Jared Isaacman: NASA's Moon Base by 2028, Optimus Robots on the Moon, The Truth About UFOs | Ep #274

- In 2028, an aggressive timeline for landing on the moon, steps getting there, when do humanoid robots enter that equation? I can give us a few details. - The most expensive part of doing that is not the nuclear fuel, it's not the modifications needed for lunar surface. It's. (upbeat music) We all enjoyed the headlines of Artemis II, but reminded us of what's possible and got us all exciting. We don't want to wait several years in between the next episode, right? - I'd be curious to hear your timelines for deploying humanoid robots with your NASA hat on. - Any area that you're gonna have human involvement, eventually it would be crazy not to make a force multiplier and put humanoid robots there to do some of the work. - This is, I think, the question on the minds of many people I've spoken with are we alone? - In my mind, I would think. - Now that's the moon shot, ladies and gentlemen. We just flew humans around the moon for the first time since 1972. We've announced plans to land American astronauts on the lunar South Pole in 2028. Two competing moon landers are being built right now and there's plans to run NASA, a $25 billion agency. More like a startup than a bureaucracy. And the man driving it all flew to space twice as a private mission commander before even taking the job. I've known most of the NASA administrators in the last 40 years in my humble opinion. Our guest today is the greatest of them all. I want, welcome everybody to moon shots. Your number one podcast and all things AI and exponential tech, your front row seat, the singularity. Today my moon shot mates and I are gonna be diving deep and humanity's future in space with our extraordinary guest Jared Isaacman, the 15th administrator of NASA. Let me take a moment to properly introduce Jared. He didn't come up through the regular route of being a member of the astronaut core or government agency. He's a builder. He founded his first company, Shift 4 Payments at the age of 16 in his parents garage and then built it into a payments company processing hundreds of billions of dollars annually. He's a jet pilot who's flown in air shows and set around the world speed records and then he did something epic, purchasing two private Falcon 9 Dragon missions. He commanded Inspiration 4 in 2021. The first all civilian orbital mission and then in 2024, he commanded Polaris Dawn where he performed the first ever commercial space walk stepping out of a dragon capsule into the vacuum of space. During a star at NASA, he laid out five key objectives, get America back to the moon, build a permanent moon base, begin using nuclear power in space, ignite a real orbital economy and reinvigorate the science that lets us look for life among the stars. Jared, welcome to the moonshots and moonshot mates. You know, we've known each other for 17 years and I could not be more proud to have you on the show. - Well, Peter, thanks for having me on the show. It's absolute pleasure to reconnect. I mean, it challenged you a little bit on that. I appreciate the generous introduction. It's super early right now. - I know it is, but I think I plenty of time to screw things up but I'll tell you right now, we are all everybody at NASA from leadership down to the engineers and technicians. We are having a great time right now. We're moving very quickly. There isn't a person who shows up to work every day at NASA that's not excited about changing the world and air in space and everybody is just really enthusiastic about getting after it. - Yeah, agreed. You know, you said something very nice that 17 years ago in Bikon or I got you started on this mission, is that actually true? - That is. Now, I mean, look, since kindergarten, right, I want it to be a astronaut like a lot of kids. It just look up at the night sky and you know, imagine the possibilities. I just never thought it was even close to possible or achievable. It's why I became a pilot and I started undertaking some mini adventures like flying around the world on those speed records and somehow along the way, you found me and invited me to Bikon or and it was during that trip, I was like, well, maybe it is a possibility. So you absolutely helped steer me down this path and just so you know, I mean, it's only been a matter of days since I came back from my second visit to Bikon or I have to tell you, it was very different than the first trip. I didn't have any Russian delegations coming out to meet with me when you and I were on that journey. - Yeah, that was the mission. I think Richard Garrett was flying into space. I'd actually brought Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey to that mission too. We watched the mission from a bunker about a half a kilometer from the launch pad and then went outside to watch it. It was like an epic. It was like the thunder of God before you. - Yeah. - I always describe it as we were like a solid par three away from the launch pad when we were there. They have moved us back a little bit. I can say as of this current launch, but still, I mean, I walked a Nile Menon right up to the ladder of Soyuz and then was involved in a bilateral discussion with our counterparts in Russia, a hundred yards away. I mean, building right next to that fully fueled vehicle. So it's a little different. - Crazy. - Wait, was that the first one, the one where you said, if anything goes wrong with this launch? - Yeah. - What happens? - So, so, Sergey was there. We had two or three Soviet error Russians there, incredible outfits in the bunker and we walked outside, Sergey asked the question, "So what happens if something goes wrong in Russian?" And the response which he translated was like, "Enjoy will be the last thing you ever experienced." (laughing) - Well, that's, I mean, there was plenty of risk before we ever got there. Like we all had to go on a Soviet T154 airliner. I mean, this is the same plane that I think took out a lot of the, you know, Polish political leadership a few decades ago. So everyone, you know, the entire Google leadership team, not to mention whoever else you invited on board, had some serious concentration risk on that old Soviet plane just even getting to bike, or? (laughing) - It was, it was like Eric was saying, like, "Do not let the media know that we're here." (laughing) - Well, I tell you, it's so cool to have somebody that fearless running a government agency. That's gotta be rare. But you've got, you've got the DNA for it. That's really cool. - Jared, let me kick it off. You know, on this podcast, we talk a lot about AI exponentials, robotics, and have to imagine that living at this moment in the singularity, it's got a chance to really accelerate NASA's timeline across Moon Mars and everything else. And the first question is, you know, we talk a lot about the large language models, the small embedded language models that are going into robots and everything. Can you imagine a time when NASA basically allows full autonomy on all of its robots and probes and these robots and probes, whether they're in Titan or Mars or moving out, to Europa, are on their own investigating what's interesting and deciding what experiments to run independent of scientists back on Earth? - 100%. So, I mean, we still no matter what want to get the data back, it's just if you have a limited window of opportunity to do so, do you let the on orbit, or I'm sorry, the on mission AI make the determination of what is the most interesting data in the least amount of time I have available possible and send it home before perhaps destruction. And there's already a mission designed for that, which is DaVinci, which is going to Venus, and in that pressure environment, that mission will not live long. So we're designing it from the get-go to have, you know, on mission AI, and it will determine what actions it needs to take based on the data, it's able to collect as quickly as it possibly can, use it to inform its mission direction, and then send home what's most useful back to the scientific community. So that's probably the first and best example, but just the beginning for where we should be going with this technology. - The timelines with everything AI are compressing and compressing and compressing. So now we're talking a lot on the pod about speedrunning Star Trek, and getting to that destination in some bounded timeframe, but two questions for you. One AI back here on the ground. How is it accelerating the rate at which you design new ships, new missions, and then also humanoids out in space, doing a lot of what an astronaut like you would have done historically. Now you can take a lot more risk if you're launching a humanoid robot than an astronaut. - Yeah, so good question. Maybe just if I can reframe just a little bit to say like what are we doing with AI right now and how is that informing NASA's mission? And I'll tell you one, we are structurally very disadvantaged relative to any of the hyperscalers where government agency, I mean, if you think about even NASA's budget, which said the beginning of $25 billion a year, I mean, the hyperscalers are investing many times NASA's budget into just a hardware procurement right now. So how do you even be smart knowing you're at somewhat of a disadvantage at NASA to get the most out of the capability to further our mission and sure America's competitiveness in the high ground of space. And I'll tell you, President Trump with OSTP director Cratsios have come up with a really good idea, the Genesis program. