lb3 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

NASA (and by extension JPL) shine on unmanned missions.

But NASA and manned missions just aren't working.

---

Why is the space station so ignored? It's mankind's single most complex engineering achievement. We've conducted over 200 EVAs in the past 25 years.

---

Sure. But NASA hasn't actually sent anyone to it in 25 years. They rely on outside contractors to put people on it, bring them back, send up supplies and bring back trash.

NASA needs to focus on science. Thats what they do best. Science on unmanned missions. Science on the ISS. Science once someone else puts them in a livable space on the Moon. Let a private company get them there.

NASA is driving a rover the size of a VW beetle. Thats amazing engineering. I don't think they get enough credit for stuff like that. Nobody else can land so much as a peanut on Mars.

Hell. Nobody is even landing anything working on the moon. And they have been driving on mars for 20 years.

lb3 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Is there an agency out there that has accomplished less productive work than NASA with the enormous budget they have been given over the least 20-25 years? Most of the launches in the last decade plus have been by private companies and every contract NASA oversees seems to be way behind schedule and way over the initial budget. For the number of people actually employed directly by the agency and the number of facilities they have, they do surprisingly little actual work for themselves.

---

since 2000 NASA has assembled a space station larger than a football field, has had people living continuously in space for over 25 years, sent 11 spacecraft to mars, 6 missions to other planets, 8 major telescopes. But I guess those don't count.

---

How many of those things were accomplished directly by NASA personnel versus being done nearly entirely by a contractor? Sure NASA oversees those contracts, but we pay way more than we should for a big chunk of NASA that boils down to a contracts management agency. NASA's budget since 2000 has been roughly $625 billion. Only a relatively small portion of that has gone directly to pay for costs of the missions you mentioned. We pay a huge amount for them to "manage" projects, and based on the frequency with which those projects go significantly over budget and take way longer than estimated, they are not very good at doing that management.

None of that means I think we don't have some amazing technical folks doing amazing things in space. I just think we pay way more for the "management" part of NASA than they have shown themselves to be worth.

lb3 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

NASA (and by extension JPL) shine on unmanned missions.

But NASA and manned missions just aren't working.

---

Why is the space station so ignored? It's mankind's single most complex engineering achievement. We've conducted over 200 EVAs in the past 25 years.

---

I am not ignoring it. I think it is an amazing achievement and to have kept it up there intact so far beyond its planned demise is a testament to the skills and knowledge of NASA and its many contractors. But I also think that NASA's "management" of it could have likely been done for a fraction of the cost we paid for it.

If that's the standard then let's give North American Aviation and Grumman credit for the moon landings. Neil Armstrong was just Ubering to the moon.

Let's give Audie Murphy's Medal of Honor to General Motors since the Marine Corps contracted with GM to build his M1 Carbine. It's a shame the Marine Corps's enlisted seamstress battalion doesn't get more credit for stitching all those uniforms, oh wait those were provided by contractors too. Does the Marine Corps even do anything other than manage contractor weapon systems?

There is a difference between nasa being the lead designing it and contracting out to make the parts and nasa just hitching a ride on a Soyuz.

Let's not ignore the fact that nasa hasn't designed a viable man rated rocket since Skylab and hasn't really had its own launch vehicle since the shuttle.

Bloated governmental cost plus contracts to Northrop, Boeing, LM, you name them, just don't work anymore. At least not efficiently. The rules for government contracts, procurements, etc just are not made for efficiency of money or time.

lb3 said:

---

If that's the standard then let's give North American Aviation and Grumman credit for the moon landings. Neil Armstrong was just Ubering to the moon.

Let's give Audie Murphy's Medal of Honor to General Motors since the Marine Corps contracted with GM to build his M1 Carbine. It's a shame the Marine Corps's enlisted seamstress battalion doesn't get more credit for stitching all those uniforms, oh wait those were provided by contractors too. Does the Marine Corps even do anything other than manage contractor weapon systems?

