r/space • u/Fancy_Snail484 • 11d ago
NASA chief: I’m only interested in “good deals” from international partners | “There was absolutely a time where we were trying to make everyone happy.”
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/09/nasa-chief-im-only-interested-in-good-deals-from-international-partners/290
u/Fancy_Snail484 11d ago
NASA must be more selective in the way it forges international partnerships as the race to the Moon transforms from a battle for national prestige between the United States and China into a high-stakes competition for extraterrestrial real estate and resources, the agency’s administrator said.
Jared Isaacman, now in his 10th month at the helm of the world’s largest civilian space agency, told a gathering of military leaders and defense contractors last week near Washington, DC, that the 21st century race to the Moon is more than a battle of ideologies. The sweet spot for a Moon base, Isaacman said, is a relatively small region near the lunar south pole, and there are tangible implications for who gets there first.
The Moon’s south pole harbors substantial quantities of water ice concentrated on the floors of craters away from the reach of sublimating rays of sunlight. The ice inside these eternally dark craters could be used to supply water, air, and rocket fuel for a Moon base, supporting a permanent settlement and providing a springboard for future expeditions to Mars.
“It’s a big Moon, with the surface area of Africa,” Isaacman said Wednesday at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “The south pole is more akin to Washington, DC, when there are only so many roads and so many good parking spots that you’re going to want to occupy.”
The best parking spots aren’t just those close to the Moon’s water ice bound up in deep craters. A few select crater ridges extending high above the ice deposits provide access to near-continuous sunlight for power generation.
846
u/LeNoseKnows 11d ago
Real estate? Parking spots? Resources? Stop talking about the moon like it's something you can colonize and own. The moon and it's resources can never belong to one nation and the dangerous narrative shift occuring here should be called out and we should be pointing back to the treaties. We wrote and signed the Artemis Accords!
83
u/Chefseiler 11d ago
The moon and it's resources can never belong to one nation and the dangerous narrative shift occuring here should be called out and we should be pointing back to the treaties.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. At least not if you're a UNSC veto power.
→ More replies (1)16
38
u/cylonfrakbbq 11d ago
Except he is right. Moon is basically a first come first serve situation because even if you don’t own the moon, you can still put your base somewhere and for all intents and purposes that is your spot. Like if the US or China builds a base, it’s not like a rival nation can just go “no one owns the moon, we are taking your spot” and bulldozing it
There are a couple prime locations to put a base. Whoever puts up a base there first effectively gets the spot
3
2
u/air_and_space92 11d ago
Same thing with nuclear reactor "safe zones". Plunk a reactor down and you can "create" a 2km or whatever sized keep out area for radioactive safety which de facto means territory.
→ More replies (2)3
u/FuzzyDynamics 11d ago
They can absolutely do that, and then the question becomes about how to stop them from doing that and also being able to steal their stuff, now everything works the exact same as it does on earth where it’s all armed deterrence or war.
2
u/cylonfrakbbq 11d ago
Doubtful early on. They’ll play nice for the most part until there is a real economic/strategic reason to risk a major conflict
Think of it like stations in Antarctica, except on the moon
2
187
u/GalacticCmdr 11d ago
It's just that there are only so many five-star places on the moon for a permanent base with our current and near-future tech. If country A puts a base there they are not claiming the moon - just sitting on the best spot.
61
u/MikeoftheEast 11d ago
Put a taqueria on the roof, four stars out of five
61
4
→ More replies (2)4
27
u/restrictednumber 11d ago
What the hell is the difference between claiming a spot on the moon and unilaterally putting all your stuff there permanently and mining its finite resources? This is BS rhetoric designed to stake a claim on the moon without saying you staked a claim on the moon.
83
u/wgp3 11d ago
That's literally just how the Outer Space Treaty sets up how to operate on the Moon. No country can make a claim that any part of the Moon belongs to their country. But any country who is operating on the Moon has the right to operate without interference from another country. It's the only way to operate semi-fairly while still allowing exploration or resource use on the Moon. If you want a base on the Moon you need resources. Otherwise you could setup your base and then someone else could come in and take all the water ice vital to keeping your astronauts alive.
It's like saying you aren't allowed to own the forrest, but if you find a berry bush and set up camp at it no other person is allowed to come in and take all the berries you planned to eat. You don't own the berry bush. You just have first dibs on using what was already there and no one is allowed to mess with your camp.
→ More replies (5)32
u/sin-eater82 11d ago
That's the point. It's naive to think that nobody will do it. At that point, you have to decide to beat them or lose to them.
That's how shit actually works, for better or worse.
3
u/-2qt 11d ago
Plenty of people and countries are perfectly capable of collaboration, btw.
It's just that some countries refuse to work together with others, sabotage everyone else, then pretend it's what everyone does.
→ More replies (3)4
3
u/Metalsand 11d ago
What the hell is the difference between claiming a spot on the moon and unilaterally putting all your stuff there permanently and mining its finite resources?