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but. - You are. - Okay, so you're all tracking everybody and government is kind of kicking into this. - But the audience may not be, so if you want to hit that, yeah. - Yeah, sure, so I mean, again, it's recognizing even whole of government is disadvantaged and the worst thing possible is for every government agency to throw what the little dollars it can at the problem and hope for good outcomes. Instead, it's kind of collecting consolidating resources into the department of energy, which by the way, for a very long time, it's obviously, you know, it's had some pretty substantial computing power available to it. Obviously that, even that gets quickly outdated, but they've always had the budget for investments in, you know, in compute. and can do. and solidating your AI strategy, leveraging some data that's very unique to government agencies just based on the work that's being done, and having a whole government approach to leveraging the potential of AI. And NASA's job, we submitted two overarching themes to leverage the Genesis program. Number one is, what have we missed and what are we likely to miss? That's just my way of describing it. We have collected so much data over the decades from various NASA missions. What have we overlooked in it? I mean, there wasn't just that long ago headlines were made from a teenager in Texas who leveraged AI and went through some archival NASA data and found new galaxies. I mean, that's not something we should generally want to overlook. And we've since extended an internship offer to him, and I think he may start next year. But that problem is going to, and maybe you call it a problem or an opportunity is only going to get worse. When you think about the constellations of satellites that are going up even for Earth observation and space weather, let alone new missions like Nancy Grace-Roman telescope, which will launch August 30th on a Falcon Heavy. I mean, you know, 100 times the field of view of Hubble, a thousand times the scan rate, you're going to be gathering so much data. And then there's so many new missions again that will be going up. So how do we just leverage AI to go through this immense amount of data that we have for scientific breakthroughs we might have overlooked or could likely overlook? And that kind of goes to the heart of NASA's mission of unlocking the secrets universe. The second category is extending our reach. And that kind of goes to your advanced spacecraft design. I'm kind of concentrating that into propulsion. But you know, so whether you have on orbit or on mission robotics, whether that's actually necessary or not, what I care about is overcoming the tyranny of distance in space right now, which you have appreciating that we barely, barely even scratch the surface in our solar system, let alone the next closest star system. And industry is doing a fantastic job of maturing chemical propulsion. So from rapid reusability, you see the evolving performance that they get out of even Merlin, let alone Raptor, which is very early and it's kind of design cycle. How do we leverage AI and go well beyond that and try and unlock a little bit more of the energy potential from matter, which is almost immeasurable in chemical propulsion to, I don't know, one tenth of 1% with vision or a half a percent with fusion until we ultimately get to the desired destination of any matter annihilation, which maybe actually gives us the real potential to start thinking beyond what's in the reach of our solar system. So are there two overarching themes? Alex, over to you, pal. Amazing. Well, Jared, I would say NASA has a storied history of human spaceflight on the one hand and on the other hand, sending lots of non-humanoid robots throughout the solar system. I'd be curious to hear your timelines, what you perceive as the future in the context of Artemis in the near term or other planets in the solar system for deploying human oid robots with your NASA hat on throughout the solar system and what role and what timeline you perceive humanoid robots to the extent friend of the pod Elon has characterized the optimus as the ultimate von Neumann probe for the solar system. What role you see humanoids in constructing Artemis and other facilities elsewhere? Well, I think any place that we believe there is a realistic probability of building an eventual human outpost. So the moon for sure, I mean, we've been blessed with having this proving ground three to four days away from Earth. We are absolutely going to build the base there and make the most of it. So any area that you're going to have human involvement eventually, it would be crazy not to make a force multiplier and put humanoid robots there to do some of the work. I mean, honestly, when you think about having human beings on the moon base and saying, well, what's their job going to be? It's like, I mean, the least possible. I mean, really, it's still incredibly dangerous. The moment they walk outside, it's incredibly dangerous to be there in the first place. So leveraging robotics there for all things from infrastructure, build out logistics is imperative. I mean, you want there to be no alternative but to put an astronaut outside the habitat for an EVA. And the same would be applicable for Mars, which is the next logical destination, the next stepping stone on this grand journey that we're undertaking. But there's plenty of places, obviously, where why would we even need to require a humanoid robot there? You think about exciting missions to seek out signs of life or ancient life that could have existed in our solar system. So take your OPA Clipper or I'm very optimistic that we might be able to commission a mission to enceladus at some point in time or drag and fly, for example, going to Saturn's moon of Titan. We just need to build the best probe or discovery instrument for that mission to get us the data that we're excited for. And it doesn't necessarily have to obviously take on any sort of humanoid form. You like that, Slame, my bet. Dave, back to you, pal. Yeah, I love that split focus of, hey, we have reams of proprietary data. Let's say I at, and then Trans solar. Nobody in the commercial world, you know, I totally get the big budgets, but nobody in the commercial world is going to work on fusion or antimatter annihilation to get to other solar systems. That's just incredibly cool. But at the same time, orbital data centers have stolen the spotlight recently. What's NASA's position on orbital data centers? And, you know, it's going to create a huge amount of launch capacity. So maybe assembling things for Trans solar in space is part of the, part of the stepping stone there. But what is the position on orbital data centers? Well, first is to hit, I mean, even unlocking fission forms of propulsion, I would still argue would be a major distraction for a lot of commercial industry right now when, I mean, there is so much potential else there. Not to mention all the terrestrial applications for fission power when we are trying to win an AI race, which I think is, by the way, just to point out extremely healthy for NASA. I think the worst thing for NASA is the world's most accomplished space agency is trying to do, you know, what the rest of industry is doing. Like, I don't think that is a good thing for recruiting the best talent or retaining it or workforce development. Right now, I see NASA like, I mean, this is our opportunity to have the Heimann Rikover nuclear Navy transition and start working again on the near impossible. What others are not focused on that have no obvious, you know, business use cases where, you know, NASA will not be one customer of many and truly have those kind of pioneering breakthroughs for the benefit again for all humankind enabling capabilities for surface power on the moon, for Mars surface power at some point and to be able to undertake again realistic exploration missions, the outer solar system. So I even fission power, by the way, it was a huge step in the right direction for NASA outside of where industry should rightfully be trying to raise capital and put their attention to it. In terms of orbital data centers, right? So if, you know, if Elon and SpaceX are betting on this right now, there is no reason to believe this will not come into existence. Never ever ever bet against Elon. 100% right? And never bet against an extremely well capitalized Elon. So people ask, you know, and my position as NASA administrator, what do I think of, for example, of SpaceX as an IPO? Like, first of all, I'm thrilled with any of our partners that are essential to undertaking, achieving our mission. Like, again, number one, national space policy objective. Return American astronauts to the lunar surface, build the moon base out. We can't do it without them. So the fact that they're extremely well capitalized right now is a fantastic thing, not to mention the engineering talent that's in there. And, you know, I think without question, you know, the greatest entrepreneur and engineer in recent history at the helm. So I think that's all very good. No doubt it will come into existence. What I kind of care about beyond the potential of, you know, space-based data centers and harnessing our free fusion reactor that's, you know, that's out there is the prospect of an expanded space economy. Because I will tell you, I'm a little bit more measured in this, maybe just having started my company in 1999 when you started to see the, you know, the final days before the dot, you know, the dot com bubble there is like, you know, we at times, you know, get enamored by the potential of things as it was with the internet then and how it may be today in some respects with commercial space, you know, launch observation and communications. Those are the only things we know for sure. And people say that all the time like, you know, it's your obligation for NASA to go to the moon and establish a lunar economy. I'm like, what does that mean? Like, I can't guarantee that we can get more value out of the lunar regulates and all the costs that goes into getting there and extracting what you need and then bringing it back to Earth or manufacturing there. There's no, there's kind of no guarantee on all that. Like, our job is to go out, try and change the world and air in space. And if along the way, you know, you can have pioneering breakthroughs in commercial space, fantastic, because I don't believe we will all live in that exciting future. We