---

It is not about who gets the credit. I didn't say that NASA didn't deserve credit for the missions, just that contractors did most of the actual work, and the fact that you have fixated on that is part of the problem. The fact that you can't recognize (or admit) that NASA's management structure is hugely bloated with unproductive groups (largely as handouts to various powerful politicians to keep the money flowing) is a big part of the problem. If you look at our current programs working towards manned spaceflight to the moon and beyond, it is not a surprise that the contractors who are doing their work with the least direct involvement from NASA are the ones operating the cheapest and who are making the biggest leaps forward in capabilities; while the ones that are the most expensive and who are the farthest behind their schedule to achieve their objectives are the ones working directly with NASA and who are being burdened by excessive NASA "management".

As somebody who works with multiple DoD agencies as a contractor, yes, you are correct that all of them manage many contractors as well, and my direct experience is that their contract management arms are also bloated and overstaffed with people who spend all their time "overseeing" contracts and very rarely add anything beneficial to the effort. Like with NASA, their technical staff are mostly excellent and do good work, if a bit inefficiently, but the contract management arm is largely overpaid, useless, and more likely to hinder progress than help.

I don't think NASA has ever designed a rocket, not Mercury, not Gemini, not Apollo, not Skylab, not Shuttle, not ISS, and not SLS. Even in NASA's Mission Control, the Flight Director is frequently the only NASA employee in the building with everyone else working for KBR.

NASA does architecture trade studies then provides requirements, specifications, and technical expertise to contractors just like the Air Force has never designed or built a single aircraft. Even Fat Man and Little Boy were designed and built by the Manhattan Project's contractors. The physicists were contractors as well.

Take Starliner as an example, Boeing has 50+ years of experience building spacecraft as a NASA contractor yet they failed miserably when trying to build their own vehicle. SpaceX has the rocket side figured out but Crew Dragon never would have succeeded without NASA's partnership.

And in the end it's 99% tax dollars all the way down

I just want efficiently run programs

lb3 said:

---

I don't think NASA has ever designed a rocket, not Mercury, not Gemini, not Apollo, not Skylab, not Shuttle, not ISS, and not SLS. Even in NASA's Mission Control, the Flight Director is frequently the only NASA employee in the building with everyone else working for KBR.

NASA does architecture trade studies then provides requirements, specifications, and technical expertise to contractors just like the Air Force has never designed or built a single aircraft. Even Fat Man and Little Boy were designed and built by the Manhattan Project's contractors. The physicists were contractors as well.

Take Starliner as an example, Boeing has 50+ years of experience building spacecraft as a NASA contractor yet they failed miserably when trying to build their own vehicle. SpaceX has the rocket side figured out but Crew Dragon never would have succeeded without NASA's partnership.

---

I think one could argue that most of the Saturn design came from Huntsville and WVB's group, though the construction and putting the design into practice relied heavily on contractors. Much of the Apollo program involved direct NASA employees in many of the support roles simply because contractors doing those things didn't exist at the time. One of the problems I see now is that NASA's budget has been used as a works program for contractors like Boeing to keep some level of capability/competition alive and to avoid being completely dependent on one contractor like SpaceX. The problem with that is by giving them cost-plus contracts and then NASA constantly tinkering with the parameters, you create an endless design/approval loop. We saw the same thing from Apollo through the Shuttle with many different major contractors being handed pieces of the pie to keep them all happy and working on something.

Cost plus contracts can be a major bloat area if they are not managed tightly by a skeptical government management team. I worked in an office with 43 people working on one cost-plus contract when I joined my current company. In the 10 years after the DoD went to a fixed price performance-based model, that office dropped to less than 10 people and we were still accomplishing the same level of tasks and objectives. Boeing didn't fail with Starliner because of the lack of NASA involvement; they failed because they were not equipped to function in an environment with a fixed budget and no room for schedule creep and they chose management based on factors other than their expertise in building spacecraft.

Just wanted to stop by and say how much I've enjoyed this thread - it has really helped this novice follow many of the events that will get us back to the Moon (hopefully) in my lifetime.