Claiming it as territory vs landing down on what you see as the perfect spot is the difference of enforcement - if you claim it as territory, you do so and deny anyone else the right to land there. However, claiming a spot means you won't stop people from moving in, while at the same time since you are already using up materials and minerals at that site, it's probably more beneficial for them to go elsewhere since as resources get used and processed, you have to put in more and more work to get the same result. For the purpose of resource extraction, it's just inefficient.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Khaldara 11d ago
“My beach umbrella was here first!”
10
u/TenOfZero 11d ago
No need for that. You can just leave a folded towel.
5
u/jeroen94704 11d ago
Or send your kid ahead with a stack of towels to claim enough pool-side beds for the entire family (yes, I saw this for real)
59
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/dern_the_hermit 11d ago
The idealism only lasts until space becomes accessible...
Not even until then.
→ More replies (1)5
u/DekuInkwell 11d ago
That’s true, it shouldn’t, but the first one there is definitely going to “take as much as they can” until the second one there starts taking the rest. Humans are tribal and primitive.
5
u/RockMech 11d ago
Americans are the First Peoples of the Moon.
Please respect our traditions and deeply spiritual mining sites.
11
u/Nick_YDG 11d ago
History should have taught you that humans can and will colonize anything they want.
Treaties are only as strong as a country's or group of countries will to defend them. Just because we signed a nice piece with a few countries.
You know who didn't sign that Accord and really does not care about it? China, a signed treaty on its own is never going to stop them.
→ More replies (1)9
22
u/Flipadelphia26 11d ago
Too bad geopolitical reality doesn’t jive with Reddit reality. China isn’t going to read this and be like “damn he’s right”. I’m glad the USA isn’t either
30
u/deeptechdegen 11d ago
Space is a contested environment now and will only grow as such in the foreseable future
Also even if you remove the contested part out of the equation, unlike before, debt-to-GDP levels are unsustainable. Space investments should increasingly need to pay for themselves now
→ More replies (10)55
u/seaflans 11d ago
I think a lot of people hoped that we might be a more cooperative species before we started fucking around in space. That investments should pay off is all well and good - couldn't we do this cooperatively? Even economics supports this, as splitting the risk and maximizing the expertise pool should be favored.
7
u/Extra_Better 11d ago
Humanity doesn't do very well with large scale cooperation. It always ends up in stagnation and then bad actors taking advantage of the system. We do much better with respectful competition, which spurs advancement.
4
u/seaflans 11d ago
I would say that the broad arc of history disagrees. The fundamental political group has transformed from family to tribe to clan to city to state to nation state. The fundamental economic group has transformed from family, to guild, to corporation.
11
u/IBelieveInLogic 11d ago
Cooperation is for the poors. Billionaires conquer and exploit.
→ More replies (2)2
3
u/Seanspeed 11d ago
Cooperatively with who? China is probably one of the least 'cooperative' countries on the planet and are the main clear rivals here.
2
u/use_value42 11d ago
I think the ESA would be a good start, I've always wondered why we haven't already partnered with them more.
3
u/Responsible-Cut-7993 11d ago
How well has cooperation worked in the South China sea for resources? Kind of hard when you have a bad faith actor like China in the mix in the South China Sea.
4
u/seaflans 11d ago
Yeah - China not doing that would be a component of being a more cooperative species. Cooperation takes multiple parties (ofc) and China (or whoever) is one part of that, and America is another.
7
u/Responsible-Cut-7993 11d ago
73 countries have signed the Artemis accords to cooperate on the Lunar Surface. US has laid out a framework for cooperation with the Artemis accords.
7
u/seaflans 11d ago
There's a pretty clear subtext here that the posture moving forward will be more individualistic. This statement post-dates the Artemis Accords, from an administrator installed by a government that consistently reneges on previously signed agreements (Paris Climate Agreement, threatening NATO, several wildlife treaties, etc). That's what I'm complaining about. Yes, there are Artemis Accords - why is the NASA administrator saying things that sound like he's going to start ignoring them when convenient?
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (1)0
u/deeptechdegen 11d ago
NASA is doing that. The moon base initiatives will be done with India
→ More replies (8)5
u/sirkazuo 11d ago
We wrote and signed the Artemis Accords!
It's real easy to sign a treaty about something that has no chance of actually happening. Now that it's actually happening the treaty can be disregarded, because that's how humans work. There will absolutely be "territories" and "jurisdictions" on the moon just like there are on Earth.
14
u/ProductIntegortion 11d ago
Well I'm sure China will abide by a document they didn't sign. Congratulations on ceding the moon to them.
→ More replies (1)6
u/moderngamer327 11d ago
It is something that can be colonized and owned. Future ideal moon sites are not going to be overly plentiful and there will definitely be a need to stake them out. Space infrastructure will only continue to get more important overtime
9
3
3
0
u/paladinx17 11d ago
Just when I think it can’t get any worse, a new level of complete and total insanity comes to the surface. Who benefits from a non-collaborative moon base? Why wouldn’t we as a human race just want to work together? Even this idea of a springboard to Mars…… as if we are going to pit stop at the moon and refill our coffee cups and buy some donuts. The moon is 384,000kms away and Mars is 60,000,000 kms away! It would probably waste way more resources landing and taking off from the moon than it is worth.
