Nasa needs saving from itself – but is this billionaire right for that job? - Voice of Asia

Billionaire businessman Jared Isaacman has grand visions for humanity's future. He first went to space in 2021, a private trip he funded himself at a cost of around $200 million (£160 million). He has declared his desire for space travel to be accessible to the masses, not just the 600 or so people who have experienced it so far – most of whom have been professional astronauts employed by NASA and the wealthy.

"We want to get that number to 600,000," Isaacman said in an interview. He added, "I'm a big believer that humanity's grand destiny is to be a multi-planetary species... I think we all want to live in a world like Star Wars or Star Trek where people are just hopping on spacecraft." Isaacman made his $1.9 billion (£1.46 billion) fortune after founding a payment processing company in 1999 at the age of 16. His long-standing love of flying and space is said to have prompted him to fund the other three crew members on his 2021 SpaceX flight.

Since then, Isaacman has undertaken more adventures: last year he made a similar Kirk-like foray in an upgraded SpaceX capsule and made the first commercial spacewalk. During the mission, he also tested an experimental spacesuit and a new cost-saving protocol for entering and exiting the spacecraft without using an airlock. Isaacman's silhouette against the backdrop of the world, a photo that has now become iconic, suggests that he's not just a playboy billionaire performing Star Trek, but someone pushing the limits using available technology.

However, one recent achievement has attracted more attention – his nomination in December by Donald Trump to be the new head of NASA. The question is, why has Trump chosen him, and what is he asking him to do? Especially against the backdrop of the president having already appointed SpaceX owner Elon Musk to a government role to cut $2 trillion (£1.6 trillion) from the federal budget. The NASA job is a presidential appointment, but it needs to be confirmed by the US Senate. If confirmed, Isaacman’s appointment will also raise wider questions about the future of humanity in space, given his desire for space travel to be accessible to the masses, and what it might mean for the agency if Isaacman’s role leads to NASA making more use of the private sector.

In the past, NASA’s heads have come from different backgrounds: some, like the outgoing chief, Bill Nelson, have been astronauts; others, like Michael Griffin, who was in charge from 2005 to 2009, came from a government background; and before that, Dan Goldin was an entrepreneur who was focused on reducing costs. Despite their different backgrounds, those who have led NASA have been company people, tasked with defending the agency and its values. However, Isaacman, along with Musk and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, is among a new generation of billionaire disruptors of the old order in space. They have accelerated the pace of innovation and are committed to dramatically reducing the cost of human space travel.

On the day he was nominated in December, Isaacman released a statement on X, giving an initial glimpse of his vision. "The second space age is just beginning," he wrote. He also stated, "There will inevitably be a thriving space economy – creating opportunities for countless people to live and work in space... At NASA we will... usher in the era of humanity as a true spacefaring civilization." Many presidents have talked about sending astronauts back to the Moon since the end of the Apollo moon landings in the 1960s and 70s, but Trump was the first to turn talk into action, authorizing NASA's Artemis program to return humans to the Moon in his first term. His record suggests that he is a fan of NASA.

But two factors may have changed his mind since then: NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket has been delayed and costs have spiraled; meanwhile, Musk's SpaceX and Bezos' Blue Origin are developing reusable, low-cost lunar rockets. This is a worrying backdrop for NASA, according to Courtney Stadd of the Beyond Earth Institute think tank in New York. "The government is looking to cut spending. If you're the new administrator you're coming into this context, so you have to look at all the budget-eating projects... The next two years will be a tsunami, and everything is going to be on the table," he said at a webinar hosted by Space News.

One of the biggest questions is what to do with NASA's SLS moon rocket. In 2021, NASA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reported to Congress that the cost per launch was $4.1 billion (£3.3 billion). By comparison, SpaceX's equivalent rocket system, Starship, is estimated to cost around $100 million (£80 million) per launch, and Musk has said he plans to reduce that cost further to $10 million (£8 million) as the system is developed. Bezos' new lunar rocket, New Glenn, had its first test launch in early January. Blue Origin has not released its cost per launch, but it is currently estimated to be around $68 million (£54.5 million). The competition between the two billionaires may accelerate innovation and reduce costs further.

Starship and New Glenn are expected to be cheaper because, unlike SLS, they are designed to be reusable. But Dr Adam Baker, a space industry expert at Cranfield University, argues that "that's only part of the reason for the cost difference". He continues, "SpaceX gets a pot of money, and they have a contract to deliver on time and on budget. They are profit-driven and want to minimize costs." "NASA's projects are not profit-driven; they are driven by the project goals, so the people in charge don't feel they need to track costs in the same way." "There's a general feeling that SLS doesn't have a future."

In its review to Congress, the OIG could only make a best guess at the full cost of the Artemis program, as it said: "NASA lacks a comprehensive, accurate cost estimate that accounts for all project costs." "Instead, the agency's plan provides a rough estimate that excludes $25 billion (£20 billion) of key activities." NASA's project management of SLS is not an isolated case – some would say it is typical. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope was budgeted at $1 billion (£800 million) and scheduled for launch in 2010, but ended up costing ten times that amount and launched in 2021, earning it the nickname, "the telescope that ate astronomy." (Other important science projects had to be scaled back, delayed or canceled completely to make way for the overspend.)

