Jared Isaacman

So now you pivot the money that you were investing in that $4.5 billion per launch vehicle to nuclear spaceships, and that has applications for Moon, Mars, low Earth orbit, and it's just a natural evolutionary step for the agency.

For the third of the budget that is SLS, I would have used what we already have and will have over the next two years to get to the moon a couple of times,

Certainly get back before China because I do think that failing to do so would be one hell of a dent in American exceptionalism.

I mean, we knew nothing in the 60s and got to the moon.

We paid a lot to do it.

Four and a half percent of our budget for a while did it.

But China knew nothing about going into space at that point in time.

I mean...

And now for them to get back after we've said for 35 years we're going to do it is going to be a major blow.

And I think the ramifications are like there will be congressional hearings.

It will expose a lot of things that we don't do right.

So we can't let that happen.

So let's get it right.

and use the hardware that we have.

And that hardware strategy has inherently a dependency on both Blue Origin and SpaceX.

You can't get to the moon without one or both of them now.

So when you do get to the moon, as expensive as it was, you now have one or two viable paths to get back there at far lower cost.

So when that comes, you then pivot investing in this legacy technology into the next generation that no one else will do except our adversaries if we don't do them.

And yes, I believe that's nuclear electric propulsion.

And I also don't understand why it's so controversial.