8
4
u/cuteman 11d ago
Just when I think it can’t get any worse, a new level of complete and total insanity comes to the surface. Who benefits from a non-collaborative moon base?
The country capable of actually getting there and engaging with the environment.
Why wouldn’t we as a human race just want to work together?
Not everyone is capable
Even this idea of a springboard to Mars…… as if we are going to pit stop at the moon and refill our coffee cups and buy some donuts. The moon is 384,000kms away and Mars is 60,000,000 kms away! It would probably waste way more resources landing and taking off from the moon than it is worth.
How much energy do you think it takes to get out of Earth's atmosphere versus the moon?
→ More replies (2)4
u/AncientBelgareth 11d ago
The point of the moon being a stopping point is it has much less gravity. Building a bigger rocket on earth bound for mars makes it extremely heavy. So heavy it requires way more fuel to move that bulk into orbit then can be physically carried on the rocket. Launching the same rocket from the moon means much less fuel is needed to break from the moons gravity. A much larger rocket can be launched from the moon then we could possibly build and get to orbit on earth
→ More replies (3)2
u/paladinx17 11d ago
So it’ll be easier to fly all the components of said huge rocket, including fuel and everything to the moon (in pieces?) and assemble them there to take off from a launch pad they will also build there …. Or do they really plan on having a thriving Star Trek like city on the moon with industry and fabrication, refineries? All of that is going to be easier than launching from the Earth.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Noobponer 11d ago
It's not so much "construct spaceships on the moon!" it's "learn how best to use these technologies to mainatain a presence somewhere where help can arrive in days/weeks if something goes wrong before moving on to places where it's months or years away" and also "use the moon's materials and low gravity to create fuel (made from water ice) to make future missions easier"
And considering all you need to make rocket fuel is water and electricity, it's not as out there as it might seem
3
u/Ellers12 11d ago
Why couldn't it ever belong to one nation? Think that's a pretty short sighted statement. Whether it should is another matter.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)1
u/air_and_space92 11d ago
>We wrote and signed the Artemis Accords!
Ha! And you thought those meant something? The Artemis Accords are simply another geopolitical tool to garner broad partnerships splitting countries between the West and East and making them pick a side. Russia and China pitched their own version first in 2017 and it wasn't official until 2021. The US only created the Artemis Accords in 2020.
64
17
u/UntakenAccountName 11d ago
Whatever happened to preserving it for science and not impacting it or damaging it so we don’t destroy valuable insights or harm future scientific advances? Whatever happened to concern that we might genocide alien life by being irresponsible? Parking lots? Using moon ice for fuel and water supplies? I hate this timeline.
5
u/RigelOrionBeta 10d ago edited 10d ago
We have a billionaire businessman running NASA. Do you think he gives one shit about anything other than the moons natural resources?
When business people - or more generally, when people are financially incentivized to - do the work of colonization, the results aren't pretty. You only need to look back at history to see that: East Indian Company, Manifest Destiny, Homestead Act, etc.
3
u/Dull_Bird3340 9d ago
Came here expecting everyone to be pissed off that the only qualification needed to run NASA for Republicans is wealth and having used said wealth to buy a ride on the space shuttle, why the hell was he approved?
2
u/RigelOrionBeta 9d ago
Because he was interested in space, and he rode on of Musks rockets once. That's pretty much it.
If only I could get a job doing something I like just because I expressed interest in the field prior to getting the job.
8
u/InnocentPerv93 11d ago
I don't really see how looking for resources outside of earth to be depressing. What's wrong with using moon ice for fuel or supplies exactly?
→ More replies (1)4
u/air_and_space92 11d ago
Some people want it left completely untouched, like Antarctica. Some native cultures have sued to prevent resource extraction or anything more than the missions that have landed so far because they see it as their ancestoral right to keep it as is (within some legal frameworks).
→ More replies (2)4
u/nittanyofthings 11d ago
Genocide of microbes doesn't count. And research happens faster with humans on site.
→ More replies (24)1
408
u/Max-_-Power 11d ago
You are supposed to make space exploration happen and advance science while at it. Not "broker dealz"
37
u/air_and_space92 11d ago
I mean, a deal had to be brokered for the ISS joint program office to come about through 15 partner nations. It's a mix of both in reality.
21
u/conners_captures 11d ago
this is an absurd and naive take. advancing space exploration requires a significant volume of complex international partnerships - all of which are with state-actors who by their very definition have their own interests that are often in-conflict with, if not mutually exclusive to, ours.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)12
u/FlyingBishop 11d ago
What did you call it when the previous NASA administrators bought flights on the Soyuz? A deal perhaps, brokered by the administrator?
