Isaacman issues directive to shift power back to NASA and away from private sector

[Elderberry]

Behind the Black 2/7/2026

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman yesterday issued a major three-part directive which he claimed would save more than a billion dollars at NASA while allowing the agency to “regain its core competencies in technical, engineering, and operational excellence”.

The plan could actually backfire, however, as it appears to shift power and control back to NASA and away from private sector.

First, Isaacman wants to eliminate much of the outside contracting NASA now relies on, bringing that work back into the agency itself. Second, he wants eliminate “restrictive clauses that prevent us from doing our own work and addressing intellectual property barriers that have tied our hands.” Third, he wants to “restore in-house engineering,” having more work done by NASA engineers instead of depending on outside contractors.

To some extent, there is value in all these changes, because in many cases NASA employees use the policy of using contractors to outsource their entire work load, so they can sit and do practically nothing.

More: https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/isaacman-issues-directive-to-shift-power-back-to-nasa-and-away-from-private-sector/

[Timber Rattler]

The dilemma is that the "private sector" amounts only to Boeing and SpaceX, because of the very same procurement consolidation that has hamstrung the military, going back to the "Last Supper" of 1993.  Also, Congress' neglect of the U.S. space program has led to the very unfortunate reliance on Russia to continue what's left of our manned-space program.

[rustynail]

Won't NASA try to stifle SpaceX?

[BobfromWB]

NASA's problems:

Tasked to do very expensive missions on a shoe string budget set by anti-space, anti-science administrations including the current one;

Appointing political hacks to run the agency [ Isaacman excepted ];

Giving NASA non-space related missions that are political causes.

[Timber Rattler]

NASA's problems:

Tasked to do very expensive missions on a shoe string budget set by anti-space, anti-science administrations including the current one;

Appointing political hacks to run the agency [ Isaacman excepted ];

Giving NASA non-space related missions that are political causes.

 

I would add that NASA became risk adverse after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.  It did not learn the lessons of Apollo 1 about how to move forward in the aftermaths.

[BobfromWB]

Won't NASA try to stifle SpaceX?

No. But a future Democrat-led Congress will slash NASA's budget even further, while cancelling Artemis in favor of more political goals. Members will receive even larger bonuses from the CCP for their reelection campaigns, a la Bill Clinton.

Cape launches will be limited to one every other month, due to EPA and FAA concerns over SpaceX launch failures. The Boca Chica facility will be shuttered over the same concerns. Still more CCP reelection bonuses will be handed out to deserving Congress critters.

[BobfromWB]

I would add that NASA became risk adverse after the Challenger and Columbia disasters.  It did not learn the lessons of Apollo 1 about how to move forward in the aftermaths.

And I would argue that NASA became risk adverse in 1964 with the cancellation of Project Orion - "Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970" - would have cost the same or less than the Apollo program.