Administrator: We are going to get back into the habit

of launching moon rockets in months, not

years.

Interviewer: >> Why is it so important for us to go back

to the moon?

Administrator: >> This was a promise that was made and a

promise we need to keep. When we return

to the moon, America will not look down

on the prime lunar real estate while our

rivals occupy it. NASA astronauts will

be on the surface building President

Trump's moon base and we will realize

the scientific, economic, and national

security potential surface operations

provide. A lot of people when I came to

this job is like industry is not going

to let you do what you want to do and

the politicians aren't going to let you

do what you want to do. But you know

what? They all understand the difference

between America winning and losing on

the moon saying for 35 years and putting

hundred billion dollars in and then

coming up short and that doesn't have

national security implications, you're

completely mistaken.

Administrator: It's great to be here with so many

entrepreneurs, operators, investors, and

policy makers who are helping us build

the next golden age of space

exploration. I love being around the

people who not only look up and imagine

what is possible, but possess the

experiences and the will to bring ideas

into reality. There is no organization,

I can tell you that appreciates that

kind of determination more than NASA. On

that note, in the weeks ahead, America

will send the brave Artemis 2 astronauts

potentially farther into space than any

humans have ever traveled in

generations, flying around the moon on a

10-day mission to test the space launch

system rocket and Orion spacecraft

before returning home to Earth. Now,

President Donald Trump took the decisive

steps of establishing the Aremis program

during his first term. He recently, in

fact was the day that I was uh sworn

into this position, reaffirmed America's

commitment to space superiority, giving

NASA clear mandate and a focus to return

to the moon, build the base. So this

time we return to stay. Thanks to

historic investments secured in the

Working Families Tax Credit Act, NASA

has received nearly $10 billion in

support of that national imperative. The

bipartisan commitment signed into law by

the president gives us the resources to

move forward with purpose and urgency

knowing American leadership in the high

ground of space is on the line. So we

have the presidential mandate, we have

the resources, we certainly have the the

historic experience. We have plenty of

hardware hardware. We have domestic and

international partners. So why does it

all take so long? Why does it cost so

much? And what are we going to do about

it? So lots of those answers are because

we have lacked real competition for

decades. You know, after the last space

race, we were we were the only game in

town. So we built partnerships all over

the world to to to spread goodwill. We

we spread ourselves thin with

broad-based science. We took on lots of

side quest projects, some of which are

very cool, but ultimately distract from

the world changing mission that

taxpayers have entrusted us with.

It costs a lot because we outsourced a

lot of our core competencies. Industry

consolidated. We let stakeholders set

the priorities to serve constituent

interests and adopted policies in the

attempt to make everyone happy. Maybe

make everyone happy other than the

American people and really people all

over the world that were waiting for the

headlines that only NASA was capable of

making. As a result, you get moon

rockets that fly only every 3 plus

years. It's the worst cadence by far of

NASA designed rockets. Um hardware that

is obsolete by the time it's delivered.

51 nuclear propulsion programs that have

never flown. Less uh less flagship

science and discovery missions. Less

explanes, less astronauts in space, less

kids dressing up as astronauts for

Halloween. I don't like this. President

Trump doesn't like it. Uh clearly

President Trump doesn't like it and his

na and and doesn't like it given what

he's trying to accomplish in national

space pol policy but but maybe this was

tolerable to some when there was no

geopolitical rivals capable of

challenging America in the most

important strategic domain. But that's

not the case anymore. Not anymore. NASA

stated we will achieve the national

imperative to return uh to the moon and

establish an enduring presence before

the end of President Trump's term. Now,

our rival has stated before 2030. So,

it's not hard math. That's less than one

year of margin, and they might be early,

and if recent history says anything, we

certainly might be late. President Trump

does not like to lose, and if I'm doing

my job right at NASA, that won't happen.

