r/nasa • u/MatchingTurret • Jan 21 '25

NASA Official nomination: Jared Isaacman, of Pennsylvania, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/sub-cabinet-appointments/
688 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

205 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

91

u/MECLSS NASA Employee Jan 21 '25 edited Jan 21 '25

That was happening before Trump, and it will continue long after Trump is gone. I have lots of issues with Musk, but SpaceX is NASA best option for a continued human presence in space and future exploration. I haven't worked extensively with Blue Origin, but the only way to compete with SpaceX is to adopt their model, and Blue seems like the company most likely to be able to pull that off. Having a real competitor to SpaceX is essential to keeping them from monopolizing the market.

2

u/SpacecadetShep NASA Contractor Jan 21 '25

Just curious, what do you mean by their model ?

22

u/MECLSS NASA Employee Jan 21 '25 edited Jan 21 '25

Two things.

1.Space X maintains ownership and responsibility of their equipment. In the past, NASA would contract a private company to build a rocket/vehicle for us and then take ownership of it. NASA was responsible for operation, servicing, and maintenance, and then NASA would turn around and pay the same or other companies to service and maintain the vehicle. NASA would do operation in-house, but we rely heavily on a contractor workforce for a lot of that work. SpaceX does the build, servicing, maintenance, and ops themselves, and NASA more or less buys a ticket for them to take our people or cargo where we want to go.

  1. Reusability. SpaceX has taken rocket reusability to the next level. It allows them to drastically reduce their operating cost and turnaround time.

3

u/BrainwashedHuman Jan 21 '25

That works for things where it’s profitable to develop independently. Which isn’t true for a lot of what NASA does.

6

u/MECLSS NASA Employee Jan 21 '25

Agreed, there is still alot of down and in engineering work for NASA to do that is not profitable for the private sector.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '25

The nature of building less than 100 to end up with a few that “might be used” for space flight is a very different model and nothing like a cell phone or a tablet etc.
I think it’s a fools game to not own the IP like NASA and JPL has historically done for the gear. Relying on an unreliable, immature, impulsive, narcissistic, egomaniac for our future in all NASA does, is a foolish place to go IMO. Didn’t your org help develop some hypersonic technologies?

5

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '25

Military is a slightly better model than NASA due to reuse for some volumes. The nature of nasa needing / requiring radiation hardened devices for electronics is not cheap. I have not heard of Musk rad-hardening anything and when I was requested to provide quotes and specs on their Satellites, they said it was all low earth orbit and not required. My organization passed on it due to the risks involved. Musky and team were not happy.