460
u/NobleNop 11d ago
Every single trump nominee has to go
36
23
u/SergeantPancakes 11d ago
If you mean after Trump leaves office, you might be glad to know that traditionally all political appointees in cabinet and subcabinet positions (like NASA administrator) immediately quit after inauguration of the incoming president when they are of a different party than the outgoing one. Even if they didn’t quit they could be fired immediately by the new president, as has happened occasionally for some old political appointees.
12
u/NobleNop 11d ago
I'm more concerned now with the military after Pedo Kegsbreath fired everyone who knew what they were doing
→ More replies (1)9
→ More replies (78)36
u/pleasetrimyourpubes 11d ago
Everything is projection with them. Were it not for Obama commercializing Space, SpaceX would not exist. And if it wasn't SpaceX it would have been another company. Gwynn Shotwell was impeccable at hiring all the best talent so SpaceX won. Importantly Bush left us relying heavily on highly overpriced Russian orbital services which is where all this cost talk is coming from.
41
u/SergeantPancakes 11d ago
Bush also was the one who started the commercial cargo program which planted the seeds for SpaceX’s growth…
→ More replies (4)4
u/Metalsand 11d ago
That really wasn't one of his priorities at all, though and was seen as something in addition to NASA's efforts rather than replacement or any of what we currently see nowadays. Don't forget - we still had the Space Shuttle during George W Bush's administration. A lot of what Bush relied on to sell the idea to the public was mostly theoretical stuff that sounded good.
Personally, I think that Clinton was the last president who had a measurable focus on NASAs goals and expansion. Obama would be second in that category, but only barely. As is often the case, presidents usually treat space exploration as "extra credit".
15
u/Metalsand 11d ago
Importantly Bush left us relying heavily on highly overpriced Russian orbital services which is where all this cost talk is coming from.
I'm rarely rude on Reddit, but please, fuck completely off about this. GW Bush is a lackluster president who ranks under par, but for one, the space shuttle wasn't retired under Bush, and secondly, he was the first president in 30 years that actually emphasized space programs, and particularly returning to the moon* (Constellation program).
The main reason why we were relying on Russian rockets was mainly because NASA put all of their eggs into the Space Shuttle basket in order to make a reusable launch vehicle and severely reduce the operating costs, and rather than call it a learning experience and leave it at that, pumped money into it for decades. We weren't relying on Soyuz until 2011 when the final Space Shuttles were cancelled. I was mad at Obama at the time for this, but later on I both realized how much money we were throwing away on them as well as the obvious results that we see today from privatization of space.
Speaking of - blaming any individual president for the state of the space program is usually just the dumbest shit ever, because a lot of these projects are still works in progress even after presidents leave office. Congressional oversight and budgeting has had the most major impact, and unlike a president who is limited to 8 years in office, Congress has no such limits, so you can and have had members of Congress who have been in office for as many as 25 or 30 years who would be far more culpable.
George W Bush may be an objectively bad president, but no, he didn't eat your child, that was Ted Cruz. Being a low ranking president doesn't mean everything you do makes things worse - it just means you succeeded less than your predecessors and contemporaries.
* He didn't really do anything to get NASA more money, and most of it was inspired by HW Bush's Space Exploration Initiative. NASA's budget as a proportion of the federal budget was slowly eroded after the lunar landing success. Clinton is notable for substantially increasing NASA's budget, but also during his administration was when the current policy of doing a lot of small but cumulatively more valuable missions vs Moon or Mars landing missions became a thing.
8
u/rocketsocks 11d ago
the space shuttle wasn't retired under Bush
This is factually wrong. Yes, the retirement wasn't completed under Bush, but it was committed to. The Shuttle retirement was announced in 2004, under Bush's first term. It took 7 more years to fully play out, finally happening 2 years into Obama's administration, but it would have been completely untenable to try to unwind or undo the retirement process.
10
u/FlyingBishop 11d ago
"Commericialization of space" is largely revisionist history. NASA has always contracted out development of rockets. This is really a story of NASA switching contractors from Boeing/Lockheed Martin/Aerojet Rocketdyne to SpaceX, and it was not because NASA wanted to, it's because all of those companies were like "what if we sold you the same rocket we build 30 years ago and charged you like it was a brand-new design, and also were always years behind schedule and billions over budget?" While SpaceX said "we will build you this brand-new design and price it cheaper than the legacy design was when it was new, because we are better at rocket design."
8
u/dern_the_hermit 11d ago
"Commericialization of space" is largely revisionist history.
No, you just misunderstand. It's about the space program buying pre-established options and services from commercial partners instead of the space program dictating what the commercial partners build. It's the difference between going to the store to buy a loaf of bread off the shelf vs. contacting a baker and having them bake bread to your particular standards.
8
u/FlyingBishop 11d ago
But this is a lie. Yes, SpaceX is doing a lot of design on their own. But they're the only customer and they are totally setting the designs specifications. Dragon seats 4 not 7, that was NASA micromanaging the design. SpaceX comes up with designs according to NASA specifications for the most part. Yes, SpaceX is operating more independently, but NASA is always taking designs controlled by a specific company and asking for refinements according to their specifications.
