goddard and Johnson about the importance of Earth science and also how we are going to continue to apply science on the International Space Station.
Administrator Isaacman: So, a lot of science. I think there’s a lot there. I don’t necessarily understand the pressure to deliver hardware part, but let me just at least talk on Earth sciences and prioritizing science and resources to Space Station.
With respect to Earth sciences, look, there is bipartisan support for it, maybe for different reasons, but every senator I had a chance to speak to… So we obviously have implications that are real from a humanitarian perspective—agriculture, fires, flooding. So, everybody is interested in the data, maybe for slightly different reasons. We just want to, again like any aspect of the agency, look to try and get to the science as quickly and as affordably as we can. I think there’s going to be areas where you’re going to have the historic Landsat mission continuing to play its role. And then, look, we should be taking advantage of constellations of satellites that are up there now, that are continuing to be produced by a lot of different commercial providers to supplement some of our data needs. And if we can do that in a more affordable way and that frees up more missions like future Dragonfly programs, that’s like… who wouldn’t want to lean in and embrace that?
The in terms of high priority science and research to the Space Station, this is maybe goes back to the air fryer question of challenging some of our approach. We need to make the most of the Space Station while we got it. There’s no question. I mean, you have multiple companies right now that have set out on a business model of making and operating space stations. That’s pretty cool. But we want to help create some of the demand for it. We want all the pharmaceutical companies lining up and saying, “I’ll take one.” We’re very far from that right now. All the biotech companies, “I need my space station.” That’s the exciting future we all want to see someday. So, I think we absolutely have to kind of challenge the current approach. We need an outreach effort to all of the industries and academia that think they have the potential for an orbital economy breakthrough and do everything we can to prioritize getting that science and research to the Space Station. Figure it out and give the commercial space station companies a fighting chance. We’re going to need to depend on them. So we got to do all we can in the years ahead on that.
Bethany Stevens: And we have time for a few more questions. Sorry for lumping so many in, but I did promise to get to as many as possible. We have a great one from Vendana Jaw from Ames. Welcome.
“What advice would you give to early and mid-career scientists and engineers at NASA who want to take risks and innovate but also operate within a highly risk-averse environment? What leadership principles from your commercial space experience do you think are most important for empowering NASA’s workforce while maintaining mission assurance and scientific rigor?”
Administrator Isaacman: I mean look there’s a lot there to it, but I think the general question is: do we believe that there are areas where we can take smarter risks to get to the outcome faster? And that’s absolutely the direction we need to be going in. What I’d say again is, this is not—very few things in an organization the size of NASA can be solved with waving the magic wand: “Please take more risk,” and that be the right statement to make. It’s not. It’s got to be a lot of littles.
And I think if we do have young engineers, scientists, researchers out there that believe there is a better approach to get to the right outcome faster and at lower cost, you got to present it in the right way to your leadership team. Make the case of why this is the right approach. And I encourage the leaders out there, supervisors, managers that are mentoring this young talent to be receptive and open-minded to it. Think through what are the real risks. Is this still relevant today? Have we gathered more data that will allow us to rethink this? What is the consequence of this? Is it something that’s worth taking to advance the ball forward? It’s going to be a lot of littles. I’m going to certainly be looking for opportunities to push down some of these philosophies from the top of the agency. But it’s obviously going to rely on a lot of the managers and leaders in the field too to be open-minded and receptive to the young talent to make the good case about why we should look at doing things in a slightly different way.
Bethany Stevens: We have a question from Diego out of Johnson asking how you will ensure a whole of government focus on human space exploration and gain support.
Administrator Isaacman: Well, it’s a good question. I think there is a lot of support. I mean, the additional funds that were authorized in the One Big Beautiful Bill, a lot of it does concentrate on human space exploration. So I would say that that is of great interest across the government. I know that a lot of the commercial launch providers that we’re working with have various human spaceflight ambitions. That’s not one company, it’s not two. I mean I think… it might not even be three companies anymore. I mean I think several have actually announced plans for crewed vehicles. This is exciting. This is what we want. Now this… we are the pioneer in this field. We’ve done an awful lot to help educate and enable the companies that have been successful doing this today. The commercial providers. We need to continue to do that. And we probably will arrive at that light switch moment in the not too distant future where we do go from the few being able to see the world from such an amazing perspective… to the many. Which is pretty exciting. I think that’s always kind of one of the underlying goals that we all have here at this agency.
Bethany Stevens: And one more from Ryan Scott from Goddard:
“Do you have any lessons or science outlook from Inspiration4 or Polaris Dawn which you plan to bring to your role?”
Administrator Isaacman: Well, I mean, I’m sure I can give a lot of thought to it, but I’ll just go on that when we were lucky enough to be in that environment, we tried to maximize every second that was available for scientific purposes, knowing how lucky we were to be there. And it’s really the same message back here to the agency with the resources that are provided to us. We need to maximize the scientific value of every dollar that’s afforded to us, which means probably in many cases challenging the approach—or at least our historic approach—to get to a better outcome faster and at lower cost. So yeah, I guess that would be [it].