Charles E. Miller

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@GregWAutry Greg, I agree there are some faster paths forward to landing Americans back on the Moon that involve commercial space companies working together. Will require prioritizing America's interests, building a true "national team" and a win-win attitude that puts egos aside.

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@SciGuySpace I hope you are right Eric. This would be good news.

[Molly O’Shea @MollySOShea]

BREAKING: Eric Romo (@_Eric_Romo), President & COO of Impulse Space (@GoToImpulse) says:

"The idea that launch prices are going to fall significantly in the next 5 years is nonsense."

"I think there are an awful lot of business models that are predicated on “when Starship allows me to launch for $200 a kilogram…” I think they’re all broken, & all those companies are going to fail."

"I think we’ve seen this play out already with Falcon 9 & the pricing around it, where the costs of Falcon 9 allowed SpaceX to deliver the Starlink constellation at a cost per CapEx that made them profitable.

But they set the price in the market at something that just barely made it an okay investment to think about OneWeb or Kuiper or anything like that. So they ran that playbook exactly on Falcon 9, & they had their gross margins on Falcon 9—people think we’ll see when the S1 comes out—are like 50% plus. So they could have dropped the price, & they didn’t.

They’re going to do the same thing on Starship, because why wouldn’t they? Their internal costs on Starship are going to be whatever they need to be to deploy Starlink & orbital data centers, but they’re going to set the price so that anybody trying to do comms, anybody trying to do orbital data centers—the price is going to be too high.

So if you’re a third party relying on them for a lower price of access to space, I think you’re hosed."

00:20 Hot Take Launch Prices
01:41 SpaceX Market Power
02:23 Impulse Space Overview
02:54 Mira For GEO Defense
03:45 Helios Direct To GEO
05:19 Caravan Rideshare To GEO
06:42 Space Economy Reality Check
08:46 Tom Mueller Legends
10:54 SpaceX IPO
13:42 Investor Frenzy & Broomstick
14:05 Alien Eyeballs Outro

@elonmusk

Recorded at @NYSE x @payloadspace Space Summit

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@NASAAdmin has it right ... “5 to 10 years away you are going to see lots and lots of spacecraft going up and down, it is going to be a light switch moment for humankind really.”

https://t.co/rVwFEXLLnA

[60 Minutes @60Minutes]

Scott Pace, former executive secretary of the National Space Council during the first Trump administration, says it would be “massively embarrassing” if China were to put humans back on the moon before the United States, but America has the opportunity to lead in the long term. https://t.co/pfroxo5Uo3

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

20 years before Elon won a $1.6B NASA contract for ISS cargo delivery services, a small group of space change agents - from San Diego and Tucson L5 - proposed the Launch Service Purchase Act, and became law in 1990. Their policy innovation changed the world. Time to do it again!

[Greg Autry🚀 @GregWAutry]

Get your thinking caps on space nerds!
$125k purse. $25k reserved for undergraduate students, $25k reserved for graduate students. $75k reserved for anyone including, you!

[Eric Berger @SciGuySpace]

It should surprise no one that Redwire is a major Gateway contractor.

[Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman]

It is unfortunate that NASA’s team and the broader space community have to endured distractions like this. There are extraordinary opportunities and some risks ahead and so the focus should be on the mission. With many reporters and other interested parties reaching out, I want to help bring some clarity to the discussion... unfortunately, that means another long post:

I have met Secretary Duffy many times and even flew him in a fighter jet at EAA Oshkosh--probably one of the coolest things a cabinet secretary can do. I have also told many people I think he has great instincts and is an excellent communicator, which is so important in leadership. If there is any friction, I suspect it is more political operators causing the controversy.

This isn't an election or campaign for the NASA Administrator job, the Secretary is the leader and I will root for his success across his many responsibilities. 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.

It is true that Athena was a draft plan I worked on with a very small group from the time of my initial nomination through its withdrawal in May. Parts of it are now dated, and it was always intended to be a living document refined through data gathering post-confirmation. I would think it is better to have a plan going into a responsibility as great as the leadership of NASA than no plan at all.

It is also true that only one 62-page version of the plan (with unique header/footer markings) was delivered in hard copy back in mid-August to a single party. I learned it was leaked to reporters and across industry last week. It seems some people are letting politics get in the way of the mission and the President’s goals for space. Personally, I think the “why” behind the timing of this document circulating--and the spin being given to reporters--is the real story.

