Alejandro Turnbull

Interesting you have that perception. I actually have been a loud voice saying NASA pivoted too far with commercialization into areas where there was no obvious business case or market, unfairly shifting the impossible burden onto others, and have been working to fix that, bringing some balance to the Force and restoring core competencies, rebuilding the workforce, and turning NASA Centers into builders again. We will finish 2026 with 20,000 civil servants, up from 14,000 at the beginning of the year. And I am not aware of any science programs that I cut. Certainly, the prior administration canceled MSR, and rightfully so over cost growth (though I would love to re-attack and find a better, more affordable way to get those samples), and NASA science leadership has to be able to pivot away from older programs to invest in new missions. I know I helped add several missions, including MoonFall, SkyFall, and PROMISE, while championing a 'Nuclear NASA' to send missions to Enceladus and Uranus. For those who have doubts, talk to the people doing the work at the NASA Centers and decide for yourself.

Launch and landing costs are a reality for any mission, so setting those aside, if PROMISE costs even 20% of your low-end estimate, we simply will not fly it. That said, it would be crazy not to take advantage of hardware taxpayers have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in, along with Pu-238 that continues to decay and lose roughly 2% of its potential each year. More than a decade has gone by. How much of this Pu-238 do you want to waste waiting for a mission that does not even exist? I understand the community sometimes likes to take a long time to reach consensus, but under this Administration, we can just do things and put wins on the board for the Moon Base and all the science and discovery it will enable. In my humble opinion, less debate and more frequent wins make it easier to advocate for more resources to do more science.