I've spent the first few months getting

my arms around the challenges and the

opportunities and it generally revolves

around ensuring that the extraordinary

resources that are made available I mean

NASA's budget is $25 billion a year and

concentrating them on the most pressing

objectives uh clearing out needless

bureaucracy and really any obstacles

that impede progress to empower the

workforce and make sure our capital

allocation is done in a thoughtful way

that ensures desired outcomes are

achieved and ideally ahead of

Administrator: So to that end, we are standardizing the

SLS rocket, increasing launch cadence

from years to months. We're inserting a

new mission in 2027 to buy down risk and

increase confidence for lunar landing

attempts in 2028. As I've said many

times, Artemis is a program. Where we

begin with SLS is not where we end.

There will be dozens of missions living

on long past where Apollo 17 ended with

the aim of affordable and repeatable

crew and cargo missions to the surface

for decades into the future. We're also

going to stop leaping right to the dream

state as a service and build a moon base

step by step in an evolutionary

approach. We're going to start with

clips programs and LTV style landers and

rovers. We're going to provide a strong

demand signal to industry for launch,

landers, rovers that we can outfit with

with power, navigation, communication,

service, surface improvement

capabilities, scientific and other

capabilities that we can experiment with

to ultimately inform the phase 2

infrastructure and move towards

long-term habitation. So, the folks in

this room, if you're if you're ever

coming to pitch me on the uh the

Marsbased dream state as a service where

the only customer is NASA, costs

billions of dollars and it's never been

done before, I can assure you we

probably won't be that receptive. We're

not going to force an orbital economy

where it doesn't exist, but I can

certainly provide a demand signal for

what we need in line with President

Trump's national space policy, and we

are going to do everything we possibly

can to to ignite the space economy that

we we all know is inevitable. When we

return to the moon, America will not

look down on the prime lunar real estate

while our rivals occupy it. NASA

astronauts will be on the surface

building President Trump's moon base and

we will realize the scientific,

economic, and national security

potential surface operations provide.

NASA will achieve the lunar object

objectives and do the other things. We

will invest in nuclear power and

propulsion in space so we can undertake

the next giant leap to Mars. We will

ignite the orbital economy and launch

more missions of science and discovery.

We never pursue these grand endeavors

alone. We have international partners.

We have commercial industry like many of

those in this room. But we also require

the scientific, the software

development, the engineering, technical,

and operational talent to execute on the

mission. So, I'm pleased to announce

with the immense support of OPM director

Scott Cooper, we are launching NASA

force to rebuild NASA's core

competencies. These termb-based

appointments from industry partners will

provide mentorship and training and help

season and rebuild the core competencies

within the NASA workforce. Similarly,

these programs offer exchange

opportunities for NASA talent to rotate

through industry. At NASA, we have no

excuses. We have the policy, the

resources, the will, the support of the

most technologically forwardleaning

industry, and we have the winning

playbook that achieved the near

impossible on July 20th, 1969.

It starts with having a very focused

plan, concentrating resources again on

the most challenging objectives, staying

organized, assembling the best and

brightest for around the nation,

instilling a culture in them that

requires immense competence, extreme

ownership and urgency, partnering with

industry, taking meaningful steps

towards a larger goal, constantly

listening to data and learning, and

never accepting defeat. This is how NASA

once changed the world, and this is how

we're going to do it again. Thank you.

Now, please welcome to the stage Morgan

Brennan.

Interviewer: >> Hey, good to see you.

So good to see you. Hello everybody.

Administrator Isaacman, thank you for

joining me here on stage. So much you

just covered at the podium that I want

to dig into. Um, but first I have to

start with this idea of NASA force and

this idea of bringing talent into NASA

and making NASA great again. Cool again.

Administrator: >> Yeah. I I mean people ask me uh you know

what was your biggest surprise since

taking the job and um I'd say a lot of

things were actually as expected. I had

an opportunity to prepare for it more

than once and uh

but what I'd say was um what what stands

out having visited every one of the

centers on this really epic road show is

just you know what a large portion of

our core competencies that have either

been lost outright over the years where

we've outsourced and then you know you

take a look at a a program like

America's return to the moon with

Artemis and you got five prime

contractors hundreds of subcontractors

and 75 5% of your workforce, your

workforce, not partners, not commercial

partners in this are contractors, um,

you know, through staffing agencies. So,

they're all using different software

tools, collaboration tools, different HR

systems, talking to different prime

contract, subcontractors. Is it a

surprise to anyone that we're 100

billion deep into this, years behind

schedule? No. I mean, that it's right in

front of you. So, look, things like

mission control, mission control is

outsourced. I mean, I gotta imagine that

would shock most people in this room to

say like when the astronauts come over

the radio and say Houston and the person

respond back, it's outsourced. Uh,

launch control turning our pad. People

have been freaking out since I've said

since last Friday that we are going to

get back into the habit of launching

moon rockets in months, not years.

