NASA has been awaiting a new Administrator for several months, but the Obama Administration has not made any announcement as yet. Names of several likely candidates have circulated in the media but one-by-one they faded from the scene.

The latest casualty is Steve Isakowitz, currently serving as the CFO at the Department of Energy. Of the many potential candidates being discussed, Steve is the best qualified to understand NASA programs and missions. He served at NASA Headquarters as Deputy Chief Financial Officer and Comptroller where he was responsible for directing the $16-billion annual budget.

Steve then became Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Programs. He understands how the government works and how industry works. Furthermore, he is a space enthusiast and not tied to political interests. So, why is Steve Isakowitz no longer considered a contender?

Recent reports in the media imply that Steve's nomination was squashed by politicians who were concerned about his record on programs that were under-funded and ended up costing much more than originally estimated.

Apparently, his financial experience has taught him to scrutinize unrealistic cost estimates, something that many agencies have failed to do in recent years. To some, this skepticism make Steve look like a fiscal conservative and our current "spend-crazed" Congress cannot have that.

Imagine a world in which space programs actually came in on cost! Next, we will expect these programs to be completed on time and actually work as planned.

It seems that certain members of Congress are not as concerned with success and national prestige as they are with personal agendas. Isakowitz is a logical, caring space proponent who understands NASA and its goals, but his lack of concern for political agendas may have worked against his nomination.

Clearly, politics plays a large role in the civil space program. This is particularly true in the area of human space flight. NASA certainly has the expertise and experience to build satellites and rockets that work as they should and are built within expected cost constraints.

However, success is simply not enough for Congress. Politicians have cleverly imposed a complex set of superfluous constraints on human space flight programs. Take the International Space Station (ISS), for example. Here is a monster of a program that has been in the works for almost 20 years.

It is not yet complete. Soon the U.S. will have no way to get astronauts to and from the station after the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010. The U.S. is even talking about phasing out of the program before it is finished and the U.S. taxpayers have paid tens of billions of dollars for the ISS.

There is simply no technological or economical way to justify this expense, but there was a political rationale behind our participation in the ISS. Here is the open secret: NASA is no longer the leading-edge space agency it was in the Apollo and Shuttle eras.

Then, the goals were scientific exploration and technological advancement for the good of humanity. NASA was a strategic element in our national security, national pride, international standing and technological and economic well-being. Today, NASA is in danger of becoming largely a political conduit through which Congress passes money for politically expedient jobs programs.

We are about to retire the most magnificent flying machine ever built in exchange for an Apollo-like throwback that is underpowered and expendable.

There is no logical reason for this decision. Furthermore, for the first time since America won the "space race" we will be without human access to space. It will take years to develop a viable replacement and in this time of fast-evolving technology and economic uncertainty, catching up may not be possible.

At this critical point in our nation's aeronautical and astronautical history, NASA needs a strong, clear-headed, thoughtful leader. And it needs that leader now, not just for the agency but for our nation.