We'll beat China to the Moon, NASA nominee declares
- Reference: 1764872186
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/04/beat_china_moon_nasa_nominee/
- Source link:
Isaacman appeared [1]before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and unsurprisingly, voiced strong support for US President Donald Trump's budget reconciliation law, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, even as the administration's separate budget proposal includes potentially painful cuts to the storied space agency.
Indeed, Isaacman's opening speech was chock-full of promises that NASA's budget will struggle to write checks for.
[2]
After praising the Artemis program, Isaacman told the committee that "America will return to the Moon before our great rival," and promised that the US would establish an "enduring presence" on the lunar surface.
[3]
[4]
Isaacman stated that returning astronauts to the Moon would be a priority, but that doing so would require reusable heavy-lift launch capabilities from commercial providers as well as in-space propellant transfer.
The billionaire and former commercial astronaut also committed to ensuring that there is no gap between the retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) and commercial Low Earth Orbit destinations. "We can never accept a gap in our capabilities again," intoned the wannabe NASA head, "Not in Low Earth Orbit, or in our ability to reach the Moon."
[5]
Capability gaps are all too familiar to NASA watchers. There was a gap of almost six years between the last Apollo mission (the Apollo Soyuz Test Project) and the first launch of the Space Shuttle, and nearly nine years between the end of the Space Shuttle program and the first crewed launch of a commercial spacecraft from US soil.
The gap since astronauts last walked on the Moon continues to widen. It is now over half a century since the last Apollo lunar mission, and there is a chance the gap could reach 60 years before another flag can be erected on the Moon's surface.
[6]Rosalind Franklin rover catches a break as NASA reaffirms commitment
[7]NASA pares back Boeing's Starliner deal after 2024 calamity
[8]Pegasus XL rocket dusted off to rescue NASA's Swift observatory from fiery demise
[9]NASA administrator says US should have 'village' on Moon in a decade
However, making a commitment to do something and having the budget to make it happen are two different things. Earlier this week, Isaacman also [10]committed to relocating a retired Space Shuttle to Houston, despite some estimates that the $85 million budget assigned for this task would not be enough.
Should Isaacman, as seems likely, be confirmed in the position next week, he will represent a change for the US space agency, with greater emphasis on commercial involvement. He may also have to contend with some of the deepest proposed budget cuts NASA has faced in decades. When pressed about the administration's plan to roughly halve NASA's science budget, Isaacman was noncommittal, saying only that he supported the broader goal of reducing the US national debt.
"If I'm confirmed," he said, "I'd love to get my arms around where we are presently at." ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.youtube.com/live/3gcFAkB91Xw
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aTISiHTX7jwD_MtPnvb-vAAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTISiHTX7jwD_MtPnvb-vAAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTISiHTX7jwD_MtPnvb-vAAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTISiHTX7jwD_MtPnvb-vAAAAIY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/27/nasa_support_exomars/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/25/nasa_starliner_contract/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/19/pegasus_fly_again_rescue_swift/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/29/nasa_moon_prediction_iac_2025/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/02/isaacman_discovery_relocation/
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Current NASA situation
"Still, they manage in-flight refuelling of fighters and bombers, so how hard can it be in space?"
Very. Aircraft refueling doesn't involve cryogenic fluids and gravity keeps the fuel in the tanker aircraft at the bottom of the fuel bladders. It is possible to use a bit of the cryogenic propellants to pressurize the tanks to be able to move the fluid, but it would take some sort of piston to keep the liquid collected and the tank being filled needs a way to move displace air out while not siphoning off the propellant going in.
It's not impossible, just really hard and will take some experimenting to work out the bugs. That will take time and a bunch of launches. I've advocated for doing a scaled down development program using the Falcon rather than Starship. The F9 is regularly flying to orbit (second stage) so that hurdle has been overcome. The first goal is getting a transfer system sorted rather than moving vast quantities. Crawl first and then walk.
Re: Current NASA situation
" I'd love to get my arms around where we are presently at. "
I would suggest that Isaacman get a pair of those arm-long gloves that veterinarians use to reach into a cow's backside. Without them he will end up getting his expensie C-suit full of what NASA is presently at.
As far as the US getting back to the moon before China or anyone else lands there first: good luck with that. SpaceX won't ever make that timeline, and rebooting Artemis with new contractors will require a budget that NASA simply doesn't have.
Re: Current NASA situation
Could someone translate that into English, please?
"I'd love to get into the job and figure out how much larger of a budget I can get away with asking for, and start making lists of potential people to shift blame to when through my incompetent management China lands on the Moon first."
Don't think so
Unless there is a dramatic change in attitudes and funding.
Re: Don't think so
He'll just run the same playbook as his boss and blame everything and everyone else when it doesn't happen.