The development of the Space Shuttle in the 1970s and the construction of the International Space Station in the 2000s suffered similar delays and budget overruns. NASA was able to get away with it because it was responsible for putting the first astronauts on the Moon, arguably America's greatest moment. The Apollo program laid the foundations for America's tech industry and ushered in a dynamic new era for the country. But since then, the world has changed significantly, and NASA simply hasn't kept up, according to Professor Emeritus John Logsdon, a former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. "A change in the way the US does its civil space program is long overdue."

The current model is to award so-called "cost-plus" contracts to large, traditional aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which guarantee payment of development costs and an agreed profit. This model provides these companies with the financial security needed for ambitious projects like the Space Shuttle, SLS, and the development of components of the Saturn V rocket that took the Apollo astronauts to the Moon, but the contracts provide no incentives to reduce costs or improve efficiency. For example, there are no penalties for delays or cost overruns. Dr Simon Barber of the Open University, who has worked with NASA on robotic space missions, was initially skeptical that the new commercial companies could deliver. But he has now changed his mind and supports a new way of doing things.

"We used to see big projects that were delayed and over budget. But the new companies are exposing the old way of doing things." In 2009, President Obama accelerated the pace of change by introducing fixed-price contracts to some private sector companies, shifting what some saw as an overly cozy relationship with the traditional space companies. These companies were allowed to innovate to reduce costs and increase profits, provided they delivered on time and on budget. One of those companies was the dynamic upstart SpaceX, which won a contract to develop its reusable Falcon rocket and Dragon capsule to ferry people and cargo to the International Space Station.

Traditional space company Boeing also won a similar contract in 2014 to develop its Starliner capsule to do the same job. SpaceX, with its riskier but faster development process, began delivering cargo to the ISS within four years of winning the contract. By contrast, Boeing's Starliner suffered a series of delays due to technical problems and cost overruns, taking 10 years – and then had some further engine problems, which resulted in astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams being stranded on the station. The final indignity was that they will be brought back to Earth on a Dragon capsule built by their rival, SpaceX. "Starliner is an embarrassment to the traditional way of doing business," says Professor Logsdon. "So, shaking up the system is very positive."

Professor Logsdon expects that there will be big changes under Trump, Musk, and Isaacman: the cancellation of projects, the closure of NASA centers, and more outsourcing to SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other private sector companies. Isaacman has called SLS "ridiculously expensive" and has said that the major aerospace contractors "have incentives to be inefficient." But such changes will not be easy. NASA's budget is controlled by Congress. Although President Trump's party controls both legislative houses, individual senators and congressmen on the committees that oversee NASA come from states that rely on NASA's $25 billion (£20 billion) annual budget, with jobs and industries. "Party discipline goes out the window when it comes to pork-barrel spending," says Professor Logsdon, a veteran observer of the political horse-trading over space in Congress.

Despite the huge cost of NASA's projects, they have shown us the wonders of the cosmos and changed humanity's view of itself and our place in the universe. The building of the first reusable Space Shuttle, the construction of the orbiting space station, the images of distant worlds taken by its robotic spacecraft, and the awe-inspiring pictures taken by the Hubble telescope have inspired generations and stimulated interest in science. So, senators and congressmen know that America and the world owe NASA an unpayable debt. "The old way of doing things has given us a lot of success, so you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There will be big changes, but they won't be as radical as Musk and Isaacman would like," believes Professor Logsdon. "There is a delicate balance of interests between NASA, Congress, and the White House."

That balance will become apparent in the coming months: some speculate that the return to the Moon program could be canceled altogether in favor of going directly to Mars, as President Trump hinted at in his inauguration speech, while that policy's biggest proponent, Musk, sat nearby. Others fear that NASA's Earth observation programs could be cut, which monitor and model environmental changes from space, including the effects of climate change; and others worry that robotic science missions to other planets could be cut to boost the human spaceflight program. Some are concerned about the close relationship between Isaacman and Musk. Isaacman paid SpaceX for his two space adventures. Since 2008, the company has won $20 billion (£16 billion) in government contracts.

But if SLS is canceled and SpaceX wins the bulk of NASA's lunar program, then Musk's company could win contracts that are ten or even a hundred times larger, potentially at the expense of other private sector players. There are a number of innovative American start-ups that want to build spacecraft and infrastructure for NASA's return to the Moon, including Firefly, a Texas-based company whose spacecraft is due to land on the Moon in March. But industry analysts say that the US government has a long tradition of breaking up monopolies so as not to stifle innovation. Whatever happens, Professor Logsdon argues that just because Isaacman has worked with Musk, it doesn't mean that any outcome is inevitable. "Isaacman is his own man," he adds. "He's not a disciple of Elon Musk."

Ultimately, however, it is becoming clear, even to the most ardent supporters of NASA, that it needs to be saved from itself. The need for reform at NASA is not a partisan issue – both Democrat and Republican presidents have initiated the process. But the success of SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other private sector space companies, combined with the opportune timing of a new government keen to cut costs and energize the private sector, means that Isaacman has the opportunity to make some of the biggest changes at NASA since its inception. "NASA is truly a crown jewel, and we have not done what we should be doing on behalf of the American people," said Lori Garver, a former deputy administrator of NASA, at the Space News webinar. "It's frustrating for all of us."

When asked if a private sector billionaire was the right person to entrust with one of America's greatest national treasures, Ms. Garver responded: "Jared is a patriot, and he's doing this as a public service." "The truth of what Jared has agreed to has to do with him being willing to take on those hard things – and there are a lot of hard things."