imagined about, imagined as kids if it's entirely funded by taxpayers. So to see perhaps another leg beyond launch observation and communications and say orbital data centers of thing, the math closes, you know, the economic potential there is real and it will help fund a lot of the things we are all excited about in space. Like, maybe lots of commercial space stations or the infrastructure we want to see on the moon. Fantastic. We should all be really excited about it. Amazing. Selim, how about you, pal? I have a quick anecdote where I used to be the head of innovation at Yahoo running their incubator in San Francisco and we had NASA speakers come and speak because I wanted these developers to understand what real innovation looked like. And we once had this kind of 70 plus year old fellow who had worked on the Apollo program. And you have to imagine 300 type genes, white sneaker, gel, hair, MacBook, developers all sitting in this room. And during the Q&A asked what's the biggest difference in the space industry between when you were launching on the Apollo program and today. And he said "Huh." And he goes, "Maybe it's computers." Because back then all information was transmitted via carbon copy paper, the pink sheet went here, the green sheet went. And you could see these 300 developers look up at it, and I could see their brains exploding one by one, as they looked at the implications of this totally incredible. You've kind of locked it, looked at this unbelievable transformation of NASA where you have launch capacity, you have a capital, you have technical expertise all locked up. And those are now becoming abundant. As those become abundant, how do you steer NASA? What does it enable? What does it provide for the private sector to take it to the next level? Yeah, I again kind of use this in opportunity, maybe hit on another point too because I would have loved that for that NASA scientist or engineer from the Apollo era, beyond just computer, I think there's something else that's very different, which is focus. And that's going to be even more important. As launch costs continue to come down materially and what we see from commercial industry and private capital is willing to fund is available, is how well do we wield it and use it? And who's a great example of this of focus? It's Elon and SpaceX, right? This is a person, it's not just obviously SpaceX, he did a Tesla too. This is somebody who has no problem executing the Cortez model of burning the ships. I mean, you know, could have the greatest rocket with an unbelievable economic model to support it and endless demand and says no obsolete time to focus on the next thing. Shut down Falcon 1 and he's going to shut down Falcon 9. Yeah, I mean, it's great video, doesn't it? You know, and you think about that during the Apollo era. And I mentioned this from time to time to members of Congress to help them too, is that if you go back to, I think it's the 1965 NASA Authorization Act, it's five pages. And it's got some, you know, standard template language, but more or less it says, beat the Russians to the moon. X dollars that go to Apollo, X dollars that go to Germany, right? And outside of that, like all this flexibility, but, but essentially to focus on one or two incredibly important things to the nation, you see again, SpaceX is very good at doing that. Tesla is, okay, this generation of vehicle, it's time has come. I'm now focusing on doing one or two things extremely well. That has changed considerably at NASA from the space race, where for a very long time, and I do believe this is kind of, you know, absent global, you know, global competition have been asked to do everything for everyone and try and make as many people as happy as you possibly can. And as a result, you generally make no one happy. >> And it is many congressional districts as possible. >> Yeah, I mean, you know, even, even now, I think about it, I was, you know, it's, forgive the kind of DOW example, but, you know, we were talking about procurement of next generation aircraft and such. I was like, isn't it so fascinating that right now at a time where, I mean, the F-47 has been available, so you're a six generation fighter, that we will still advocate for production of fourth generation, fifth generation, and sixth generation. And as a result, probably what you want to buy from sixth generation is several times more expensive than it needs to be. And you'll get a lot less of them because you're giving up your resources in so many different directions. You would never see that happen with some of the entrepreneurs we're talking about in their companies. They'd be like, why would I be doing that? It's 50 years old. It's literally a half century ago. I'm going to focus everything I can at doing what I'm supposed to be doing today really well. And NASA is something, that is something President Trump has been able to give us with our national space policy. And now, I actually global competition being in a second space race is enabled us to do is say, we can't do everything for everyone anymore. We're going to go back and dust off the playbook from the 60s and start focusing on doing a couple things that are extremely hard, very well. And to your question, having things like lower launch costs available and private capital willing to make investments alongside government, so it's not 4.5 percent of the discretionary budget anymore. Hopefully helps us get back to some of those headlines that were made in the 1960s, but on a different level today. Well, you know, when you have all of the capability, you know, with the biggest constraint for NASA has always been the rate limiting step, right? When you see fleets of human robots out there doing things and when you envision the moon becoming almost a platform that a broader ecosystem can build off of. Well, look, I think in terms of rate, the biggest driver there is going to be just, I mean, it's going to be the breakthroughs in rapid reusability until, I mean, Starship is obviously the first example of a vehicle where we don't throw away the, you know, the, the upper stage, mostly multiple factories to mass produce that hardware, multiple launch pads. And of course, you know, you know, Blue Origin is a new Glenn's vehicle, you know, is going to have obviously already proven reusability with the first stage. I think Stoke is trying to do reusable first and second stage. I'm sure Rocket Lab with Neutron is going to get there. All of that is critical to bringing down the cost to accelerate mass to orbit. And in which case, it doesn't matter if you're using it for commercial space stations, for commercial purposes, scientific missions, or transporting lots of mass efficiently to the, to the surface of the moon. Now, that's key to everything in NASA. Like, we're going to be able to get far more of our dollars doing the near impossible tasks than simply paying for the cost to get there. You know, great example. I said, you know, we're thinking about repurposing something the taxpayer has already paid for, which is the engineering development unit of the Perseverance and Curiosity Rover. It's just sitting there at JPL. I mean, that's, that's probably like, I don't know, half a billion all in that she's sitting there. No question. I'm like, well, you know, we were all talking, why don't we just put it on the moon? It'll be a great rover and it can survive in the, you know, the permanently shaded regions. The most expensive part of doing that is not the nuclear fuel. It's not the modifications needed for lunar surface. It's, it's getting it there. And that's getting it there in, you know, the most mature and competitive launch environment that we've had in the history of the space program. So the next breakthroughs that come thereafter with full rapid reusability is going to be enabling for everything we want to do, not least of which is on the, is on the lunar surface. Now again, once you have, you know, if you're talking about armies of humanoid robots on the lunar surface as well that are actually going to start building out the infrastructure, you'll start to go from what NASA's vision of a phase one moon base, which is a lot of broke down stuff everywhere as we, we learn the science of survival, which I, I, I referred almost to junkyard in early days to that more utopian dome of the city, you know, that probably some of us envision that that's, that's going to, that's what's going to bridge the gap between those two worlds. This episode is brought to you by Blitzie, autonomous software development with infinite code context. Blitzie uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand and to price scale code bases with millions of lines of code. Engineers start every development sprint with the Blitzie platform, bringing in their development requirements. The Blitzie platform provides a plan, then generates and pre-compiles code for each task. Blitzie delivers 80% or more of the development work autonomously, while providing a guide for the final 20% of human development work required to complete the sprint. Enterprises are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase when incorporating Blitzie as their pre-IDE development tool, pairing it with their coding co-pilot of choice to bring an AI-nated SDLC into their org. Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit Blitzie.com to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzie today. Let's talk about the moon a second, Jared. 