Jared Isaacman

It's going to be a more efficient source of fusion power someday in the future.

It has applications in quantum computing.

Do we want to come in second place on that?

Because certainly the Chinese are setting out to do this.

The Russians want to do this someday.

So we have an obligation for American leadership in the high ground of space to

The next stop is the moon, which is what our course is on today.

But the president, even through his national space policy, committed us to the investments in nuclear power and propulsion to someday achieve American astronauts on Mars.

So to your second point on, is this expensive?

It is.

But what's different today than it was in the 1960s is it's not on the taxpayer's shoulders.

I mean, in the 1960s, we went to the moon with NASA's budget at four and a half percent of the discretionary budget.

Right now, it's about a quarter of a percentage of that.

Who's making up the difference?

You've got some fantastic entrepreneurs across commercial space industry.

Elon Musk at SpaceX, Jeff Bezos at Blue Origin, dozens of other companies putting their resources on the line here for a capability for the benefit of the American people and really the world.

Well, really, it's about what you're trying to accomplish on the lunar surface and what you can learn, right?

So if you have a orbiting...

base above the moon, which we have in our plans called Gateway.

That has potentially some benefit from a logistics perspective, but you're not interacting with the regolith, you're not constructing infrastructure, you're not mining, you're not doing in-situ resource manufacturing, which is essential to future Mars missions.