The last day of comments brought me back to memories of about 2.5 years of my life in the Air Force, when they decided I needed to go play in the world of acquisition program / cost analysis. After about a year, I wanted to stick an icepick in my ear - the budgeting and acquisition process just made me ill. The contractors were not so bad, though. I will say that the Federal (civilian) and military people I worked around were the smartest people I've ever worked with. So, bless all of you working in this program for your efforts.

I remember episode 5 of the mini-series From The Earth To The Moon, titled "Spider". It dealt with Grumman engineer Tom Kelly and his team building the lunar module. Loved it (and I'm sure there was some Hollywood embellishments). Nevertheless, a great episode.

Hope everyone has a great weekend, thanks for all the posts, and... Audie Murphy was not a Marine

I think Tom Kelly is supposed to be the guy in Apollo 13 who tells them over and over that the lunar module wasn't designed to fire for the course correction burn, and then as soon as it works, jumps out of his chair and yells "what did I tell you, it worked!!"

Hey Nav said:

---

Just wanted to stop by and say how much I've enjoyed this thread - it has really helped this novice follow many of the events that will get us back to the Moon (hopefully) in my lifetime.

The last day of comments brought me back to memories of about 2.5 years of my life in the Air Force, when they decided I needed to go play in the world of acquisition program / cost analysis. After about a year, I wanted to stick an icepick in my ear - the budgeting and acquisition process just made me ill. The contractors were not so bad, though. I will say that the Federal (civilian) and military people I worked around were the smartest people I've ever worked with. So, bless all of you working in this program for your efforts.

I remember episode 5 of the mini-series From The Earth To The Moon, titled "Spider". It dealt with Grumman engineer Tom Kelly and his team building the lunar module. Loved it (and I'm sure there was some Hollywood embellishments). Nevertheless, a great episode.

Hope everyone has a great weekend, thanks for all the posts, and... Audie Murphy was not a Marine

---

I will say that I enjoy working on federal projects because we get to do a level of quality science that isn't possible on most commercial projects. But as a tax payer, the level of waste and bloat I see through stupidity and overstaffing in the contract admin sections just pisses me off almost all the time.

Decay said:

---

I think Tom Kelly is supposed to be the guy in Apollo 13 who tells them over and over that the lunar module wasn't designed to fire for the course correction burn, and then as soon as it works, jumps out of his chair and yells "what did I tell you, it worked!!"

---

"How 'bout that LEM?!"

Anyone listened to Elon on Rogan today? He talked about full reusability by the end of next year. And talked about the reveal of the next Tesla roadster. He alluded hard to a flying car…. Hoping to show it by the end of this year.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

Anyone listened to Elon on Rogan today? He talked about full reusability by the end of next year. And talked about the reveal of the next Tesla roadster. He alluded hard to a flying car…. Hoping to show it by the end of this year.

---

Yea I found it last night at 9 and listened till midnight.hes never on time with his calendar, but I could see this within 5-10 years. A demo in the next 3 mos would be amazing! Stock popped a bit yesterday. FAA approval and just managing a bunch of vehicles flying around would take some time to gain approval.

New Glenn looking to launch and land the booster on a barge as early as Nov 9 this year!

Payload includes a low-cost Mars mission to study solar wind and magnetosphere.

We completed a successful hotfire of our fully integrated New Glenn launch vehicle at LC-36! All seven engines performed nominally with a 38 second duration test including all seven engines operating at 100% thrust for 22 seconds. pic.twitter.com/jHAoNpIC0A

— Blue Origin (@blueorigin) October 31, 2025

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/10/blue-origin-test-fires-second-new-glenn-rocket-ahead-of-launch-next-month/

New Glenn is a very cool looking rocket. Those strakes just feel right.

t to see more competition for SpaceX. They haven't shown any signs of getting complacent, however that doesn't mean that a lack of competition will stymie innovation when attention turns to mass production of orbit and intra inner system travel.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

He alluded hard to a flying car…. Hoping to show it by the end of this year.

---

About damn time!

1980 school kid me is stoked! But 2025 old man me is stoked too!

Intuitive Machines to acquire Lanteris Space Systems (formerly Maxar Space Systems) for $800million.