2028, an aggressive timeline for landing on the moon. Thank you for that. It's super great to have aggressive timelines once again. Once we land on the moon, give me a step by step if you would for getting a lunar base there, because getting a permanent lunar base where humanity for the first time is ever existing off the planet of Earth, beyond Earth's orbit is huge. Steps getting there, when do humanoid robots enter that equation? Sure. I think it's imperative that we do a lot of littles at first, which I think is fully akin to the space race in the 1960s. We had Mercury before Germany, Germany before a lot of Apollo missions before we landed on the moon. In this world that we've been in absent competition for some time where I told you that focus is a problem and we are distributing money everywhere to make everybody happy, we are forgetting all of those interim steps to getting to the exciting outcome. We just designed a dream state. A dream state is a service sometimes. It's usually very late and much more expensive than we want. None of us want that. We all enjoyed the headlines of Artemis too. Even though we had done very similar things a half century earlier, it reminded us of what's possible and got us all excited. We don't want to wait several years in between the next episode. I think getting back to doing a lot of littles up front and learning what doesn't work to inform the next phase, it worked very well for NASA in the 1960s, we're bringing it back. So what I described, phase one. And this is before the astronauts ever get there in 28. We're going to be dropping landers and rovers on a near monthly basis. We're going to take advantage of the commercial market that exists today. The clips program that started years past. We're going to start printing these things off. We'll learn from every one of them in that incredibly harsh environment on the lunar South Pole. Because if we're going there and we're going to build a base, we better at least do it near the water ice or what are we doing there. And we're going to learn how to survive in that environment. And we're going to do it before we lock in the dream state. So I'm like, I don't want to hear which, how we're locking in lunar comms, surface or orbital yet. Or what our power source is going to be. Or what the interface is going to be between the rover and some future state nuclear reactor. Let's start landing stuff now and learning in this environment. And we'll use it to roll into a subsequent design. And phase one's going to leave a lot of debris everywhere like that. A lot of dead rovers and landers. But we're going to learn from it. And then we'll roll into phase two. And I think once, once starships are launching with frequency and they've, you know, worked out orbital prop transfer and once blue origins got their on orbit aggregation strategy down. Then when you're moving mass very efficiently to surface, that's when you roll in the humanoid robots. Again, you want the least, you want the fewest reasons possible to ever put a nationalot in a suit outside the base unless there was no other alternative. And humanoid robots are going to give you that. >> Best guess under over when we see the first humanoid robot walking on the moon? >> In my mind, I would think that on the uncrewed lander demonstrations, which both blue origin and SpaceX need to do in advance of the lunar landing, that's already contractual, I'd kind of be shocked if somebody didn't smuggle one on board. But we're not waiting that long, right? I mean, you're talking the next four years, maybe six years as a window as these start showing up and building that infrastructure. >> Boots on the moon, except they're optimists or figure boots on the moon. >> I think it's a good one. >> I think it's a really compelling idea. >> You can just rail gun it right off the moon instead. >> On the other hand, you're just describing our harsh environment. >> That is actually manufacturing the first rail guns on the moon. and outcomes in the end. Right now, China and the US for sure are both very committed to getting to the moon. The Chinese and their roadmap, it will lead to success. There's no doubt. I mean, they will absolutely do what the Soviets could not in the 1960s. We would certainly like to get there before them. They're building a base. We're going to build a base. This is fine. This is all good things. And certainly we've shown that even having a space race can help-- and it's eventual collaborative means-- if it turns into collaborative means like we have in the International Space Station, can transcend a lot of the geopolitical stripe that can happen here on Earth. Chinese on the moon by 2030, that's their goal. Do you think they hit it? Yes. I do. I think that they have a second mover advantage in a lot of ways. They do not have any baggage. What do I mean by that? If you look at the way, I want to say their civil space program, but they've recently merged that back again into their military efforts. It's all on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo era. I mean, they're building centers and recruiting the people they need to do one thing. Stennis just doing propulsion, for example. Can the space center just launch Iraq? It's a Marshall doing a lot of the engineering, Texas being the operations and training center. That's how they all began. If you think about it, even it's analogous again to the Manhattan Project of what did we need-- Los Alamos for? What did we need Oak Ridge for? And what happens, absent competition, is all those centers that were built to serve a specific purpose where you recruited talent to do a specific job, turn into doing anything other than maybe what they were doing in the first place, or at least adding on a lot of other things that can distract from its original intended purpose. Now, what are we doing at NASA? We're going around and refocusing everybody back into that original direction. The Chinese do not have any of that baggage right now. They're literally starting from scratch and highly focused in their effort. They're drawing on a playbook that works very well for us in the 1960s. I have no doubt they're going to achieve their goals. And they have five-year plans, not annual budget cycles. Yeah. So when you look at the constraints that you're facing culturally at NASA, there used to be this huge mantra that failure is not an option. And your mindset is one of nonstop experimentation and learning. What are the biggest hurdles that you're facing shifting the culture inside NASA to something like the new model of how we build organizations? Well, I would just say that I don't think the culture of-- and I don't even say accepting more risk. It really-- a lot of what you see, at least in my opinion, when you see some of the things that SpaceX have done and how they choose to operate, is very similar to how NASA operated in the 1960s. I mean, we had the same 20-something year-olds that were burning themselves out. Brilliant minds, doing incredible things, making tough decisions, extreme ownership, moving with urgency. And look, how many people talk about NASA doesn't blow up rockets. Go back into the late 1950s, early 1960s on YouTube. And you can see plenty of examples of our iterative design philosophy not working out initially, and then rolling in what we learned into subsequent versions. So in a lot of ways, they've drawn on what worked well for NASA during that time period. They're far more efficient with their capital allocation than any government agency. There's no doubt about that. And we are just going back. I mean, that's what we're trying to do. Is pivot a little bit more in the direction of where we started. And focusing, again, our resources on those kind of-- those near-impossible type objectives. Now, where I'd say there's sometimes resistances when people generally hate change, that's just human behavior. And apps and competition and a policy of trying to make everyone happy for so long, trying to get people to stop doing what they're passionate about or what they've been working on for a long time, which could be awesome and very cool work, but saying, we've got to get back to the moon. We've got to build the moon base. We can never give up the moon again. We have to help industry to the extent possible and rapid reusability is a true game changer and naveler for all the other things we want to do. Science is fantastic. I love Hubble. I love James Webb. I love all that we're working on. We just need to do more of it. We can't get comfortable launching flagship missions every 10 years. We want to be doing it annually. And even now, I'll tell you in meetings, when somebody brings up, we're really excited about this. It's going to launch in 2035. We're really excited about this. It's going to launch in 2045. It's like, I don't want my grandchildren to be excited about this mission. I want to be excited about it. So those are the things where culturally implementing some change can be a challenge, but we're getting there. I love you for that. Let's talk about nuclear one second. Thank you for reigniting nuclear as a propulsion system and an energy source. So on the nuclear propulsion side, I will sort of jokingly say, how long before we can make the Kessel run in 12 Parts X or more near term, how long before we can get to Mars in 90 days? What's your plans on nuclear propulsion? So first plan is just put a winup on the board, which is what SR1 Freedom is. It's a lot of repurposed hardware, no doubt. It's funny, I think Politico put an article out today on NASA Administrator intends to spend $2.5 billion on his nuclear power and propulsion spaceship. It was like, actually, the taxpayers spent that money over the last few years already. I'm just repurposing it into something that has real practical value instead of sitting in a warehouse or in a lab for some time period. So the PPE power propulsion element from the gateway, we repurpose that's basically the main spacecraft, all of its electric thrusters that's already integrated into it, we have a nuclear reactor, at least components of it that have been matured and funded by other services for decades at I&L that we're gonna use as the baseline for the reactor. So look, this is what Nautilus was. Nautilus was a diesel boat and it got repurposed in nuclear sub, but a lot of people don't know it. Even Rick over said, hey, it was the 70% solution, but it gave birth to the nuclear navy. We're trying to do the exact same thing at NASA. So SR1 is not gonna knock your socks off out of the gate. It's not mass optimized by any means, but it's