POLITICO and the National Security Daily Global Security newsletter obtained a 62-page confidential manifesto in which a billionaire laying out a new vision for the U.S. space agency argues that NASA should operate more like a business and outsource some of its missions to private sector firms. Central to the proposal is a pivot away from government-built satellites toward purchasing geospatial and scientific information from commercial providers — language in the document frames the shift as “science-as-a-service.”

The plan arrives at a delicate moment in which commercial space capabilities have matured rapidly, offering smaller, cheaper platforms and large constellations capable of high-cadence Earth observation. Supporters of a greater role for industry argue that private firms can deliver data and services faster and at lower cost, enabling the agency to focus on core priorities such as exploration and technology development. But the document’s explicit push to reconfigure NASA’s traditional role has alarmed scientists, civil servants, and industry insiders who see risks in ceding public science infrastructure to market forces.

Critics argue that the document reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific funding and inquiry operate, noting that science has long required long-term, noncommercial investment that does not fit neatly into profit-driven business models. An industry insider who reviewed the document called putting all of these plans into writing a “rookie move,” and “presumptuous,” and said the memo would likely stoke congressional skepticism around his nomination.

Those concerns are not merely procedural. NASA’s responsibilities extend beyond producing usable data; they encompass stewardship of long-running climate records, open-access principles for researchers worldwide, and cooperative arrangements with international partners. A wholesale shift toward purchased data could fragment data continuity, concentrate access among paying customers, and complicate relationships with nations that rely on NASA’s open datasets for climate research, disaster response, and scientific collaboration.

There are also legal and oversight questions. Federal procurement rules, data-sharing obligations, and export controls intersect with any move to privatize mission roles. Congressional appropriators and oversight committees traditionally guard legislative authority over the direction and funding of scientific programs, and the manifesto’s public exposure almost guarantees intense scrutiny during confirmation hearings and on Capitol Hill.

The debate underscores a broader global tension as states and private actors race to commercialize space-based services. How Washington balances innovation, public stewardship, and international commitments will shape not only U.S. science policy but also norms for open data and cooperative research across borders. With the manifesto now in the public domain, stakeholders from the laboratory bench to the diplomatic corps will be watching how lawmakers, scientists and agency leaders respond to a proposal that seeks to recast a pillar of American scientific and technological capacity.