Apollo 7 to Apollo 8, nine weeks apart.

Nine weeks apart. We're on this cadence

of every three and a half years. And

they're like, that that doesn't make any

sense. how, you know, uh, you're never

going to be able to pull it in from

three and a half years. It's an

unrealistic plan. It's like, no, we're

going to go back to doing what we did

before because we're going to rebuild

the workforce that knows how to do these

things. That that's part of our history.

Um, so yes, I mean, we we incredibly

value the support from uh from Scott and

OPM to let us go out, bring the talent

back into the agency on things like

turning our launchpad so we can launch

with frequency, managing launch control,

managing mission control. We definitely

need our partners. We don't do this

alone, but NASA's got to have those core

competencies back within the agents.

Interviewer: >> So, move more quickly. And I'd imagine

it sounds like also cutting costs in the

process, bringing this in house, more of

this in house.

Administrator: >> Yeah. I I mean, I went to every

one of the centers and started talking

to the workforce and said, "Okay, so you

work in mission control. You're you're

one of our contractors. I get we we

treat everybody kind of the same. Uh do

you want to be a civil servant? I mean,

there's certain benefits associated with

it." And they're like, "I've wanted to

work for NASA since I was a kid." They

get paid exactly the same, but you have,

you know, tech companies that put a well

staffing companies put a 40% gross

margin on it. So the the answer is about

1.4 billion a year is lost in science

and discovery because someone 30 years

ago or so said there's these artificial

hiring ceilings on civil servants. So

75% of the workforce became contractors,

contractors that have been there for for

decades and will stay there for decades

if we don't change it.

Interviewer: >> I we're having these conversations

actively. We're seeing these

conversations actively on the defense

side. this idea of recruiting the best

and brightest. What does that look like

at NASA when you do talk about that

competition with, you know, the tech

industry and and private sector?

Administrator: >> Well, so I I mean to me NASA is supposed

to be doing the near impossible where

you can't close a business case. Uh

where there's no obvious uh you know

demand besides NASA, you know, so at one

point we had to open this whole thing up

with uh you know, heavy lift launch

vehicles and propulsion design. I mean,

we again were the only game in town.

That's not the case now. Launch,

observation, and communication, there's

a market for I mean that that is, you

know, the the foundation of the of the

space economy. So if NASA's doing the

same thing that industry is doing, we're

screwing up and that's going to make it

very hard for us to recruit talent. It's

going to make it very hard for us to

retain talent. So what do you do? You

pivot in a direction that others

shouldn't necessarily be working on.

Nuclear power and propulsion is a great

example. Lots of great nuclear companies

right now. I would I think there's a lot

of demand, terrestrial demand for

energy. So maybe that's probably the the

you know the near-term demand signal. So

NASA can do the uh what probably others

wouldn't want to take on the liability

of of launching a nuclear reactor with

power and propulsion so we can get to

Mars someday and actually bring our

astronauts back home. Um that's a great

example of where NASA should be, you

know, recalibrating again to the near

impossible.

Interviewer: >> All right, let's dig a little deeper

into Artemis because you just did

announce this restructuring. Artemis 3

is not going to put boots on the moon.

uh you're turning back to to low Earth

orbit to test out the human landing

system technology there too. How did I

mean you're moving quickly, right? It's

been what two months, two and a half

months since you got in. How how did you

decide on the restructuring and how did

this path forward um emerge as the one

that makes the most sense?