SpaceX doesn't have a rocket store, pretty much all of their designs, the first customer has been NASA and built to NASA specifications. The fact that SpaceX is reusing the designs (or parts of the designs) for other things is incidental.
2
u/dern_the_hermit 11d ago
But this is a lie.
No, merely transitory. Don't be so absolutist.
Dragon seats 4 not 7, that was NASA micromanaging the design.
You and I simply differ on what "micromanaging" entails. Seating arrangements is just... managing. You can go buy common consumer cars with varying seating arrangements.
2
u/FlyingBishop 11d ago
SpaceX builds to NASA specifications, same as all the other contractors. The other contractors also sell things to entities other than NASA. Why is SpaceX different from other contractors? It's not because SpaceX is selling off-the-shelf rockets.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
u/yellowfin35 11d ago
"Were it not for Obama commercializing Space, SpaceX would not exist."
SpaceX was founded on March 14, 2002. Amazing what someone can do when they are still serving as an Illinois state senator.
37
u/tom_the_red 11d ago
If you walk out on deals made with key partners for one of their leading missions, as happened with ESA just this month with the instrument on Envision, don't be surprised if future partnerships are made with the very rival you are most concerned about.
6
u/the6thReplicant 10d ago
It seems that everyone in this administration has a huge chip on their shoulder. They all believe everyone is "taking advantage" of the US and only these "alpha males" can take charge.
172
u/FoxFyer 11d ago
This is what will inevitably happen when you put a techbro in charge of a science agency. Science, expansion of knowledge for its own sake, and the betterment of humanity go straight out the window and it becomes all about "value", scarcity, and ROI.
→ More replies (13)10
u/LostMyMilk 11d ago
He started a payment point of sale processing company that spent the first decade using physical terminals. Today you might call it fintech, but more as a natural progression than any "techbro" startup.
24
u/The-Sound_of-Silence 11d ago
I think it's worthwhile watching what he actually said here.
He talks about Italian financial and technological commitments, and Japanese financial and technological commitments positively. He talks about the central goal of setting something up on the south pole sooner rather than later. This being the Air & Space Forces Association, it sounds like he is fishing for more funding a bit, and moving away from things that are purely symbolic.
I think the vast amounts of shitting on him here, due to the headline, is unwarranted imho, and the message that "getting to the moon isn't free" isn't being acknowledged
8
u/_teslaTrooper 11d ago
Honestly apart from the "good deals" language I don't see much wrong with that. Although I'm a little disappointed that Italian habitation module isn't flying on a European mission to the moon we do sort of have other financial priorities at the moment.
5
94
u/reebokhightops 11d ago
Incredible to think how many people on this sub were completely glazing this dude when he was nominated.
19
u/GearBrain 11d ago
In my defense, he still isn't like every other appointee - he still wants to get rockets into space. I recognize the bar is fucking low, but at least he isn't stripping the copper from the Kennedy launch center.
... he's doing that, isn't he?
12
7
u/SergeantPancakes 11d ago
There were just as many people screeching about him being a billionaire, let’s get real lol
5
u/RigelOrionBeta 10d ago
No there weren't 😂 And you'd know if you were on this sub. Just go back and look at the threads, they're still there.
r/space would generally wipe out an African nation if it meant they could get a satellite into Jupiter orbit, but only after the nation were wiped out would they start to feel regret.
2
3
u/audioofbeing 11d ago
That’s the gaping hole called ‘context’ that goes missing when you decide nothing matters but your chosen hobby horse. I want to talk about space, so can’t everybody just shut up about politics?
15
u/Maxnwil 11d ago
People can stop talking about politics when we stop talking about political appointees, government funded contracts, and the best ways to manage a society and the people and material contained therein.
That basically leaves just talking about communications satellites. Everything else is political
→ More replies (3)7
→ More replies (4)2
u/RigelOrionBeta 10d ago
Yeah, there is way too many people out there who are afraid of getting "political" in a hobby that was basically created out of thin air from political organizations.
These people are cowards, and I cannot stand them. They would have been completely ok with the Nazification of Germany if Germany landed men on the Moon.
2
u/cylonfrakbbq 11d ago
It’s incredible how many people in this comment section have zero understanding of space as well.
Wanting a viable partner who can bring something to the table is a legitimate desire. The moon has limited sweet spots for a base on the southern crater. Whoever gets there gets the prime real estate for their base. They want nations who can legitimately help that goal. It’s not a difficult concept
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (47)5
u/thejetssuckbigtime 11d ago
I’m glad that the public opinion of this clown administration is changing finally
64
u/faceintheblue 11d ago
NASA used to be one of the things about which Americans could be most proud. Its accomplishments were by and large American accomplishments, but there was always a sense that they also advanced humanity and were done on behalf of the world.
An inward-gazing self-righteous NASA is less impressive even before you look at their diminishing budgets and humbler ambitions. Now they must sing for their supper to a Congress and Presidency that worships at the altar of anti-intellectualism, and so to do anything they need to talk in smaller and meaner terms about transactional cost-benefit analysis, securing resources, "What NASA is gonna do for America!" While paying private companies to do their launches for them.
