NASA Chief Jared Isaacman: Elon Musk is the greatest engineer in history [13:57]

[oh, okay, I’d run the transcript for the whole interview, but the clip was too short, so I just went back to get the full one, some of which doesn’t actually appear in the full interview, or at least, not in that order]

Transcript

I’ve said it many times. I think he’s the greatest entrepreneur and engineer in modern history.

On the space race front, China is certainly moving ahead. What does space superiority mean? Is the moon big enough for the two of us? Is this the kind of thing where they can have a presence, and we can have a presence? What does that look like? There’s no doubt we have zero desires to conquer the moon and say this is all for us right now. Now, what I will say is, like a lot of things, there is better real estate, and we do intend to land there. It’s better real estate for its tech development and access to water ice for its scientific potential. So, in some respects, that kind of fuels the space race to some degree. We both want to go to the moon, but we are both very interested in the same location to build our outpost, if you will. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t cooperation or collaboration. I mean, I just came back from Baikonur, Kazakhstan. That’s where Yuri Gagarin went to space; that’s where Sputnik was launched. So think about it: I was standing at the launch complex that ignited the first space race. And what was I there for? I was there to see a NASA astronaut climb aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft and go to the International Space Station because that’s how our cooperation works. They put a Russian astronaut on an American spacecraft, and we put an American astronaut on a Russian spacecraft, and it guarantees continuity of operations on the International Space Station, and it’s a good thing.

So when we go to the moon, we’re going to establish certain safety standards. If we need something, maybe the Chinese are able to help us, or the Russians, or vice versa. We’re going to be thoughtful on that. But there’s a space race, and the space race is a good thing because it helps drive good outcomes for both sides that are in competition. Obviously, it worked very well for NASA the first time, and I’m highly confident it will again. And it pushes us forward to actually continue and move.

Well, can you explain? And this is maybe a basic question, but can you just explain? I think a lot of people, you know, and you touched on this: for decades, we weren’t really that active. Why has it taken so long to get to the same place where we were decades ago, essentially? Why is it taking so long to get back to the moon when we’ve done it?

Well, I mean, there are a lot of reasons here, so I’ll touch on one of which is, to be quite honest, it’s competition. Absent this global competition that we’re in right now, we would not have made anywhere near as much progress as we’ve done over the last seven or eight months here at NASA. We are able to stop trying to make everyone happy, which generally makes no one happy, and focus on why the taxpayers fund NASA in the first place. Because across all of our stakeholders, there is a genuine understanding that there is a space race right now, and that is affording us some of the flexibility to do what needs to be done, which I think there’s no one at NASA who disagrees. They show up to work every day because they want to change the world in air and space. So competition is one factor. We have a president that is extremely supportive of ensuring American superiority and leadership in the high ground of space. He created the Space Force. He created the Artemis Accords, of which now 70 nations have signed on to. He created the Artemis program, which again gave birth to this whole program. He gave me the national space policy and the funding through the Working Family Tax Cut Act. That’s a key ingredient in it.

But the other factor too is the technology itself. Now, to send astronauts to low Earth orbit, the International Space Station, where we’ve basically spent all our time the last half-century, is hard. Nowhere near as hard as it is to go to the moon. So when we send astronauts on the Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station, Falcon 9, under about 1.88 million pounds of thrust, accelerates those astronauts to 17,500 mph. Artemis 2, to send those astronauts around the moon, requires 8.8 million pounds of thrust to accelerate them to 25,000 mph. That’s a lot of energy to put into a spacecraft. And then when it comes back from the moon and slams into the atmosphere, it’s a lot of energy to take out of it. So it’s a whole different thermal problem when you’re coming back from the moon. The point is, we spent a long time focusing on low Earth orbit and not the moon. And then when we actually were committed to going back, we didn’t have the president that gave us the direction and the resources to get it done. And we didn’t have the global competition to align the stakeholders in industry on what needs to be done versus what everybody tells us should be done.

Okay. Interesting. How is recruiting going? I’ve got to think you’re seeing an uptick in people who want to be astronauts. What kind of feedback and momentum are you getting on that front?