Administrator: >> Yeah, I I mean I to me I think it's

obvious. I I don't know why um you know

these decisions weren't made sooner, but

you cannot launch a rocket as important

as complex uh as SLS every 3 and 1/2

years and think it's going to lead to a

good outcome. Uh you know, we had

hydrogen leaks on Artemis 1. Three and a

half years later, what do we have? We

had hydrogen leaks. We had helium flow

issues on Artemis 1. We have three and a

half years later. Why is Artemis 2 back

in the vehicle assembly building instead

of around the moon right now? Helium

flow issues. you you get no muscle

memory if you're launching that thing

every three and a half years. People are

working to launch the mission and then

they're going to move on and go

somewhere else and you have to rebuild

all those competencies again. It's just

it's not a recipe for success again. We

also have tended to just go right to the

dream state and forget that you need to

do things as challenging as returning to

the moon in a iterative evolutionary

way. We had Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, an

awful lot of Apollo missions before 11.

Now, we should have learned some things

since then. We do have the power of our

of our great industry in order to help

us. So, I don't think you necessarily

need as many missions. You certainly

need more than one trip around the moon

and then land and call it a day. That's

not going to work. So, you know, we're

getting back to some of our basics. Um,

we're inserting another mission in in 27

to again ensure that we have the muscle

memory at the pad so when we intend to

launch, we actually can launch. And then

you got a rendevous with one or both

your lander providers in lower Earth

orbit just as we did with Apollo 9. Get

confidence in the systems, buy down risk

before you send people to the moon. I

mean, it's the difference between if

something goes wrong, you're hours away

from being in the water or days away.

Um, so we got to we got to get it right.

It's incredibly hard to return to the

moon. Um, we we we got to do it in, you

know, again, a smart approach.

Interviewer: >> Um, the SLS rocket is a very expensive,

very exquisite, complicated rocket. You

just talked about, you know, three and a

half years

Can Boeing turn it out quickly enough?

Can you actually get to enough of them

to keep up with the cadence you want?

Administrator: >> Yeah. You know, look, I mean, a lot of

people when I came to this job is like

industry is not going to let you do what

you want to do and and the politicians

aren't going to let you do what you want

to do. But you know what? They all

understand that we are talking about

months. The difference between America

winning and losing on the moon and all

of the associated implications. If you

don't think there's national security

implications of saying for 35 years and

putting hundred billion dollars in that

America will return to the moon and then

coming up short and that doesn't have

national security implications, you're

completely mistaken because that says if

they're broken here, imagine where else

they're broken. So yes, I think industry

and various politicians have forced in

the hand for a long time and now

everybody is waking up and realizing

we've got months of margin and it's time

to start doing things different. So I am

grateful for like what has become

essentially unqualified support to do it

the right way. Um and that includes

industry saying we're ready to get in

gear. Now it takes more than promises,

right? Like we are going to embed

responsible engineers in every one of

the prime contractors, every one of the

subcontractors that has components on

the critical path. CEOs of these

companies are going to brief me every 30

days on how they're going to meet our

timelines because a lot is at stake. Uh

and we have to get it right. And I and

I've said it before publicly. Look, the

whole SLS program was con vehicle

architecture was conceived before

industry was landing rockets on ships.

You can look at it and say it looks kind

of like shuttle but not really shuttle.

That's because a lot of the hardware

there came from shuttle. So yes, it's

like 50 60 year old uh you know type

hardware that we're we're leveraging

now. But it's the start. It's not the

finish. You know, the president created

a program that's going to live on as

hardware evolves, which is it's going to

be necessary if you're going to

undertake missions to and from the moon

at at great frequency because you've got

a base there to sustain. So, we've got

Artemis through at least or SLS through

at least Artemis 5 or six. We're going

to make the most of it and then we will

continue to evolve our uh our

architecture until we are watching uh

NASA astronauts going to and from the

moon measured in months, not years.

Interviewer: >> Yeah. I mean we're seeing the demand

signals even before your announcement

last week with Artemis across industry

in terms of you know invest more focus

more on these lunar ambitions. Uh so the

I do want to just before we move on to

other topics I do want to just get to

the human landing system piece of this

because it's Blue Origin, it's SpaceX.