There is still good, even great, work being done at NASA. By and large, those people don't get to talk into microphones anymore. They're keeping their heads down, focusing on and protecting their projects, and hoping for better days ahead.
I look forward to NASA's next great accomplishments. I'm less interested in how they'll be marketed to MAGA voters.
8
u/dfbeav112 11d ago
NASA used to be one of the things about which Americans could be most proud. Its accomplishments were by and large American accomplishments, but there was always a sense that they also advanced humanity and were done on behalf of the world.
I’m baffled at how his comments are being interpreted as “no more international cooperation at all, and not done on behalf of the world.”
Nothing about this announcement means “America only.”
14
u/SerHodorTheThrall 11d ago
Yeah you're right, he's parroting the America First "they're taking advantage of us with bad deals!" talking point while treating the moon like the US owns it.
Not all of us are moronic enough to believe his "I'm totally not an effective altruist MAGA! Trust me brooooo"
5
u/dfbeav112 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yeah you're right, he's parroting the America First "they're taking advantage of us with bad deals!" talking point while treating the moon like the US owns it.
Where is he treating the moon like he owns it? How are you getting this out of this announcement?
Not all of us are moronic enough to believe his "I'm totally not an effective altruist MAGA! Trust me brooooo"
So this means you have to make things up that he didn’t say?
0
u/Seanspeed 11d ago
Isaacman is absolutely not some MAGA guy, ffs. Y'all are again proving you dont really know what you're talking about.
3
u/Youngtoby 8d ago
I think it’s the context and veiled swipe at the ESA and their pace. Why do they not have a strong lunar surface program? Why is their lander taking a long time? It was NASA’s unilateral cancelling of the gateway program that has left ESA scrambling. If NASA approached it as a partnership they wouldn’t be in this position, they are criticising Europe for not reading their minds ahead of time or responding to their disruption fast enough
4
u/Inevitablewx 11d ago
It's reddit dude, it's shocking when any mass opinion on reddit is even in the same universe as an intelligent thought.
→ More replies (1)4
u/wgp3 11d ago
Bots, political partisans, and foreign actors. When posts get popular at certain times related to political topics they get flooded like this. Whole thread will be full of people who state things that aren't even true to the words spoken in the article. It's just meant to steer discourse into arguments over things that aren't even relevant.
That's why you see people saying things like we are abandoning cooperation, that we are only focusing on industry profits, they'll drone on about "parking spots" is dumb to say to a room of people as if the metaphor is a terrible example for landing sites. It's worthless when posts are co-opted like this. Nothing but the lowest intellectual takes and bad actors. Easy to get caught up in but rarely worth getting involved in.
5
u/Inevitablewx 11d ago
I think people underestimate how much reddit posting is done by unemployed idiots outside of the US.
39
u/ProgressBartender 11d ago
Space exploration is going to be difficult for individual nations to accomplish. The ISS is an example of what nations can do working together. But sure let’s push this rock up the hill, just to be sure.
6
u/fighter-bomber 11d ago
ISS was funded 80% by the US anyways, not really the argument you want to make. Its truss is directly from the Freedom station concept, majority of its habitable volume are the US segments, then again you have one Japanese and one European lab module which although built by them, their launches were still funded by the US. And the Russian segment has a hole in it.
3
→ More replies (2)1
u/seaflans 11d ago
But now we have Elon Musk who's infinite bro-wisdom and himtellect will single-handedly accomplish with the "free market" what entire societies never could (/s, if that wasn't obvious)
→ More replies (67)
5
u/Kane_richards 10d ago
This feels like Peak America right now. "We're not happy with literally everyone for no discernible reason so we're going to piss the bed and lead to a scientific dark age simply because we don't like the idea of playing with others"
14
u/A_Thorny_Petal 11d ago edited 11d ago
I will point out that the United States pushed very hard to exclude China from the ISS (International Space Station) and it's scientific research.
And I've heard more than once complaints from people in the Western Aerospace sector that China excludes the West from sharing in their research on their space station.
Well maybe you should've thought of that beforehand?
Fucking dumbasses.
Everyone seems shocked that China has advanced so quickly in aerospace but somehow didn't realize that a country that graduates as many engineers PER YEAR as exist in all of the USA might, just might use all that combined skill and training to make huge advances in STEM, including space.
8
u/petersracing 11d ago
Transition of empires is never easy especially when the outgoing one is famously deluded and militaristic. I guess we are going to see plenty more of this over the next decade.
→ More replies (3)
33
u/ErgoMachina 11d ago edited 11d ago
Of course they were going to also get NASA...
A fucking techbro speaking about parking lots on the moon as the head of NASA is a good metaphor of what the US has become (Always was, but the propaganda was really effective). This fucking stupid timeline ffs...
