ORLANDO, Fla. – The space community has largely expressed support for the renomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA, even as he addresses concerns about positions outlined in his policy manifesto. At the Economist Space Summit held here on Nov. 5, speakers and attendees lauded President Donald Trump's decision, announced the previous day, to re-nominate Isaacman to lead the agency. This comes after the withdrawal of his initial nomination over five months ago.
Andy Lapsa, CEO of launch vehicle startup Stoke Space, expressed his enthusiasm during a conference discussion: "I’m thrilled for Jared and for NASA and the country. I think it’s a great nomination." He added, "It’s important for our national space program to have clear direction and a concrete future, and I think Jared brings that. So, I’m very excited.”
Greg Autry, associate provost for space commercialization and strategy at the University of Central Florida, also welcomed the news. "We got some really great news last night," he stated, referring to Isaacman's renomination during his opening remarks at the conference. This development could also positively impact Autry, who was nominated for the role of NASA’s chief financial officer in March. However, his nomination, along with that of Matt Anderson for NASA’s deputy administrator, announced in May, is still awaiting Senate approval. “I look forward to working with him soon in D.C.,” Autry said of Isaacman.
The timeline for these nominations remains uncertain. As of Nov. 5, the White House had not officially submitted Isaacman’s renomination to the Senate, according to Congress.gov. His original nomination was withdrawn on June 2. Isaacman is expected to face another confirmation hearing where lawmakers are likely to question him about his policy document, "Project Athena," which outlines his vision for reshaping NASA.
The 62-page "Project Athena" document, recently circulated on Capitol Hill and reported by Ars Technica and Politico, proposes changes ranging from ending the Space Launch System (SLS) program to increasing the use of commercial data for science missions and restructuring parts of the agency. In a social media post of nearly 1,500 words on Nov. 4, Isaacman confirmed the document's authenticity. He stated that a single copy was provided to an unnamed party in mid-August, approximately two and a half months after his initial nomination was withdrawn. The 62-page version was taken from a longer, 100-page report drafted while his nomination was under Senate consideration.
“Personally, I think the ‘why’ behind the timing of this document circulating — and the spin being given to reporters — is the real story,” he wrote. Isaacman maintained that the document aligned with his April Senate testimony but claimed that certain aspects had been misrepresented. “To be clear, the plan does not issue a directive to cancel Gateway or SLS. In fact, the word ‘Gateway’ is used only three times in the entire document,” he clarified.
He explained that the document explored “the possibility of pivoting hardware and resources to a nuclear electric propulsion program after the objectives of the president’s budget are complete.” The administration’s 2026 budget proposal suggested canceling both Gateway and SLS after Artemis 3, although Congress later allocated funding for both programs in the July budget reconciliation bill.
Isaacman outlined five main priorities in the report: “Reorganize and Empower,” “American Leadership in the High Ground of Space,” Solving the Orbital Economy,” “NASA as a Force Multiplier for Science” and “Investing in the Future.” He emphasized that the section on science included a discussion about data purchases, specifically for Earth observation missions, utilizing commercial satellite constellations operated by companies like BlackSky and Planet. “Why build bespoke satellites at greater cost and delay when you could pay for the data as needed from existing providers and repurpose the funds for more planetary science missions (as an example)?”
NASA currently acquires Earth observation data from commercial companies through the Commercial Satellite Data Acquisition program. These purchases supplement data from specialized NASA missions that feature advanced payloads not found on commercial spacecraft. Isaacman also refuted reports that the document targeted the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). “The report never even remotely suggested that America could ever do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,” he wrote. “Anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.”
“This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved,” he concluded. “It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success.”
Speculation arose that the Project Athena document was leaked to undermine Isaacman’s renomination and prolong Sean Duffy’s term as acting administrator. Isaacman stated in his post that there was no “friction” between him and Duffy, although they might hold different perspectives on NASA’s future. “We both believe deeply in American leadership in the high ground of space — though we may differ on how to achieve that goal and whether NASA should remain an independent agency,” Isaacman wrote, alluding to claims that Duffy favored incorporating NASA into the Department of Transportation, which he heads.
Ultimately, if the leak was intended to prevent Isaacman’s return, it was unsuccessful. Shortly after Isaacman defended the document, Trump announced his renomination.