While the full plan exceeded 100 pages, it centered around five main priorities that I will summarize below, including some specifics on the topics attracting the most interest. There is the question--why not release the entire document? Well, one party is clearly circulating it, so I am sure it is only a matter of time before it becomes public--in which case, I will stand behind it. I think there are many elements of the plan that the space community and NASA would find exciting, and it would be disappointing if they never came to fruition. Mostly, 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. I will say everything in the report is consistent with my Senate testimony, my written responses to the Senate for the record, and all the podcasts and papers I have ever spoken to on the subject.

- Reorganize and Empower
Pivot from the drawn-out, multi-phase RIF “death by a thousand cuts” to a single, data-driven reorganization aimed at reducing layers of bureaucracy between leadership and the engineers, researchers, and technicians--basically all the “doers”. Align departments tightly to the mission so that information flows for quick decision-making. One example, which was mischaracterized by a reporter, was exploring relocating all aircraft to Armstrong so there could be a single hierarchy for aviation operations, maintenance, and safety. From there, aircraft like T-38s would operate on detachment at JSC. Other goals of the reorganization, would be to liberate the NASA budget from dated infrastructure that is in disrepair to free up resources to invest in what is needed for the mission of the day. And maybe most importantly, reenergize a culture of empowerment, ownership, and urgency--and recalibrate a framework that acknowledges some risks are worth taking.

– American Leadership in the High Ground of Space
Put more astronauts in space with greater frequency, including rebooting the Payload Specialist programs to give opportunities for the NASA workforce--especially on opportunities that could unlock the orbital economy--the chance to go to space. Fulfill the 35-year promise and President Trump’s Artemis plan to return American astronauts to the Moon and determine the scientific, economic, and national security reasons to support an enduring lunar presence. Eventually, transition to an affordable, repeatable lunar architecture that supports frequent missions. When that foundation is built, shift resources toward the near-impossible that no one else will work on like nuclear electric propulsion for efficient transport of mass, active cooling of cryogenic propellants, surface power, and even potential DoD applications. 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. It does explore the possibility of pivoting hardware and resources to a nuclear electric propulsion program after the objectives of the President’s budget are complete. On the same note, it also seeks to research the possibility that Orion could be launched on multiple platforms to support a variety of future mission applications. As an example of the report being dated, Sen. Cruz’s has subsequently incorporated additional funding in the OBBB for further Artemis missions--which brings clarity to the topic.

- Solving the Orbital Economy
Maximize the remaining life of the ISS. Streamline the process for high-potential science and research to reach orbit. Partner with industry (pharmaceuticals, mining, biotech, etc) to figure out how to extract more value from space than we put in--and critically attempt to solve the orbital economy. That is the only way commercial space station companies will have a fighting chance to succeed. I don’t think there is anything controversial here--we need to figure out how to pay for the exciting future we all want to see in space.

– NASA as a Force Multiplier for Science
Leverage NASA’s resources--financial (bulk buying launch and bus from numerous providers), technical, and operational expertise to increase the frequency of missions, reduce costs, and empower academic institutions to contribute to real discovery missions. The idea is to get some of that $1 trillion in university endowments into the fight, alongside NASA, to further science and discovery. Expand the CLPS-style approach across planetary science to accelerate discovery and reduce time-to-science... better to have 10 x $100 million missions and a few fail than a single overdue and costly $1B+ mission. 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. 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)? With respect to JPL, it was a research request to look at overlaps between the work of the laboratory and what prime contractors were also doing on their behalf. The report never even remotely suggested that America could ever do without the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Personally, I have publicly defended programs like the Chandra X-ray Observatory, offered to fund a Hubble reboost mission, and anything suggesting that I am anti-science or want to outsource that responsibility is simply untrue.

– Investing in the Future
The congressionally mandated “learning period” will eventually expire, and the government will inevitably play a greater role in certifying commercial missions (crewed and uncrewed) just like they do with aircraft, ships, trains, etc. NASA eventually should build a Starfleet Academy to train and prepare the commercial industry to operate safely and successfully in this future space economy, and consolidate and upgrade mission control into a single “NORAD of peaceful space,” allowing JSC to become the spaceflight center of excellence and oversee multiple government and commercial missions simultaneously. Other investments for the future included AI, replacing dated IT systems, and ways to alleviate the demand on the Deep Space Network.