a step in the right direction. What comes thereafter will continue to be optimized until what I think is the ultimate goal is to be able to bring astronauts to Mars and back with the fewest miracles required. And that may not always be the fastest way, but if it doesn't require cryogenic refueling as a step to getting the boots on Mars, that's a win. So I actually think that the first human mission to Mars will be at least if it was, you know, as NASA would be chemically augmented nuclear electric propulsion and be able to send astronauts to Mars and bring them back not the fastest, but without having to require a lot of extra miracles along the way. And we just gotta keep going, right? This is the whole point of taking it out of the lab, getting into practice application, budgeting it properly because material science is the hotter we can run the reactor, the more mass we can save, 'cause we don't need football field size radiators that are up there. The better we can do with power conversion, the more we challenge solar as the optimal pathway, at least, you know, inside of Jupiter. But there's no doubt if you wanna go in the outer solar system and you wanna at least delay the necessity of cryogenic refueling for missions to, crude missions to Mars and back. We gotta be making investments in nuclear. - Love it, Dave. - Yeah, you know, if you achieve that goal, it seems like the technical risk is, it seems like a very doable challenge, you know, if it's out there, but doable. Then you have this kind of foot race between, are we trying to put boots on Mars so that we can then back up humanity on Mars someday? Or is it more likely that we start putting humans in orbit, you know, Neil, Ecolonies, in the asteroid belt and using that material, which is, you know, surprisingly abundant, 'cause you got these two science fiction views of the world, you know, or the future of humanity, one where there are many, many space stations out there and they're huge. I have 10,000 people on them. The other is, no, we've colonized Mars and that's our backup copy of humanity. And there's kind of an equal foot race between those two views of where we're going too. Do you have a preference between those two views? - It's not the first is Bezos in that regard. - Yeah, very much so. - Very much so. - Yeah, well, I mean, look, step one, we need rapid reusability in an orbit assembly, because whatever spacecraft are gonna take humans to Mars, whether it's just the lucky few for, you know, to support an outpost versus necessarily a colony or actually achievable missions. The asteroid, on orbit assembly is everything. Rapid reusability is our step in that direction. Look, from my perspective, you know, we cross the oceans, you know, for a better life and, you know, it's extremely unlikely in your term that you are gonna, you know, go to Mars and have a better life or live on a space station and have a better life. Like, I think a lot of initial motivation and our lifetimes will probably be very much more akin to, you know, you know, going to Antarctica for an extended scientific duration, you know, or campaign down there. But it's just a step. I mean, again, we're trying to conquer the tyranny of distance that is inherent in our solar system and our galaxy and beyond. And we have to start somewhere. And we're lucky we've got a moon that's nearby to help us learn. The next step is Mars. That is going to be another learning environment. Generally favorite gravity, again, for the overcoming the physiological challenges of being in space. So, I guess, we're getting totally, we've evolved to be born and live in a space, in a mega-space station is not, I guess, out of the realm of possible. But I think a lot of the problems that we know we encounter when even keeping people on the space station for six months, even a six or third of gravity is going to make a huge difference along the way. But presumably, we will have conquered artificial gravity in such an effort too. I love this saying, if God had wanted humanity to become interplanetary species, she would have given us a moon. And we have one. So, Liam, over to you for asteroid mining. You know, asteroid mining has been this promise, Peter, you've kind of tracking that. You've invested and built companies around that. Do you think it's a real thing or is it perpetually 20 years away? And if it is, does NASA take an active role, or do you just enable the private sector to go down there? Well, I think we can be helpful again. I think about, again, our primary objective is, you know, if you want your NASA's sole focus to be on, you know, stimulating the economic potential of microgravity or from asteroids or on the lunar surface, like put it under the Department of Commerce, you know, the Department of Commerce has a space office. And that like, again, I do think foundational. Our job is to go out and answer the questions, you know, are we alone? Unlock the secrets of the universe. You know, world changing, pioneering technological breakthroughs in air and space. So from my perspective, if we are investing in the capabilities that are necessary to undertake missions to the moon, to build a moon base, to go to Mars and along the way, you can have demonstrations or work with industry that bring us closer to asteroid mining. We should do it. And we actually have some methods that we're exploring to do that. So the America's Compete Act actually allows us to put prizes out there. And I'm very open to doing it, not trying to compete at all with the X Prize in that, but we could work or partner, yeah, potentially partner and that I'll let the lawyers weigh in on that. I'm like, go and do something cool with an asteroid. And we could put up $25 million. I don't know, hypothetically, but I would like to believe that by making investments in that, it's going to give us, I don't know, the hypergolf thrusters that we need to reduce the cost for landers on the moon or Mars someday. You know, I think always has to be further in so far as scientific and exploration objectives as a space agency. Welcome to the health section of moonshots brought to you by Fountain Life. You know, AI is having an outsized impact on every aspect of our lives, how we teach our kids, how we run our companies. It also is having a huge impact on health, helping you prevent heart disease. One of the key things I'm here with Dr. Don Musalom, our chief medical officer at Fountain, heart disease has been personal for you as well, hasn't it? It really has Peter O'Neill. My daughter was five. My husband died of sudden cardiac death. And so this is a topic that is one that I am mission driven to try to eradicate. Prevention first and early detection is absolutely critical. 50% of people die of heart attacks with no warning signs. No shortness of breath, no pain, no nothing. No, silent killer. They just don't wake up in the morning. They don't wake up. And so, you know, AI, this is our mission to advance science to try to help to one day democratize wellness. We know at Fountain Life when we do this CT angiography with AI analytics, we are actually finding that 88% of people coming in have detectable coronary arteries. But Peter, what's more alarming to me is 23% of those individuals had soft plaque. This is the plaque that would not traditionally be seen on CT looking at calcium scores alone. And this is the plaque that we must intervene with with the multimodal testing we're doing, including diagnostic laboratory studies, partnered with Healthy Lifestyle Recommendations. So listen, make sure you understand what's going on inside your body. Genetically, metabolically and cardiovascularly, you can know. And it's your obligation to know. So check it out at FountainLife.com/Peter to find out more. And really make sure that you're the CEO of your own health. All right, back to the episode. Jared, let's talk about getting to Mars. So Elon is very aggressively committed to going to Mars. And you know, I was there with him when he was having the conversation. He basically said, we're going to shut down Falcon 9 because it's not going to get us to Mars. And we're going after starship all in, you know, burning the boats, as you said. So the question is when he decides to make those missions, is that funding from that fully private? Or do you imagine you're going to be able to step in and help fund those private missions? And what's a timeline? When do you think the earliest will set boots on Mars? Optimus boots and then human boots. What's your underover on that? Well, I think, again, I'm pretty excited about the TAM that SpaceX and others are pursuing right now with orbital data centers and such. Again, I don't-- you saw the-- here's an interesting stat. It was actually on a Fox interview and somebody started bringing up polling. And I was like, oh man, I'm way out of my depth on this one. But they were like, did you know that 69% of the American public supports NASA returning to the moon in contrast to 30-some-odd percent in 1967, at a comparable time period. Sorry, any way on that note, I think that SpaceX-- SpaceX right now, if they were to put all of their capital and focus on going to Mars, it would be very different time frame than right now where their state of intention is going to the moon. So when you ask the question of like, we're going back, boots will be on the moon in 2028. We're going to build the base and learn from that environment. And SpaceX, pursuing this mega-TAM that allows them to make investments and capabilities for the good of all human kind, which is probably, again, why it's 69% approval rate versus in the 1960s, when it's 4.5% of the discretionary budget. And I'm sure that was a big factor in why we were in the 30% range for going to the moon, because, hey, we got a lot of other problems here, back here on Earth. So good companies like SpaceX that are pursuing these massive TAMs and all this economic potential space allows them to make investments alongside NASA to do all these great things for a human kind is probably why