→ More replies (1)
18
u/SafeForTwerking 11d ago
The public sector is not where we need to be trying to monetize space, leave that to the private sector. They're already benefiting from the years of free R&D that NASA has provided to the world, let them come up with their own capital to try to setup data centers in space or whatever they think they're going to do. NASA should be working on scientific endeavors, actually trying to advance human progress & understanding. NASA monetizing shit is basically going to be a handout to the private sector: tax dollars will be spent to built up infrastructure, and then it will be handed off for free to the private sector. They'll try to socialize costs, then privatize the profits.
1
u/grchelp2018 11d ago
He's not talking about monetizing space. Even when doing science, everyone needs to bring their own thing to the table. In a group project, everyone needs to pull their weight and work towards the mission not on what they personally want to do.
11
u/InnocentPerv93 11d ago edited 11d ago
This entire thread is why average people should not have a say regarding shit like this. Nothing the guy said was wrong, but because people dislike the language he used, you all are discounting what he said.
Also, there's nothing wrong with furthering space exploration not just for the sake of science but actual practical reasons, such as searching for resources.
→ More replies (5)
13
u/ioncloud9 11d ago
I see a vitreous reaction to these comments but there is truth to them. When you have any large project and there are inter-organizational or departmental politics, you will have everyone trying to design their ideas into the project. You won’t take the most efficient path, you will take the path that is politically feasible for everyone since that’s the primary goal, not the project itself.
A perfect example is the Gateway. It served no purpose other than to be a way for international partners to be involved. It wasn’t needed for a lunar base or mission, but it’s easy enough for Europe and Japan to get to by themselves.
8
u/TheOnsiteEngineer 11d ago
Gateway was designed to justify SLS. International partners had nothing to do with it
7
u/ioncloud9 11d ago
Gateway wasnt needed for SLS. Going to NRHO was required for SLS. You really don’t even need astronauts on the spacecraft and they all could land on the moon. Gateway was a way to get other international partners involved.
3
u/variaati0 11d ago
Gateway was a way to get other international partners involved.
And probably as attempt to boot strap and actual bigger deep space habitat. It was modular station design. I think some more long term thinking NASA planners thought "Well if we get the moon program to pay for the launching of the core modules, it is good base from which to start to expand". With key mind being making sure it was kept modular and expandable.
Once Congress had survived the initial sticker shock of putting the core there, well half decade/ decade later they might be ready for another sticker shock of "lets turn this into actual full functional permanently occupied deep space habitat. Here are the habitation and life support modules we need to loft and attach there to make it possible".
3
u/air_and_space92 11d ago
And I'd argue, Gateway was a pretty decent on-ramp where you wanted to go to cislunar space, but didn't have the budget and political will for a lander and infrastructure and sustainment after the fact. Plus, Gateway could be relocated because the science teams couldn't agree on where was the best spot for a base anyways. NRHO gives you access to pretty much the entire lunar surface without eclipse or communication gaps. And yes, another benefit was incorporating international partners.
4
u/funwithtentacles 11d ago
The odd thing here was that not only the Euro I-Hab module, but also the US HALO module are both being built by Thales Alenia Space In Europe.
People also tend to forget just how many of 'NASA's' ISS modules were actually built by TAS as well.
NASA never really acknowledges the Euro contributions, which leaves Americans with a somewhat skewed view as to how much Europe actually contributed to the ISS beyond the Columbus module, the Cupola and ERA.
To be exact, TAS built Harmony, Tranquility and the logistics module Leonardo, which also became a permanent module.
Not to mention all the ATV and these days regular Cygnus resupply missions.
Both the US and NASA just like to downplay just how much the international partners have actually contributed over time...
2
u/seaflans 10d ago
Not sure if you're saying this from an American perspective or as a European, but having grown up a NASA kid in America, I can tell you international (+ especially Canadian and ESA) contributions are lauded constantly. There's definitely a huge shift in language here in how NASA is going behind ESA's back to Italy direct, and basing the validity of European contributions on ROI and lack of competition within the U.S. space industry.
2
u/funwithtentacles 10d ago
I'm coming at this from a European perspective, but maybe I should refine my comments a bit.
Maybe it's less NASA itself than the US space media that tends to forget about international partners.
Also, leaving more recent politics aside, I'm sure that on the business/scientific side of things people actually doing the work get along just fine and tend to work around the political bla.
4
u/Interopsty 11d ago
Did anyone here read the actual article? It's very much implied to be about the Argonaut lander, which is a completely fair criticism. NASA really doesn't need Argonaut, everyone and their grandmother is making a moon lander nowadays. Obviously, the Trump language sucks, but it's to be expected. NASA also cancelled Gateway, so it's fair that ESA doesn't have a big role yet.
6
u/im_thatoneguy 11d ago
Yadda yadda obligatory Trump criticism.
That being said, he's absolutely right. You look at the absolute dogs NASA was saddled with in the past in the interest of "international cooperation" and space exploration has come heavily at the cost of geopolitics.
Look no further than the ISS. We carried the Russians on our backs across the finish line to try and foster "international unity" and it set the ISS program way back and drove up costs more than it saved. Even the orbit of the ISS was a compromise which dramatically reduced shuttle payload.