This is a key acquisition to support building out our Near Space Network Services, including the Lunar Data Network of satellites.

https://www.intuitivemachines.com/post/intuitive-machines-to-acquire-lanteris-space-systems-creating-the-next-generation-commercial-civil

Interesting, Maxar is providing the Power and Propulsion Element for Gateway.

LUNR!!!!!!!!!!

Athena

This is supposedly Isaacman's plan that was initially leaked by Duffy a few weeks ago to build support for remain as head of NASA. It's been leaked again over the past couple of days.

Highlights include:
- outsourcing missions to private firms
- purchasing science data instead of building satellites
- canceling the Space Launch System (SLS) and Lunar Gateway
- consolidating mission control in Texas
- redirecting funds from "taxpayer-funded climate science" to human exploration and Mars goals.

Quote:

---

The leaked document is 62 pages long and, according to sources, represents a pared-down version of a more comprehensive "Athena" plan devised by Isaacman and his advisors early in 2025, after President Trump nominated him to become NASA administrator.

The Athena plan lays out a blueprint for Isaacman's tenure at NASA, seeking to return the space agency to "achieving the near impossible," focusing on leading the world in human space exploration, igniting the space economy, and becoming a force multiplier for science.

...

Unhappy in Alabama
After they received a copy of the Athena plan, the Alabama delegationwhich represents Marshall Space Flight Center and strongly favors continuation of the Space Launch System rocketgenerally came to favor Duffy's candidacy. They, along with traditional space contractors and Duffy himself, have been suggesting that re-nominating Isaacman would be a "giveaway" to SpaceX.

... a careful reading indicates that Isaacman wanted to take a hard look at what NASA has been doing in recent years, how it is spending its money, and whether it is seeing returns on this investment. With Athena, Isaacman would attempt to lean into the entire commercial space industry as a means to further stretch public money and maintain an advantage over competitors in space.

---

I agree with all of that. Doesn't shock me that "politics" are getting in the way. SLS has been such a bust I don't know how any semi competent politician can argue for it. Anyone who does should be immediately eliminated from candidacy.

MaxPower said:

---

I agree with all of that. Doesn't shock me that "politics" are getting in the way. SLS has been such a bust I don't know how any semi competent politician can argue for it. Anyone who does should be immediately eliminated from candidacy.

---

Because the result isn't the reason for the program. The jobs and corporate donations and investment along with the local tax revenue is the reason. It's just redirecting federal tax/borrowed money to bestow on Senator's states. If SLS doesn't make it to the moon... who cares? Those Senators might in the abstract but sure as hell don't care if they lose the largesse.

Not to derail, I'm sure everyone on this thread has watched "For All Mankind" on Apple TV. It's what would happen in the space race if the soviets got to the moon before Apollo 11.
We are watching it now, obvious it's fictional but it's entertaining and nostalgic for those who grew up watching the space program back in the day.

Aside from all the DEI crap in the show it is a really good storyline. I'm looking forward to the next season.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Athena

This is supposedly Isaacman's plan that was initially leaked by Duffy a few weeks ago to build support for remain as head of NASA. It's been leaked again over the past couple of days.

Highlights include:
- outsourcing missions to private firms
- purchasing science data instead of building satellites
- canceling the Space Launch System (SLS) and Lunar Gateway
- consolidating mission control in Texas
- redirecting funds from "taxpayer-funded climate science" to human exploration and Mars goals.

Quote:

---

The leaked document is 62 pages long and, according to sources, represents a pared-down version of a more comprehensive "Athena" plan devised by Isaacman and his advisors early in 2025, after President Trump nominated him to become NASA administrator.

The Athena plan lays out a blueprint for Isaacman's tenure at NASA, seeking to return the space agency to "achieving the near impossible," focusing on leading the world in human space exploration, igniting the space economy, and becoming a force multiplier for science.

...