you generally have greater public support for what we're pursuing. But the fact that moon is step one for them right now, or at least state of intent, is certainly going to change some of the timelines on Mars. And absolutely would change the quantity of people we're talking about on Mars. So we can make investments in nuclear power and propulsion as part of the national space policy. It is the next giant leap. And potentially put a pathway with the fewest miracles required, I don't know, put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years. That's not obviously the Elon vision of millions of people someday in a self-sustaining city on Mars, but that's the NASA can do some things, government through taxpayer funding, leveraging investments in nuclear investments over many decades plus industry coming alongside it. SpaceX saying forget the moon, we're going all in like Elon was saying a couple years ago, it's much faster for sure, because now you're concentrating all that brilliant brain power and their capital and resources towards achieving that objective. So it seems like we're on step one going to moon. It's going to happen in 2028. We're going to learn a lot there. In parallel, we're going to make investments in nuclear power and propulsion. SpaceX will unlock this, and along with the rest of industry, it's pursuing all the economic potential in space. And hopefully that will free up a lot more resources for the next stop on this journey, which is Mars. That's a different time frame. Again, I think you're probably in that 15 year time frame. I guess first mission of Mars is private. First mission of Mars is NASA. I mean, when you say mission of Mars, I mean, landed astronaut mission. I would bet on NASA would probably be first. And that's just because I do think your first mission if you want to bring back people to talk about it. NASA is not doing one way missions. And as a result, I think your dependency on chemical propulsion has to be limited. Because otherwise, you're going to need a lot of Optimus robots on Mars, and they're going to be walking around dusting off all the solar panels without nuclear for making propellant. It's hard enough to do fuel launch pad here in one G and under one atmosphere, a little low, making the propellant on another planet reloading a rocket and bringing back. I love that view. Because if you scratched in Claude with chemical propellant your way to Mars, you'd be exactly repeating the 1960s moon mission where we barely got there, but not in any kind of thing we can build on, not in a sustainable, reusable kind of way. But if you do it with nuclear propulsion, then you actually have a pathway to doing it repeatedly and not just going as a one off. It's such a cool vision. Just initially, right? I mean, so there's no doubt. To me, Starship and everything it hopes to achieve is just when. There's no if on that one. So step one, get it going, put up a lot of depots and lower authority, make the moon efficient transport of mass to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure, master a lot of insidious resource skills you're going to need because those are all necessary if you want to pull up Mars and a return trip without nuclear. But even then, minimum, you're still going to want nuclear surface power if you can and we're testing that on the moon as well. Or else again, you'll need a lot of optos and robots cleaning off football fields of solar panels. But step one is start that family. Imagine like the space shuttle orbiter or equivalent obviously assembled on orbit assembly of these NEP chemically augmented NEP spaceships and yes, it might be three years roundtrip, you know, with 30-day surface time, but it's a start and you get in a rotation until eventually the, you know, the V6 starships are rolling and you've got armies of optimists, robots, and nuclear power on the surface of Mars. And then you could be, you could just, you're just extending what you've already proven you can do to the moon to Mars. Dave, you want to continue? Yeah, well, okay, so you've seen for all mankind, right? I'm sure. I got it mid, I was there a lot during the first couple seasons and I've been really busy of late and so. Imagine that. Well, you know, the way it plays out in the TV world is, you know, the US and Russia at the time are cooperating in space because everybody's just trying to, you know, build and create and survive. And then something back on Earth, you know, creates tension and then they radio up and say, stop cooperating with the Russians. So here we are in a moon race with China. The competition is good. As you said, it's, it's going to get everybody there faster. Do you have a counterpart in China that you talk to or does it all get tied up and, you know, we talk a lot about them on the podcast about Kim E. K. 3 coming out in a couple of weeks. That's going to create all kinds of drama. Does that drama then come back to you? Six days, Dave. Six days now. How do you do? Yeah, that's a turning point. Well, give us inside baseball. How does it actually work with you? Can you talk to China or do you have to go to the White House and call for a call from the bat phone or how does it work? I mean, you know, the foreign policy is established by the president and the secretary of state. Now, a lot of that policy has already been established with the International Space Station and our cooperation with the Russians for a while. So I have, I would say, you know, regular sounds like a lot. It's probably more quarterly, maybe a little bit more frequent than that communication with my counterpart in Russia, director General Bukanov. I was just with him during the Soyuz launch because there's already established norms of operation in half for more than a quarter of a century. And that certainly, again, has proven to transcend a lot of the, you know, the political climate that happens here on Earth. Now with the Chinese, you know, the Wolf Amendment pretty much restricts NASA from establishing any sort of norms. You know, so there is some scientific data sharing outside of NASA with universities and such, but that's, you know, so I would say we are very much squarely in the competitor lane. We obviously watch what they do and have an appreciation for their approach. They very much watch what we do. I would just say in terms of your, for all my, I mean, I kind of, I don't think it's a secret that, you know, the ultimate high ground of space at this point. I mean, that is a, that is a war fighting domain. So, you know, in the, you know, in the horrifically unlikely event that day we never want to come and see come where, you know, that things have devolved. I don't think it's going to be a shooting war on the surface of the moon between troops of, you know, I think that there's a lot of things that would go down in space that have far more strategic implications back here on Earth to affect whatever war fighting means they're trying to achieve before or whatever require, you know, boots on the moon, duke and it out on the surface. I, I hope that, I, I hope there is no scenario where that ever seems like a good idea. Well, what about this? Just a quick follow up on that. What about the, just the more narrow case, and when the SpaceX IPO came out, it was very, very clear that it's first come first serve in low Earth orbit. And it's been a long time since on Earth, we've had land grabs where, you know, hey, our Navy is finding new islands. We're just going to claim them. Well, that's a long, you know, long past idea. Now in space, low Earth orbit is, is first come first serve of the moon is first come first serve. So that, that seems like, is there any cooperation or does, when the White House is deciding what the rules are, do they call NASA and you all get together and say, look, this is, this is the rules as we see them. Or how does that, how does that part work? Well, we're not, I don't think anyone is talking about new rules. So we have the outer space treaty. And in some respects, sure, that is first come first serve and that if I'm putting a, you know, if we need to put a lander in a certain spot and we value that spot for whatever reason, you know, the first person to get it there is it. But I mean, look, it's a big moon. Even when you think about the South Pole, it's still rather, you know, it's still rather large. And, you know, we're still, even in NASA's moon based plan vision of dozens of landers over the next few years during, during phase one, there's still a lot of moon to go around. I think even, you know, even when we think about lower authority, but then the orbital regimes that are available for data centers comes, there's a lot of opportunity there. I think just, you know, making sure we have, we are sharing information in terms of the orbital trajectories is obviously vital. And I know, you know, many in industry have spoken out and pointed out that if we fail to disclose information about where these orbital constellations are going to, you know, where they're going to propagate, then that creates collision risk and problems that impact everybody. And that's something, again, that I think everybody, even in times of conflict, when we have airliners flying around the world, we're communicating with each other, there's transponders, and we're avoiding potential hazards in that respect at all costs. That needs to happen better in space. You know, when you look at how you try and manage a government department, you're every time your new cycle comes through, you're trying to negotiate and juggle budgeting, right? How do you make long-term commitments when the budgeting cycle goes up and down, like a yo-yo with the political cycles? Is there a way of solving for that? Because I know previous projects have been really hampered by that lack of budgeting capability. Yeah. How do you preserve the budget over the next five years to get the base built? And can we help you increase it? Yeah. Can we donate? It's an interesting thing. I mean, people have talked about when I came