Jared Isaacman

you know, what's the draw?

Why wouldn't you just go work at SpaceX and you get a bunch of stock that's gonna be worth money or go work at Blue Origin and get a bunch of stock that's gonna be worth even more?

NASA needs to constantly be recalibrating to do the near impossible, what no one else is doing, and the things they figured out, they hand off to industry.

Industry is going to build rapidly reusable rockets that will reduce the cost of space materially.

Awesome.

I hope SpaceX and Blue Origin Rocket Lab are competing like crazy because they're going to make their rockets awesome and lower cost.

What should NASA be doing?

What they can't.

Build nuclear spaceships.

These companies are not going to play around with highly enriched uranium.

They're never going to take the liability nor get the approvals to launch nuclear reactors with highly enriched uranium in it.

That's exactly what taxpayers should be funding NASA to do.

And in doing so, it will help enable commercial industry to do what they want to do.

So that's kind of the division of responsibilities, I think.

Look, there's an optimist side and a pessimist side.

The optimist side is like, who knows what we may find?

What if we find that there was life there at some point in time or another?

That'd be quite the development, wouldn't it?

And actually, it's very helpful for funding all things space-related because, in my mind, there's only two ways you have the future that we all dream of someday, one of which is an orbital economy that helps pay for it all, or two,

Find proof that we're not alone.