Jared Isaacman

It's just, you know, it's creating a hierarchy that serves the hierarchy instead of just like, look, we certainly need management leadership, but we need to empower the best and brightest to get the damn mission done.

So anyway, the step one is all reorganize, rebuild the culture, you know, and then you move on to the priorities.

America leads in the high ground of space, you know, unlock the orbital economy and accelerate the rate of world changing discoveries.

Those are the three things that NASA should be thinking about every single day.

So in terms of America leading in the high ground of space, with the investments that have already been made with SLS, return to the moon.

Do it as quickly as possible and determine why we need to be here.

Is there any economic, scientific, or national security value of being here?

If yes,

than you rely on commercial industry, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, to get you to and from the moon at a frequency far greater than every couple of years, which is what the NASA $4.5 billion per launch disposable rocket costs.

So you use SLS to get back to the moon,

Determine why you need to be there with any frequency.

And then from there, you rely on commercial industry.

So it's actually affordable and repeatable and not an every couple of years event.

And then you pivot those resources.

So it's about a third of NASA's budget, like call it 7 billion a year away from competing with industry on building giant rockets and start building nuclear spaceships because no one else is going to do it unless it's the Russians or the Chinese.

And China for sure is going to do it.

So build nuclear electric spaceships.

It's all dual use stuff.

So for as much as it's good for peaceful space, believe me, it has defense implications for it as well.

And it's very important for getting to Mars.