in that, you know, the continuity between administrations and the variability in the budget cycle is what forced us into certain situations like creating programs that are too big to fail, but in my opinion, they become too costly to succeed. Like, you know, NASA gets 25 billion a year, right? Like, it's a lot of money. Like when people start saying we don't have enough money to do the job, it's like, really, I mean, I know some of the most, you know, extraordinary companies in the world were founded for far less and have built some pretty impressive capabilities. If that's not the right number, you know, what is, what I think is important is preserving flexibility between administrations. So you talk about phase one of the moon base. If I had come out and said, all right, here's the vision. It's going to be glass and, you know, it's going to have this amazing closed loop, equal system in an a fairest wheel and we're going to have big crop farms on the surface. And it's only going to cost 100 billion dollars, but we'll be able to pay it off as a service to these three companies over time. Going to get canceled. It's going to be under assault constantly. But what did we do with phase one? We said, look, we're going to do low cost landers every month and we're going to start learning. And now, when a, you know, if a new administration comes in and says, you know what, once a month is, it's too much. We can dial it back to eight and we still feel like we can get where we want to go. That's fine. Or you have somebody, you know, very foreland, we're going to go 15. We want to pick up the pace in this. Great. That is much better. Same with our nuclear program going from S or one to S or two. You know, we're not jumping right to the, to battle star Galactica here. We want, we want to start with the, the, the Nautilus and, uh, and maybe we'll do a nuclear mission to, I don't know, insella this or, uh, Uranus. That's another good one. Any of the outer solar system missions would be nice and start testing out high temperature materials and better power conversion. A lot better than saying we're going to just build the battle star Galactica or something and then that gets canceled. So I think we, this is just smart capital allocation guys, you know, is, is really what it is. It's focused 25 billion dollars is a lot of money every year. A lot, a lot of money. The entire Manhattan project, oh, you know, over four years, adjusted for inflation was 33 billion dollars. We can do a lot every year with a reload of 25 billion. Just focus it on the needle moving objectives and design the programs, the architecture in such a way, not too big to fail that keeps, you know, on the chopping block. Do it in a logical, evolutionary way to get to, to where you want to go. I mean, Alex, what do you about life in the universe? Yeah, I'm, I'm curious, Jared. You've made public comments in the past commenting that you estimate a 90% probability of life or former life on the Mars subsurface. I'd be very curious to hear what is your mental model of non-earth based life in the solar system in the universe? Is it, does it look more like pan spermia? Does it look more like life as ubiquitous? Life is rare. What is your mental model at this point? So, first of all, I think the only, I was discounting when I said 90%. I think if you talk to some of the brightest minds here at NASA, they would give you almost 100% certainty that at one point there was microbial life on Mars. And I think really we're in this, you know, seeing as believing I can't, no one's willing to make the declarative statement based on, you know, I would say, I want to say failed efforts, but, you know, they were, yeah, they were kind of swinging a misses in the past that people said, for sure it was there and then they get, they walk it back. I just don't think the scientific community is going to reach that consensus unless you bring those samples back to earth and you get enough people looking under a microscope or, you know, that's just an example, you know, not quite literally in that to say, okay, it was there. If it turns out to be the case, and I think we're very much talking again, very dead microbial life, I mean for all purposes, Mars is at vacuum. I think it would be extremely unlikely, like virtually nonexistent chance that there's anything still active there. But if you can prove that there was, at one point microbial life there, and then Europa Clipper starts sending back some interesting data and Titan, you send Dragonfly to Titan, you get a mission off to Enceladus, and this is all in our backyard. This is our star system, right? Let alone the billions of other stars out there, the trillions of other galaxies, and all of the exoplanets that would be in Goldilocks zones. It changes the dynamic a little bit from surely it must be out there somewhere to what if it's everywhere. Now, look, there is certainly an evolutionary nature to this, and a technological filter you have to break through to some extent to actually have the, to cross into the intelligent life to come and visit us, which I think just look, there's a lot again with the tyranny of distance in space that makes that a substantial obstacle. But I certainly believe that as we undertake more missions like Dragonfly and Europa Clipper and get even more advance where nuclear power and propulsion maybe can take our probes there and back with greater ease that we might reach conclusions that at least, that probably to answer the question that we're, we've been entrusted to solve is it whether or not we're alone? - You're arguably the NASA administrator during the most extraordinary time of scientific missions as well. I mean, Dragonfly, looking for the chemistry of life on Titan's pretty extraordinary. Can you imagine a time where you're like 10Xing or 100Xing the science missions out there with AI and robotics? I mean, the price of manufacturing is plummeting by allowing yourself to increase the risk and just really aggressively sending out probes. - Here, here, I'm 100% Peter. I think what we're faced with, this is some extent, right, is, and maybe this is a budgetary cycle, point is I do think that once big flagship programs have been greenlit, there is a risk element to it too, which is it can't fail. So therefore, I have to build in more and more redundancy and if it's gonna cost this much, then it better do even more than what I originally intended and a $1 billion by definition flagship program becomes $3 billion and as a result, it takes a really long time to come to fruition. But I think there's another element to it too, the fear of what comes next. And that's also a human nature thing and a lot of us, you see across their people's professional careers, they kind of entrench themselves and build, moths and walls around whatever they do for almost job security to some extent and never wanna engineer themselves out of a job. And then there's some extraordinary companies out there where people can't wait to engineer themselves out of a job because they believe whatever they work on next is 10 times cooler. (laughing) We need to do the same thing here. So that's kind of the human side of it aside from where technology will benefit us is that if I'm working on Dragonfly, I'm gonna bang this thing out so fast because whatever I work on thereafter is gonna be 10x that and then get all of our teams, our science mission director at Bunch at $7 billion a year. Do you believe with what you know to be coming into existence between AI and additive manufacturing that with 7 billion a year we couldn't be cranking out seven Dragonfly's a year. - 100, 100. - Yeah, right. So I'm totally with you. We have to move in that directions and that's a cultural change too, not to mention it, obviously that technologically enabling, but that's just a matter of time. - That can't give a full of pleasure. - You're your access to that AI, being a government agency, like when mythos came out and now, you know, in the Table 5, did you get preferential access and can you use your government position to get the latest greatest stuff 'cause that's gonna become an issue very soon. So already, you know, it was an issue just a few weeks ago for the first time in history, but that's the bell weather for the future. But do you get special access to Frontier AI going forward? - Yeah, so I mean, I really have no interest in waiting into any of the policy discussions in terms of what has to be made available to government in advance and whether it's optional or not. Like, I think that director Kratzio said, "Oh, STP and all those that contribute to ensuring government agencies are armed, you know, with the best technology for really, the good of the nation and humankind." They're doing that well. Like, I'll leave that over there. I'll just say where we have some access, you know, when you think about things like nuclear power and propulsion, you know, again, giving birth to the NASA's nuclear Navy equivalency, you know, you have a lot of data that would have come from a world that needs to be constantly doing analysis in that arena for a variety of programs. And that could be an accelerant for some of NASA's ambitions that, you know, wouldn't be as applicable, I'd say, in the commercial or in the private sector, if that makes sense. - Alex, as we enter our final segment, let me give you the leadership here, please take the lead. - Beautiful. I have to ask, Administrator, this is, I think, the question on the minds of many people I've spoken with who would just love to hear your perspective, a bit of context. The Department of War recently dropped their fourth release under the presidential unceiling and reporting system for UAP encounters, the White House and the Department of War and other cabinet-level agencies have seen sort of, I would argue a sea shift in terms of how they talk about UAPs and the possibility of non-human intelligence. As we speak, I think, based on the headlines, I was seeing right before we started this recording, Representative