Why Pick Him?
He’s the wild card: a successful entrepreneur and space enthusiast who’s already been to orbit. He brings fresh energy and big ideas, blending private-sector innovation with a passion for exploration. While NASA operates differently than the private world, his perspective could inspire bold new approaches.
Bottom Line:
He’s an exciting choice to shake things up and bring fresh vision, though adapting to NASA’s unique challenges would be part of the journey. 
There are millions out there convinced this pick is pure genius, like it’s the Mona Lisa of decisions. On the flip side, just as many think it’s a complete dumpster fire of a choice—an “abominationalistic” masterpiece, if you will. After everything that’s gone down, this “pick” (and let’s use that term generously) is shaping up to be as consequential as a hill of beans. Not AI!
2 replies
Thank you Raf for a refreshing, soulful, non-AI reply. It is all that I missed in your initial reply to the article.
And the announcement is made on the same day Artemis is delayed. Stranger and stranger.
A genuinely good person. This could really help NASA.
An incoming government loves a particular entrepreneur. That entrepreneur sells launches to space. The incoming government appoints a client and close business partner of the entrepreneur to run its space agency.
And so it goes. I’m not saying that it’s good or bad. Afterall, any government is primarily, at its core, a form of wealth redistribution, and it’s up to the people to decide what kind of wealth redistribution they will accept.
If the naysayers on this post were all CFI’s, I doubt we’d have any new pilots. Instead of castigating the choice, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s enthusiastic and intelligent. Enthusiasm itself is contagious and is just the shot in the arm NASA needs to keep Americans’ interest in the space program alive. I, for one, wish him the best of luck.
NASA’s workforce is very well educated, motivated and committed to their respective fields of expertise.
One of the questions that must be answered is, how is Jared Isaacman qualified to lead this $25B+/year agency?
It’s great that he’s been to space twice (without any NASA or military training), but what are his credentials? What is his background, his education and his aerospace accomplishments that make him the most qualified candidate?
It’s been reported, elsewhere, that Isaacman is a high school drop-out (funny that AVWeb failed to make mention of that little fact). How will he earn the respect and trust of a workforce inherently better educated, diverse and more accomplished?
This kind of agency leadership will likely not bode well for NASA as a whole, whose mission includes many interrelated scientific and engineering disciplines. Yet another thumbs down appointment, in my view.
3 replies
I have enthusiasm and I am successful in my field. More importantly, I have flown on a commercial airplane. I guess that makes me qualified to be the CEO of Boeing.
Isaacman obtained a GED and then graduated with a BA/S in professional. aeronautics from Embry Riddle. I think he should be received by the rank and file reasonably well. He is a pilot and he co-founded Draken International, one of the largest owners of privately owned fighter jets in the world, which provides training to the US Armed Forces. Obviously a smart person.
I’m so glad the comments are allowed. It makes for entertainment over morning coffee. For some, it would not matter who was selected, they’d give them a thumbs down. The other half are the opposite and the happier of the bunch.
It’s been reported, elsewhere, that Isaacman is a high school drop-out (funny that AVWeb failed to make mention of that little fact).
Maybe AVweb doesn’t think that “Dropout Becomes Successful Internet Entrepreneur” was especially newsworthy. I would tend to agree.
Engineers put man on the moon, not entrepreneurs. At this rate we might as well rename NASA to SpaceX.
OMG. Some of the most brilliant minds I’ve had the pleasure to work with didn’t have any degree whatsoever. And I went to high school (way back when) because that’s what one did. Today, I would have been out at 15 or 16, and on with life.
Every American should get used to this. These decisions are based on fealty, not fitness. Not a single one of the latest appointments has any experience (much less expertise) in leading an organization the size of a major federal agency. The incoming administration seems to think that their rich friends who own sailboats are perfectly qualified to helm globe-spanning containerized freight ships. Hey, they both float; how hard could it be?
See Wikipedia: “Whataboutism” for the definition of a logical fallacy.
I use a toilet everyday, it doesn’t make me a plumber.
“He has partnered closely with Elon Musk and invested hundreds of millions of dollars as a key customer of SpaceX’s expanding private astronaut business”.
Since Mr Isaacman is financially invested with Mr Musk, would it not be a conflict of interest for him to head the agency that could provide significant financial advantages to Mr Musk and himself
1 reply
Yes. Conflict of interest is the incoming administration’s holy grail.
After reading about Isaacman’s accomplishments, I have decided that he is a good all around man. His bold initiatives, like Inspiration4, combined with his philanthropy and contributions to aviation, demonstrate a strong sense of purpose. I admire his style and believe he sets a positive example for the country. He will do!
How many managers of Home Depot are billionaires? Apples and oranges.
Don’t you just hate it when some rich people are both decent and competent.
You want progress, risk, experimentation, and revolution? Put bright young people in leadership roles. You want safety, predictability, stability, and status quo? Put the old pros at the top of the organization.
It is interesting to note that none of the commenters have suggested other candidates for the position. Who would you suggest? Personally, I think Gwynne Shotwell would be a an excellent choice. But I doubt Musk would agree with that, since she is the one making SpaceX so successful.
2 replies
I really wanted to just say “great comment Bob3,” however, posting requirements require me to post at least 20 characters. Anyway, great comment Bob.
Ms Shotwell would probably be a very good person to manage NASA, but it will never happen. As “First Buddy”, Musk would likely never allow his best people to lured away from SpaceX. Personally, my opinion is that Mr. Isaacman is one of the better nominees the administration has proposed so far. Both NASA and the FAA are hidebound agencies that have been roundly criticized for being mired in bureaucracy and actually inhibiting progress instead of enhancing it. If he brings a fresh approach to the position and does a thorough analysis, he might actually make some significant progress.
Considering the other abominable picks of this incoming administration, Issacman is not a terrible pick. He does have a conflict of interest regarding SpaceX and I generally distrust wealthy entrepreneurs, but he also has enthusiasm for space, which is a good thing.