Re: Don't think so
Why not do something new? Would it be news if somebody circumnavigated the globe today?
This is solely about trying to beat China at something which doesn't need beating.
Re: Don't think so
Oh, they are dramatic. But a different direction. Ballroom blitz anyone?
and returning them safely to earth?
"The US must return astronauts to the Moon before China mounts its first crewed landing there,"
No mention of them coming back, which was the hard bit in JFK's 1960s pledge. Makes the task of beating the Chinese there much simpler.
"America will return to the Moon before our great rival," and promised that the US would establish an "enduring presence" on the lunar surface."
I mean, the enduring presence could be the impact crater and it would still count.
Re: and returning them safely to earth?
Well no. My interpretation of enduring is something surviving. But US-bacteria might count as well.
I honesty don't understand, why is the moon important again?
BECAUSE.
It can be actually reached. Apart from that: Scientific purposes, like a telescope, more radiation detectors and so on. IMHO no money to make directly, only indirectly from the discoveries. Without ground-science we would not have many things. The fondleslab is an accumulation of than non-commercial science wonders beyond imagination 50 years ago. And it is used to watch cat videos and mush brain with short videos since the mushed brain cannot keep up more than 90 seconds any more.
"I honesty don't understand, why is the moon important again?"
There's honest science that can be done, especially radio astronomy from the back side. There's the possibility of industrial processes that can be better in the lower gravity. He3, if it can be mined efficiently, would be an excellent fusion fuel. Biological research could be performed that would be dangerous to do on Earth. Some biological experiments have been done on Shuttle that led to breakthroughs. I spent a nice half hour talking with Charles Walker about his protein electrophoresis experiment. I still have the recording. There's a very good chance that it would have been easier to do on the moon since the first go generated loads of new questions that needed another flight to resolve. At a fixed base, it would have been days rather than years.
The "Flags and Footprint" missions didn't address any long term physiological questions or science that couldn't operate unattended after the astronauts had left. There's also the issue of the questions not asked. Plenty of things will be stumbles into that were never anticipated. Hopefully good things.
Making it a race is a tool by the politicians to make sure there's public support for lots of funding they can direct towards their patrons.
Radio astronomy from the back side
As long as the astronomers don't toot their own trumpets. I hear that can be unpleasant in a space suit.
"I honesty don't understand, why is the moon important again?"
I would surmise, similar reasons to the reasons that it was important in the 1960's.
The fear that 'the enemy' might get there and gain an advantage - in the 60s it was a fear of the other side getting there first and possibly gaining a military advantage. Now, it may be more likely that it is fear of losing out on mineral rights (as well as a military advantage).
If anyone thinks that China's leaders want to put men on the Moon for purely scientific purposes, I have a contact who has a bridge available for purchase ;)
It's just one-upmanship
There are arguable, scientific, reasons for establishing a small colony.
Not least because that would be a step towards a Mars colony.
But this is all political, not scientific.
RAH
Moon could be turned into a penal colony. Both China and USA alone have plenty of prisoners to form several large cities.
Make them harvest the He3 and catapult it downwards to Earth.
Not during that administration.
And IMHO after China, after India, maybe even after Europe. The damage currently done is far too great. No other president had such a loss in trust in such a short time. And it keeps on dropping.
So....
Will it be "Orangey on the moon" this time?
Combat Pay
Whoever takes the NASA administrator's job with should get combat pay if for no other reason than having to deal with Trump, Trump's budget, and two moronic senators from Texas with the combined IQ of a pet rock who want their space shuttle delivered to Houston cheap and fast. I can't imagine that anybody actually qualified to run NASA would consider signing up for the job under the current administration.
Why did they stop?
Oh because people stopped caring.
Then again it's a perfect time to relive 1950s / 60s America. Racism, homophobia & xenophobia, combined with massive inequality, you just need a moon landing to distract the plebs.
Just a pie on the sky thought
Despite real-world tensions, in space the US and Russia have always collaborated successfully - eg resupply missions to the space station.
Why are they doing a reboot on "who gets there first"?
Surely a *joint* mission to get boots on the moon again would make more sense?
And if they could rope UK, China, India, etc, in as well it'd be the diplomatic coup of the century.
Current NASA situation
"I'd love to get my arms around where we are presently at."
Could someone translate that into English, please? I'm guessing that he means 'understanding the current financial situation at NASA and which of the multitude of projects it can actually fund." I wish him, and NASA, the best of luck, of course.
Putting more astronauts on the Moon would be very expensive, notwithstanding the use of re-usable heavy lift rockets.
As for 'in space fuel transfer', that looks 'challenging' in a micro gravity environment. Still, they manage in-flight refuelling of fighters and bombers, so how hard can it be in space?