Burleson is introducing right now an amendment to the NDAA to encode in statute of a variety of UAP-oriented reporting requirements. So I have to ask you the biggest question, I think, and you may be gestured at this earlier by speaking of NASA's ultimate mission as answering the big questions of, are we alone? What is your position on the allegations regarding the possibility that there's been an 80-year-long legacy program? What is your position on the so-called Fermi paradox? What is your position? NASA had a study group a couple of years ago that was publicly announced and held a press conference on UAP studies. If I could bundle this all up into one big question, what is your position on all of these allegations that there has been such a legacy program? - So what I would say is since the, first of all, there's already statutory language that goes back to, I want to say, 2022, that created the Arrow group within the Department of War, where it's mandatory, public disclosure of any information related to UAPs. So I don't know if this is a matter of law anymore because that got supercharged under President Trump and he's, what we interpret as a direct order, the executive order, he put out a truth that said, release everything. And within a week of that, I was, in the situation room with the heads of almost every government agency. And we all went in there like, is there, what do you know? And what I'll tell you is there is a top down push from the president, and the Homeland Security Advisor saying, if you have any data on this, I don't care what classification level it is, it has to be disclosed and this is under the pursue effort. And if you go through those four tranches, I mean, I'm telling you, we have released video footage, photographic evidence, eyewitness account, some of them are, from FBI agents that took the footage on some of these. You're talking highly credible individuals on sightings that we can't explain. Now, I do want to be very clear here, can't explain right now, does not mean it's unexplainable. We are gathering data. I mean, the best examples, think about your doorbell cams. We have cameras on everything. I mean, you've got drones that are up continuously right now when combat zones, right? And there is absolutely. I mean, I can't tell you it's conclusive. You got a drone with an IR camera that catches something flying in the bottom corner. It's almost off frame, right? And is it a missile because it's in a combat zone? Is it another drone or is it something else? Right? And the president said, put it out. It turned to basically citizen science. It's put it out there. We want to combat the notion that this is not a subject that people want to be transparent about and that they're stigma associated, put it out there. And again, like some of it, pretty wild stuff, when you look at it, some of it, I look at and say, you know what, if I had a couple scientists and I had a few other video, I'm pretty sure it's a balloon or I'm pretty sure it's a bird. Or I'm pretty sure it's an Iranian one-way attack drone. But based on the angle, I can't say that for sure. But then there's other stuff that honestly, we can't explain what it is and the president is pushing it out. I will tell you I I have immense access and have been at a seat at the table since the get going this. I have no information, no knowledge. I take a lie detector test on any crash spaceships or bodies or biological organisms on this. But for sure, we're gathering a lot of data and there is some unexplained anomalous phenomenon. And we're putting it out there as part of these disclosure efforts. What is your, just a quick follow up, then? There have been a number of house and senate hearings where a number of whistleblowers have testified under oath that there has been an 80 plus year long US government and contractor effort to collect and reverse engineer UAPs. Again, I, in speaking with folks before this interview, this was the single biggest question they wanted me to ask you. What is your position on these allegations that other government agencies, perhaps portions of NASA even have been involved in such an effort, even though I take you at your word, haven't seen anything firsthand. But nonetheless, there are a number of whistleblowers and enough whistleblowers that Congress has already taken steps, as you mentioned. Fya, I think was the 2022 NDAA, which incorporated the RO statutes. What is your position, speaking either as an individual or as administrator of NASA on all of these allegations? My position on this is that I look, I don't want to comment as to the credibility of individuals. Look, ever since I was first nominated to this position, I get dozens of emails every day from some very bright and smart people giving their views and thoughts on things NASA should be doing or NASA has done. And some of it, I look at and say this is really insightful. And some of it, I say, is that falls outside the bounds of what I think is perhaps credible on that, just because somebody who worked for the government or had a clearance does not necessarily mean that their interpretation of what they saw is accurate. So meaning, I saw the same videos that, and they've been just closed, by the way, that people were referencing saying it was 100% in alien space ship. And we put these videos out and you can look at them and determine whether or not you think that to be the case. And I think some of it is certainly unexplained based on what we know. And I think some of it, if you probably put enough people behind it, you'd say that was a weather balloon. That was an Iranian one way attack drone or something of that nature. It would be great if we had alien spacecraft. I mean, that would definitely move the timeline forward by a couple of decades, if nothing else. I assume Jared, you'd be quite excited if all of these allegations amounted to something non-trivial. Yeah, look, I mean, it's what our job is here, right? I mean, you know, whether you're a space enthusiast or the head of NASA, don't you want to know if there is intelligent life out there? Isn't that again? I think part of the greatest adventure in human history. If there was some crashed, you know, ET level kind of technology that allowed you to, you know, exceed the cosmic speed limit, then we'd be doing everything we could to reverse engineer it and get it going because I want to know what's in other star systems out there. So if it were true, we're terrible at reverse engineering because I don't think anyone would argue that what the B2 or the B21 or the SR-71 was capable of doing as well within, you know, the realms of physics and our technological means at those time, at the time period, not something that would have been derived from aliens and certainly not something that would have helped aliens get from another star system, you know, to the earth in that time period. But look, again, we're putting things out. It's very foreign leaning, but I have not seen anything. There's no secret programs that I'm aware of related to biologics or crashed. I've interviewed Elon on the sub-dairy. He said, "I would know," but shouldn't we have better photographs? We have great crammers. Why are they also crappy? Celine, you want to close this out with a question? Oh, please. I would also just say, like, if I came all this distance from another world, I'd be very curious about, I mean, some of the best people watching ever is in Times Square. It's on the Las Vegas strip. Like, why are they showing up where we test our weapons? Why are they? They're in the city. They seem to be, and I'm not trying to be dismissive. Like I said, this is a subject that if you are a true space enthusiast, if you're excited about you should want to know, you should be excited about it. So I'm not being dismissive any of the claims I'm just saying that they tend to seem to show up where we keep our naval ships and where we test our advanced weapons systems. You want to ask Emoids closing question here, Celine? Which one? I can't remember. Emoids asked, well, we went to the moon. The same goes, one to the moon, because it's hard. So what's the new organizing goal that keeps everybody reinvigorated? You said before Apollo had a singleitarian mission, and now we're sort of spread out, is there sort of one thread that pulls them all? Yeah. I mean, I think just in the same way that going to the moon was hard, all of the pioneering technology to get there had a direct benefit back here on Earth. The same is, I think, equally applicable. To me, this is all setting up for the day that astronauts plant the stars and stripes on Mars. We are going to the moon, and we are building a moon base. First and foremost, to master the skills to go to Mars. It's just as you said before, Peter, we've been given this gift of a moon three to four days away from us to test out all of the capabilities from the spacesuits, to the Nicholas, Havitation, the physiological countermeasures for being in the harsh reality of space, for institute resource manufacturing, for propellant life support systems, to get to Mars. Amazing. I hope everybody watching agrees with me that, you know, Jared is one of our most extraordinary administrators. But I have known many. I have never been more excited in my life for what NASA is going to be doing. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for stepping into this role and really bringing all your entrepreneurial energy, your vision, your engineering, your science, your passion to this. Grateful so much. Well, can I just reciprocate and say thank you for your endless extreme optimism in every one of the subjects that you take interest in and every one of the companies you create and where you choose to put your energies and resources are all for the betterment of humanity and its infectious. So thank you, Peter. Thank you, buddy. Thank you. We shot mates and everybody listening. Awesome. Can't wait to watch your success next year. Thank you, Peter Strider. Thanks, guys. You're really a blessing. Take care.