Well, I’ll tell you what, I can’t wait for Halloween because I think that the number of kids dressing up as astronauts for Halloween is probably one of the best indicators of how good of a job we’re doing at NASA, and I suspect numbers will be up this year. We take less than 1% of the intern applications. We have three intern classes per year at NASA. I think NASA is still very hot, and it’s only gotten hotter in terms of the workforce wanting to come here initially. To me, the challenge that will remain, regardless of what we’re doing at least with our lunar missions, is retaining the talent. Because if NASA is doing what industry is doing, which is building conventional rockets, you’ll come here for a while because NASA has a storied history, and you grow up and you always want to do it. And then you’re going to think about your families and the vacations you want to go on, the quality of life, and you’re going to wind up at one of the industry superstar players where their stocks are going up. You don’t get a stock portfolio at NASA, right? So now how do you fix that? Here comes the nuclear NASA again. The same nuclear pivot that came with the Navy is you have to work on what no one else is capable of doing, what no one in industry is doing or other government agencies or any nation around the world. Unlocking the nuclear NASA and the ability to explore the outer solar systems and send astronauts to and from Mars with the fewest miracles required is going to bring in a whole different cadre of engineers, technicians, and operators that are going to want to work on only that. That’s where you’re going to get that long-term retention, I think, is by doing the near impossible that no one else is capable of undertaking. We’ve done that in decades past, and then we kind of lost our way a little bit. We started doing what other people were doing and making a lot of people happy, and now we’re kind of making that pivot back in the correct direction, and I think that’s how we’re going to retain all the talent that wants to come into NASA.

And you think NASA can be, is, or will be doing work that’s more high-tech than SpaceX or some of the private sector competitors?

Oh, it’s just going to be different. Do I think SpaceX has the talent to build nuclear-powered spaceships? Absolutely. Of course they do. Do I think it’s the best business case? Do I think they want to manage the liability and the regulatory environment of launching a fission reactor above Earth? No. And even if they did, is there a good business case for it? They can sell chemical rockets to a lot of people, not to mention put their own data center satellites into low Earth orbit. You don’t need nuclear power to do that. But for what we want to do for the future of NASA’s human and a lot of their science exploration missions, it’s imperative that we do it. It’s not a skill set by any means; SpaceX talent is brilliant. Blue Origin talent is brilliant. Rocket Lab, Stoke, I mean, across industry, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, brilliant people all around. NASA needs to do what industry is not doing, and that’s what we did in the 60s, and we were very successful, and we need to get back to that

Importance of Reshoring Manufacturing

How important too has this push for reshoring manufacturing been for NASA? Are you able to use supplies now that are coming from the US?
Oh yeah. I mean I would say that, you know, like we there’s a whole waiver process to use foreign hardware in NASA and national security launch vehicles and satellites, and I would say like it’s, you know, again, it’s almost immeasurable. It’s such an inconsequential portion of our vehicles. For we are, I would say, predominantly very self-sufficient in the US when it comes to a lot of our hardware. Um, what we’re doing more is actually when you refer to insuring, we are actually rebuilding core competencies in NASA where we outsourced. It wasn’t offshore; we started outsourcing like crazy over the last few decades so much so that, you know, a lot of our talent, you know, we had engineers. Well, we don’t touch hardware; contractors do that. And, you know, it’s going to take a month to get this in the test chamber because that’s the contractor’s schedule on all that. And, I mean, just so you’re aware, like 75% of NASA’s workforce, over 40,000 of our employees, if you will, are contractors from basically, you know, sophisticated staffing agencies. And what, you know, as a taxpayer, that should really bother you. It’s 4.5 billion a year that we are paying to rent our workforce in that regard. And they’re not doing it for free. Um, you know, it’s a, you’re paying a premium for workforce flexibility, which they hate if you ever try and exercise that. Um, and we’ve, you know, called about 14,000 or so civil servants. So, we’re actually reversing that and we’re bringing contractors back into NASA as civil servants on our core competencies, which honestly, it’s designing spacecraft, it’s building spacecraft, it’s testing spacecraft, it’s launching them, and it’s the operations of them. Uh, where, you know, we need these capabilities to win the space race of today. And who knows what space race in the future looks like. And, um, so that’s actually an important effort that’s underway that’s making us a stronger, more competitive space agency. And by the way, it’s saving taxpayers lots of money without canceling a program or firing anyone.