Unhappy in Alabama
After they received a copy of the Athena plan, the Alabama delegationwhich represents Marshall Space Flight Center and strongly favors continuation of the Space Launch System rocketgenerally came to favor Duffy's candidacy. They, along with traditional space contractors and Duffy himself, have been suggesting that re-nominating Isaacman would be a "giveaway" to SpaceX.

... a careful reading indicates that Isaacman wanted to take a hard look at what NASA has been doing in recent years, how it is spending its money, and whether it is seeing returns on this investment. With Athena, Isaacman would attempt to lean into the entire commercial space industry as a means to further stretch public money and maintain an advantage over competitors in space.

---

---

Looks like the leak cherry picks to make political points. Isaacman says the Athena report does not recommend cutting SLS or the lunar gateway.

It is unfortunate that NASA’s team and the broader space community have to endured distractions like this. There are extraordinary opportunities and some risks ahead and so the focus should be on the mission. With many reporters and other interested parties reaching out, I want… https://t.co/IyPVmHUAzo

— Jared Isaacman (@rookisaacman) November 4, 2025

MaxPower said:

---

I agree with all of that. Doesn't shock me that "politics" are getting in the way. SLS has been such a bust I don't know how any semi competent politician can argue for it. Anyone who does should be immediately eliminated from candidacy.

---

Like I said previously, SLS (like much of NASA currently) is a jobs program for politically connected districts in Alabama, Florida, etc. The point wasn't to build an efficient and effective launch system to beat the Chinese back to the moon, it was to keep NASA centers and key large contractors in politically important areas employed for many years into the future.

Donald J. Trump Truth Social 11.04.25 05:42 PM EST

Sean Duffy has done an incredible job as Interim Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This evening, I am pleased to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist,…

— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) November 4, 2025

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Wow!

Not sure if anyone's seen this already but CO is suing to try and keep USSPACECOM in the springs. I'm no lawyer but I don't see how this has any merit whatsoever, especially considering the original plan was for the command to move to AL. I'm sure there was politics involved but what basing decision doesn't?

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/colorado-sues-to-stop-spacecom-move/

For those that don't twitter his response is pretty inspiring for those of us in the space industry and worth the read:

Quote:

---

It is unfortunate that NASA's team and the broader space community have to endured distractions like this. There are extraordinary opportunities and some risks ahead and so the focus should be on the mission. With many reporters and other interested parties reaching out, I want to help bring some clarity to the discussion... unfortunately, that means another long post:

I have met Secretary Duffy many times and even flew him in a fighter jet at EAA Oshkosh--probably one of the coolest things a cabinet secretary can do. I have also told many people I think he has great instincts and is an excellent communicator, which is so important in leadership. If there is any friction, I suspect it is more political operators causing the controversy.

This isn't an election or campaign for the NASA Administrator job, the Secretary is the leader and I will root for his success across his many responsibilities. We both believe deeply in American leadership in the high ground of space--though we may differ on how to achieve that goal and whether NASA should remain an independent agency.

It is true that Athena was a draft plan I worked on with a very small group from the time of my initial nomination through its withdrawal in May. Parts of it are now dated, and it was always intended to be a living document refined through data gathering post-confirmation. I would think it is better to have a plan going into a responsibility as great as the leadership of NASA than no plan at all.

It is also true that only one 62-page version of the plan (with unique header/footer markings) was delivered in hard copy back in mid-August to a single party. I learned it was leaked to reporters and across industry last week. It seems some people are letting politics get in the way of the mission and the President's goals for space. Personally, I think the "why" behind the timing of this document circulating--and the spin being given to reporters--is the real story.

While the full plan exceeded 100 pages, it centered around five main priorities that I will summarize below, including some specifics on the topics attracting the most interest. There is the question--why not release the entire document? Well, one party is clearly circulating it, so I am sure it is only a matter of time before it becomes public--in which case, I will stand behind it. I think there are many elements of the plan that the space community and NASA would find exciting, and it would be disappointing if they never came to fruition. Mostly, I just don't think the space community needs to debate line-by-line while NASA and the rest of the government are going through a shutdown. I will say everything in the report is consistent with my Senate testimony, my written responses to the Senate for the record, and all the podcasts and papers I have ever spoken to on the subject.

