Leaked NASA Manifesto Hints at Isaacman’s Vision for Science

Commercial astronaut and billionaire Jared Isaacman is again in the running to lead NASA following his renomination by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

Trump selected Isaacman to lead NASA back in December, but pulled his nomination in June “after a thorough review of prior associations,” which may have referred to Isaacman’s donations to Democrat politicians, or his close ties to Elon Musk and SpaceX. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has served as NASA’s acting administrator since July.

Shortly before the announcement of Isaacman’s renomination, Ars Technica and Politico reported that they had obtained a 62-page document outlining Isaacman’s vision for NASA, which he prepared while his first nomination was pending in the Senate.

The full text of Isaacman’s NASA manifesto, known as Project Athena, has not been shared publicly, but snippets shared by media outlets and Isaacman hint at his vision for NASA science and the future of the agency.

In a statement on X, Isaacman verified the plan was his but declined to share it publicly, saying, “I just don’t think the space community needs to debate line-by-line while NASA and the rest of the government are going through a shutdown.”

Isaacman’s plan for NASA is organized around five main ideas: reorganizing the agency to reduce bureaucracy, putting more American astronauts in space, figuring out how to “extract more value from space than we put in,” using NASA as a “force multiplier for science,” and investing in technology and resources for the future.

Isaacman wrote on X that his plans for science include leveraging NASA’s resources to “increase the frequency of missions, reduce costs, and empower academic institutions to contribute to real discovery missions.” He added, “The idea is to get some of that $1 trillion in university endowments into the fight, alongside NASA, to further science and discovery.”

NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, through which NASA hires companies to send small robotic landers and rovers to the Moon, could be used as a model for all of planetary science to “accelerate discovery and reduce time-to-science,” Isaacman wrote, adding that it would be “better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission.” He echoed this sentiment in the All-In Podcast earlier this year, saying, “Why do we accept things taking 10 years when they could be a year? Even the decadal process of prioritizing scientific missions over a 10-year span is kind of insane.”

Isaacman’s plan also embraces purchasing Earth science data from commercial providers. “I know the ‘science-as-a-service’ concept got people fired up, but that was specifically called out in the plan for Earth observation, from companies that already have constellations like Planet, BlackSky, etc,” Isaacman said on X. “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)?”

Isaacman’s plan also recommends that NASA terminate its Space Launch System and the Gateway lunar space station after the planned Artemis II and Artemis III missions, eventually incorporating elements of the programs into a nuclear propulsion program. During the All-In Podcast, Isaacman also criticized the robotic Mars Sample Return mission, suggesting that NASA should redirect those resources toward private companies that can support a crewed Mars mission.

On the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Isaacman’s post said he would like to look at overlaps between the work of the lab and its contractors, and denied ever suggesting that the U.S. could do without JPL, adding, “I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.”

Rumors that the so-called Project Athena document was leaked to the press to hinder Isaacman’s nomination and keep Duffy in control of NASA were framed as an unfortunate “distraction” by Isaacman in his X post. He also added context on his relationship with Duffy in the post, stating that “if there is any friction, I suspect it is more political operators causing the controversy.”

How long it will take for Isaacman to secure Senate confirmation to lead NASA is unclear. The White House has yet to formally submit his nomination to the Senate, where he may face another nomination hearing and fresh questions about his NASA plans.