Internal Efforts

That’s wild. I mean, so you’re sort of doing your own internal Doge effort.
Yeah. I mean, look, I there is a, um, you know, I haven’t in any of NASA’s work, like, and I’ve been, I’ve only been here eight months; like I haven’t found any fraud, uh, you know, where people are, and I’m sure it exists. That’s why you have inspector general and such. But is there, uh, inefficient use of capital? Is there waste and some abuse? Absolutely. Um, and some of it self-inflicted choices we made. Some of it was externally imposed. Either way, not tolerable in this administration. Like we get 25 billion a year from the taxpayers. We should be trying to maximize the scientific and discovery value of every dollar of it. And I can tell you we’re in a much better place doing that today than we were, uh, you know, a year or so ago.

Exciting Technology

What technology right now are you most excited about that you think can be transformative for the future of space?
Well, I will tell you that, uh, on August 30th, we are launching the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope on a Falcon Heavy. Uh, so it’s, you know, the three rockets, three Falcon 9, and two of them come back and land simultaneously. It’s really an impressive display. That telescope is going to be America’s greatest exploration asset. Uh, it’s got 100 times the field of view of Hubble, a thousand times the scan rate. So in terms of going out and trying to unlock the secrets of the universe, we’re only months away from the next big step in that direction. So that has me extremely excited. Um, and when you pair that with telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope, so you’ve got, um, Nancy Grace Roman scanning everything as quickly as he can, sees something really fascinating, then you point the soda straw at it, which is the James Webb telescope to do a deep dive investigation that is going to lead to some extraordinary breakthroughs, and a lot of people are excited around that. I think other than that, look, going returning to the moon is awesome. Um, building the base there. But nuclear power and propulsion, as you could tell from this conversation, I think it’s just so imperative to recruiting and retaining the best talent and extending humanity’s reach and American leadership farther into space.

Working Relationship with Elon Musk

I am remiss if I don’t, um, ask you just briefly about Elon Musk. I mean, I know you’ve said before that, um, you’re not super close friends, but obviously you work with him a lot in this capacity. Um, what has that working relationship been like for you?
Well, I’ll tell you I’ve had, um, I mean since I’ve been in this job, like I, I mean, other than I think I saw him at a wedding, we haven’t had any direct dialogue on that. I mean, SpaceX is way more than any one person. Now he is, again, I’ve said it many times, I think he’s the greatest entrepreneur and engineer in like modern history. Like the last, I don’t, you pick the last hundred years, I mean, extraordinary individual in that. But it’s, it’s SpaceX is 35,000 people. The folks that I interact with every day, uh, and that the leadership team here at NASA, I mean, these are your directors, the vice presidents, hell, even the engineer program managers that you’re talking to that are inspiring confidence in the direction that they’re taking HLS, which we need to put astronauts on the moon and to build a moon base. Um, but obviously I have a great respect for him. I did when I was at SpaceX with, uh, with our two, you know, commercial space missions and, um, you know, geez, they put me into space and brought us home safely on some reasonably demanding missions. So obviously I have a lot of appreciation for that, uh, and what SpaceX can contribute to the nation, uh, and certainly with Elon at the helm.

Future Projects

I just wanted to ask you if there’s anything that you’re working on that you can share, uh, that you haven’t spoken about publicly.
Well, I would talk about within our atmosphere for a second and say X-planes are very cool and NASA used to. So what are X-planes? X-planes are like totally radical. They’re not your, you know, your grandparents’ 737. And, uh, NASA used to have lots of exciting X-planes that could do really cool things in like the 80s and 90s. And similar to other things, you know, trying to satisfy everybody, our X-plane portfolio shrunk. Uh, we have X-59 now, which is the quiet supersonic demonstrator. So someday if you’re able to fly across the country on an airliner at supersonic speeds and no one hears the sonic boom, maybe NASA played a small part in that. But the answer is one X-plane is not enough. So in the years ahead, hopefully we fill the skies, whether you’re at your fairs or stadiums, the beginning of football matches or who knows what else, you’ll be seeing some pretty exciting things from NASA and the skies above you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.