- Reorganize and Empower
Pivot from the drawn-out, multi-phase RIF "death by a thousand cuts" to a single, data-driven reorganization aimed at reducing layers of bureaucracy between leadership and the engineers, researchers, and technicians--basically all the "doers". Align departments tightly to the mission so that information flows for quick decision-making. One example, which was mischaracterized by a reporter, was exploring relocating all aircraft to Armstrong so there could be a single hierarchy for aviation operations, maintenance, and safety. From there, aircraft like T-38s would operate on detachment at JSC. Other goals of the reorganization, would be to liberate the NASA budget from dated infrastructure that is in disrepair to free up resources to invest in what is needed for the mission of the day. And maybe most importantly, reenergize a culture of empowerment, ownership, and urgency--and recalibrate a framework that acknowledges some risks are worth taking.

American Leadership in the High Ground of Space
Put more astronauts in space with greater frequency, including rebooting the Payload Specialist programs to give opportunities for the NASA workforce--especially on opportunities that could unlock the orbital economy--the chance to go to space. Fulfill the 35-year promise and President Trump's Artemis plan to return American astronauts to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security reasons to support an enduring lunar presence. Eventually, transition to an affordable, repeatable lunar architecture that supports frequent missions. When that foundation is built, shift resources toward the near-impossible that no one else will work on like nuclear electric propulsion for efficient transport of mass, active cooling of cryogenic propellants, surface power, and even potential DoD applications. To be clear, the plan does not issue a directive to cancel Gateway or SLS, in fact, the word "Gateway" is used only three times in the entire document. It does explore the possibility of pivoting hardware and resources to a nuclear electric propulsion program after the objectives of the President's budget are complete. On the same note, it also seeks to research the possibility that Orion could be launched on multiple platforms to support a variety of future mission applications. As an example of the report being dated, Sen. Cruz's has subsequently incorporated additional funding in the OBBB for further Artemis missions--which brings clarity to the topic.

- Solving the Orbital Economy
Maximize the remaining life of the ISS. Streamline the process for high-potential science and research to reach orbit. Partner with industry (pharmaceuticals, mining, biotech, etc) to figure out how to extract more value from space than we put in--and critically attempt to solve the orbital economy. That is the only way commercial space station companies will have a fighting chance to succeed. I don't think there is anything controversial here--we need to figure out how to pay for the exciting future we all want to see in space.

NASA as a Force Multiplier for Science
Leverage NASA's resources--financial (bulk buying launch and bus from numerous providers), technical, and operational expertise to increase the frequency of missions, reduce costs, and empower academic institutions to contribute to real discovery missions. The idea is to get some of that $1 trillion in university endowments into the fight, alongside NASA, to further science and discovery. Expand the CLPS-style approach across planetary science to accelerate discovery and reduce time-to-science... better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission. I know the "science-as-a-service" concept got people fired up, but that was specifically called out in the plan for Earth observation, from companies that already have constellations like Planet, BlackSky, etc. Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers and repurpose the funds for more planetary science missions (as an example)? With respect to JPL, it was a research request to look at overlaps between the work of the laboratory and what prime contractors were also doing on their behalf. The report never even remotely suggested that America could ever do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.

Investing in the Future
The congressionally mandated "learning period" will eventually expire, and the government will inevitably play a greater role in certifying commercial missions (crewed and uncrewed) just like they do with aircraft, ships, trains, etc. NASA eventually should build a Starfleet Academy to train and prepare the commercial industry to operate safely and successfully in this future space economy, and consolidate and upgrade mission control into a single "NORAD of peaceful space," allowing JSC to become the spaceflight center of excellence and oversee multiple government and commercial missions simultaneously. Other investments for the future included AI, replacing dated IT systems, and ways to alleviate the demand on the Deep Space Network.

- Closing
This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved. The plan valued human exploration as much as scientific discovery. It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners, and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success. The more I see the imperfections of politics and the lengths people will go, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution... because I love NASA and I love my country

---

Given that he was renominated today makes this even more significant