- Closing
This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved. The plan valued human exploration as much as scientific discovery. It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners, and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success. The more I see the imperfections of politics and the lengths people will go, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution... because I love NASA and I love my country 🇺🇸🚀

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@rookisaacman would be great as NASA Administrator.

Just read @SciGuySpace reporting on Jared's Athena plan. Sounds like Jared supports @realDonaldTrump's space policy!

Imagine that -- a NASA administrator that is listening to what @POTUS wants, and has a plan to do it!

[Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman]

I am really liking the energy and focus on the Moon--especially any endeavor that could unlock an orbital or lunar economy. We are never going to have the future we dream of w/numerous space stations and lots of people working and traveling in space, if it all depends exclusively on taxpayer funding. I know the near-term won’t be easy, especially with the shutdown impacting so many across NASA and the government, but we are living in an incredible time... multiple launch providers driving reusability to lower cost to orbit, important dev programs like on-orbit refueling to extend reach, and private capital betting on everything from pharmaceutical formulations to asteroid mining and orbital computing. Once we crack the economic code, we will have the answer (and funding) as to why we need lots of people living and working in space.

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@rookisaacman https://t.co/v9zmVnwWeL

[Newt Gingrich @newtgingrich]

In this episode of Newt’s World, I talk with @wapodavenport award-winning @WashPost reporter and author of Rocket Dreams: Musk, Bezos, and the Inside Story of the New, Trillion-Dollar Space Race.

We explore how private innovators like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are transforming space exploration — and how their competition is reshaping humanity’s future beyond Earth.

[Christian Davenport @SpaceDavenport]

Great to chat with someone so
passionate about space.

[Space Frontier @SpaceFrontier]

Anyone else catch this?

An official NASA podcast w/the quiet part out loud:

"If Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III are all $4 billion a launch, $4 billion a launch. At $4 billion a launch, you don’t have a Moon program."

Who could say such a thing?
https://t.co/jxoYu6h4c5

[Jared Isaacman @rookisaacman]

I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.

It may not always be obvious through the discourse and turbulence, but there are many competent, dedicated people who love this country and care deeply about the mission. That was on full display during my hearing, where leaders on both sides of the aisle made clear they’re willing to fight for the world’s most accomplished space agency.

The President, NASA and the American people deserve the very best--an Administrator ready to reorganize, rebuild and rally the best and brightest minds to deliver the world-changing headlines NASA was built to create.

I have not flown my last mission---whatever form that may ultimately take--but I remain incredibly optimistic that humanity’s greatest spacefaring days lie ahead. I’ll always be grateful for this opportunity and cheering on our President and NASA as they lead us on the greatest adventure in human history🇺🇸

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@POTUS restarts National Space Council.

This is the next step in American dominance in space.

https://t.co/UmNN8rkBhK

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

Check out coverage by @SciGuySpace on the op-ed by @newtgingrich, Bob Walker and I on the nearly 50% cuts in NASA space science.

More coming!

@elonmusk can't comment, but others can.

https://t.co/qEDu4UjKEF

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

@newtgingrich, Bob Walker and I wrote an op-ed on the mindless cuts being contemplated for @NASA's space science portfolio.

https://t.co/bk0Qi9WEtX

[Booster 10 @booster_10]

I don't think people realize how insane it is that Stoke Space manged to make a Full-flow staged combustion cycle engine in less than 18 months with a team of less than 10 people, crazy speed and efficiency.

[Charles E. Miller @NexGenSpace]

Bipartisan group in Congress opposes mindless cuts in @nasa space science. Would cede leadership in space science to China. @elonmusk @newtgingrich @janetpetro

https://t.co/3rcisJ9Wxi

[Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump]

I am delighted to nominate Jared Isaacman, an accomplished business leader, philanthropist, pilot, and astronaut, as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Jared will drive NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration, paving the way for groundbreaking achievements in Space science, technology, and exploration.

Over the past 25 years, as the Founder and CEO of Shift4, Jared has demonstrated exceptional leadership, building a trailblazing global financial technology company. He also co-founded and served as CEO of Draken International, a defense aerospace company, for over a decade, supporting the U.S. Department of Defense, and our Allies.

Jared’s passion for Space, astronaut experience, and dedication to pushing the boundaries of exploration, unlocking the mysteries of the universe, and advancing the new Space economy, make him ideally suited to lead NASA into a bold new Era.

Congratulations to Jared, his wife Monica, and their children, Mila and Liv!