9
NASA leadership battle intensifies as Trump weighs Isaacman vs. Duffy - NASASpaceFlight.com (www.nasaspaceflight.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/nasa@lemmy.world
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

In a rational timeline, there’s a clear answer. I submit that we are not currently in a rational timeline.

The fight between Duffy and isaacman keeps NASA on the radar and establishes it for Trump as a valuable object - something that people are willing to fight to have. That perception of value (note - NASA is intrinsically valuable in a rational world, see above) insulates it from Vought. I think the fight over NASA is good for the agency workforce and I hope it continues.

NASA having cabinet-level advocacy is not a bad thing. Transportation is an odd fit but the only other place I could think of it to go would be State given all the international tie-ins. Having someone with the ear of the president is not a bad thing. On the other hand, someone who’s been to space as the administrator is not a bad thing. Someone with actual experience running large organizations is not a bad thing.

Having someone that wants to run the agency like a business is a problem. Having someone that is tied to Musk probably is a problem. Having someone that doesn’t have political capital because they used it all getting the job… that’s a really bad news story.

Honestly, given the choice between two tan white guys with big ears and earnest expressions, I guess I’m actually leaning towards the lumberjack over the credit card processor. See above, we are not in a rational timeline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm taking Isaacman, the guy who tried to fund a Hubble reboost mission, not Duffy, the guy who wants to "move aside" from climate science.

    Being part of Transportation makes no sense to me. In so many cases, it isn't about the journey, it's the destination and the mission they do when they get there. If they want NASA in the cabinet, then make the NASA administrator a cabinet level official. There's no need to get creative with it. Duffy just wants a higher profile and consolidated power for himself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    /shrug. If you’re saying “this whole situation sucks”, I agree.

    For the record, I didn’t say DoT made sense, just that it made more sense than the alternatives for cabinet-level representation. NASA administrator in the cabinet is an unserious suggestion - scope of the position is tiny with respect to a cabinet secretary’s even if NASA got all the funding it needed to do the job.

    Neither Isaacman nor Duffy are going to prioritize climate science, so that’s a straw man.

    My primary point still stands - Duffy throws way more weight in the Trump administration and is therefore better able to protect or advance NASA’s needs/goals/objectives. Isaacman doesn’t even have enough clout to survive a hatchet job during a straightforward nomination. Better qualified yes, but no indication he can actually be effective in this environment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Between two crappy options I'd rather have the space nerd than the politician.

    NASA is bigger than the EPA and Small Business Administration, which are both "cabinet-level positions" (and not part of presidential succession). From the main cabinet, I could maybe argue Interior vs NASA (exterior?)...

    I get your point on effectiveness. Bill Nelson, despite being a former Senator, seemed to suck as a NASA advocate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent