Jared Isaacman

They built the space shuttle.

They built SLS.

Why wouldn't we be pivoting on to the next great thing?

I mean, this is literally the same.

This is like, it doesn't matter what happened at Pearl Harbor.

I'm not taking any chances.

Keep building battleships.

Forget these aircraft carriers.

Like, why wouldn't we evolve our thinking when we learn new things?

And we've learned a lot of new things over the last 50 years.

You know, I think like...

There are a couple of things broken with the science process, for one of which the prioritization of scientific missions is done every 10 years.

It's called the decadal survey.

I just don't, I mean, presumably we would learn new things in that time period that might change or shape our thinking.

So like, I just don't think that needs to be, I mean, it is a total sacred cow thing.

Like the decadal is what drives the prioritization.

All right, why don't we make it in every three year survey or something?

And then the other thing I would say is you just need to go in and there is a lot of inefficiency and bloat and outsourcing that takes place across the scientific spectrum.

There's multiple mission controls.

There's just lots of inefficiencies, which means we get really exciting missions less frequently.