[bradhe]

I have a really hard time telling if this is despite the current administration’s best efforts, because the current administration’s policies, or just an artifact of government inertia.

Top level: Super excited to witness this in my lifetime.

Edit: Also, my 40 years of life leads me towards the latter category.

[0xffff2]

For sure this is 90% inertia, although like Bridenstein in the first administration, who turned out to actually be a pretty good administrator in the grand scheme of things, I'm cautiously optimistic that Isaacman is working in good faith to make NASA the best it can be. (Which isn't to say that I agree with him 100% mind you.)

[ls612]

NASA has been well treated by both parties in general, with their budget rising faster than inflation most years. This administration also appointed Isaacman to be the NASA administrator which I think is a 10/10 choice for that job.

[ryandrake]

All of NASA's climate work is under attack by the current administration.

[angelgonzales]

I’d argue that NASA should not have ever got into studying climate science, it should be a responsibility of NOAA. NASA should be focusing on NEP, atmospheric satellites, better aircraft, making life interplanetary and astronomy.

[turtletontine]

It’s not that simple. Trump admin requested a massive cut to NASA’s budget, which after much delay Congress finally rejected. Isaacman’s path to NASA administrator was also, erm, circuitous. Having a competent and knowledgeable NASA head was not really Trump admin’s priority.

[weberer]

How exactly would you interpret this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Redefinition_a...

[dyauspitr]

Definitely despite.