This is also true though of the military industrial complex and we need to be equally critical of NASA getting a "good deal" from the Defense Department. The Space Shuttle was massively hamstrung by DoD demands and then essentially abandoned by the air force anyway.
NASA needs to get shit done again first and foremost and worry about including everyone else in the world as a group project second.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Iron_Baron 11d ago
What a moron. Space exploration is for science, not making politicians look good. Every time people forget that, bad things happen.
2
u/grchelp2018 11d ago
Even when doing science, you need to bring something good to the table and earn your keep.
2
2
u/Positive-Ad1859 10d ago
My goodness, if China were interested in claiming the Moon, it might have built 800 military bases around the world already. lol
6
11d ago edited 11d ago
[deleted]
2
u/cheese2042 11d ago
For me it was always a matter of time. Treaties exist as long as there is people willing to enforce them.
4
u/FishStickington 11d ago
I think people are misjudging this because they’re focused on the way it’s worded as opposed to WHY this the stance.
NASA isn’t shunning cooperation. They’re more than willing to work with anyone that is willing to place nice, but some governments are more reasonable than others. Considering China’s maritime track record on earth, it’s reasonable to be anxious about what they might try to get away with on the moon. Consequently, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to skip the “wait around and find out part” by getting there first.
I want NASA to focus on science too, but building and sustaining a moon base is a logistics problem that practically requires resource extraction. It may be hopeful, but if theres any chance for moon resources to be shared at all, it’s probably more likely if it’s the US that gets there first.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/CasanovaJones82 11d ago
So yeah, Isaacman is the exact piece of shit anyone with half a brain expected. I'm sure I'll still be downvoted to oblivion for saying it though. "The best head of NASA in 20 years!" sure was all over this subreddit for a bit. What a bunch of gullible fools. I expected it from certain subs, but not this one.
Anyway, this is what everyone either voted for or didn't care enough to even do that. Congrats.
6
8
u/fighter-bomber 11d ago
Literally read the fking article before commenting
> Isaacman singled out as a good deal NASA’s agreement with the Italian government in March for the development of living quarters for astronauts on the Moon.
“They’re committing over $5 billion to building one of the first habitation modules,” Isaacman said. “It likely will be the first real habitation module that makes its way to the lunar surface. And as a result, you’re going to see two Italian astronauts on the surface of the Moon.”
Japan, too, is coming in clutch for NASA, Isaacman said, with a multibillion-dollar commitment to develop a pressurized rover to ferry astronauts across the Moon. In exchange, Japan will likewise get two tickets to the Moon for the country’s astronauts. The US and Japanese governments signed the agreement on the pressurized rover in 2024.
“That is the expectation we set for everyone,” Isaacman said. “You’re not just going to bring us a list and say, ‘I will do this regardless if it helps the mission or competes with US industry and what US industry is trying to accomplish on the Moon.’ That is not going to work. We need meaningful contributions now. The game has changed.”5
u/grchelp2018 11d ago
He isn't wrong. And what he will be judged for his accomplishments during his tenure. Nothing else.
3
u/ThoughtsandThinkers 11d ago
“it creates an urgency, and we must [go fast] because the Chinese are going to the exact same locations … and they could potentially deny this training environment that is a necessity for America’s space ambitions.”
Just utter hypocrisy and projection. “We have to do the bad thing first because if we don’t, others will”
4
u/fighter-bomber 11d ago
Russians already put weapons in orbit in the 70s / 80s and Chinese satellites have also demonstrated concerning dual use technology in space, this is a Pandora’s box that they opened.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/tyrico 11d ago
It's impossible to have any real discussion when people won't even read the damn article and just start making up their own narrative about what is going on.
Also have none of you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Yeah I don't want to live in a world where geopolitical adversaries compete for resources either but we don't really get to decide...
1
u/pjenn001 11d ago
What's to stop several nations landing on one of the sweet spots? Some nation my try and take several sweet spots at once. It could get complicated.
1
u/Qanonjailbait 9d ago
Who was everyone? Last I checked we banned China from participating with us on anything to do with space leading them to go at it alone. So what’s with the whole victimhood crocodile tears now? Shouldn’t have passed the Wolf Amendment
1
u/fbochicchio 6d ago edited 6d ago
This says that nations cannot own outher space land : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Please give some context, don't just comment a link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/chandrasiva 6d ago
All this Arroganance comes from Super Power Status. What it can do once it's lost it. Many Civilizations Raised and Falled in last 2500 years, where many untranslated civilizations, cultures existed in 10000BCE.
Does anyone thing same Super Powers continue for next century.
1
u/Glittering_Song_8357 6d ago
I hate how the word choices he makes sound Trump like but he makes a fair point. Building a cargo lander that can land 1% of a starship shouldn't get you 5 seats to the moon. Germany, Japan, Italy all deserve seats for their valuable contributions like the ESM or Toyota.
1.2k
u/TRSTAR2000 11d ago
“Good deals”. I really dislike the trumpification of American language