Are they ready to go? Can they deliver

as quickly as you need them to?

Especially if we're talking about low

Earth orbit rendevous and they're

developed for something deeper space.

Administrator: >> Yeah. I mean, so again, when we went

public with our plan to actually have an

achievable strategy to getting to the

moon, we didn't do it in a vacuum. We

spoke with industry, made sure we had

commitments. That's why when the

announcement came, you saw every one of

the players come out and put a tweet out

in support and a bunch of politicians do

the same because this is the way back to

the moon. Now, both SpaceX and Blue had

to do um uncrrewed tests of their

vehicle was already part of the plan. Uh

so they were planning to launch these uh

you know these spacecraft in uh in 2027.

Now we're asking them to consider how

we're going to rendevous with us uh in

Orion and start buying down risk and

they all acknowledged yes we need to do

something like this and we're going to

work with them on it. I will say

considering the technology that both

blue and SpaceX are investing in which

is way more than just going back to the

moon to put footsteps in a flag here. I

mean that is the capability to truly

build out a base put lots of mass at low

cost on the surface of the moon and

really again unlock its scientific and

economic potential. Um it is a complex

approach to do it. So for them to

rendevous with us in lower earth orbit

is substantially easier than it would be

um for them to rendevous with us for

example in lunar orbit where that would

be not necessarily a great trade if

you're if you're having to expend

numerous launches that you could

otherwise use for a landing. So this is

the right interim step.

Interviewer: >> Why is it so important for us to go back

to the moon? What are what do you see as

the administrator of NASA? What do you

see as the potential benefits and

rewards compared to the risk?

Administrator: >> Well, I I go back to this was a promise

that was made and a promise we need to

keep. I mean, again, 35 years we said we

were going to do this. I mean, a hundred

billion dollars that have expended along

the way. for us to just come up short

and say now, well, we did it, you know,

we did it in uh in 1960s and 1970s, so

what's the big deal? Yeah, that was the

position you had to take 35 years ago.

Once you said you're going back and the

and the new race is on and you've

committed again 100 billion of taxpayer

dollars, you have an obligation to see

it through. And and I'll say again, if

we come up short, I mean, the

implications are significant. our rival

is going to say if they're broken in

space, which is probably the most

important strategic domain, where else

are they broken? And start encroaching

on our our territory across all the most

important technological domains. That's

a problem. That's that's real national

security implications. But what happens

when we get there? We are going to learn

things. That's why we're on the greatest

adventure in human history of exploring

our solar system and the galaxy and

universe around us. We don't know what

we may learn that could change

everything. Um I will say it is

absolutely the proving ground for future

missions uh to Mars. I mean to be able

to get on the South Pole and do

institute resource manufacturing working

with ICE. These are the capabilities

that we are going to need to be able to

use reliably on Mars if we're going to

send astronauts there and back. And I

emphasize the back part. It's a lot

easier to get them there. It's very hard

to bring them back home. Uh let's use

let's use the moon as a proving ground

when we're a couple of days from home

versus 9 months. Do you see this as a

space race with China or otherwise?

Interviewer: >> Yeah, 100%. The only thing I'll just say

though is that the um regardless if we

had arrival that is again within

potentially a year of our schedule uh on

this, it is still the changes we

announced last week is still in the

correct direction. Like whether you had

a rival or not, you don't launch a moon

rocket every three and a half years. You

don't go from flying around the moon to

landing on the moon. You still have to

do things in a thoughtful, iterative,

and evolutionary way in order to achieve

grand endeavors, which, you know, was,

you know, how we defined America for a

period of time. Like, if we're going to

get back to it, we have to do it the

smart way. The fact that we have a

competitor should motivate us. Um, but

it should also concern us if we come up

short.

Interviewer: >> What is the timeline now for Mars? How

do we get there? What does that look

like as you think about the moon in in a

bigger, broader, meteor, near-term

fashion?

Administrator: Well, I so that that's why

again I I I have the best job in the

world and I have a national space policy

that you know aligns whole of government

towards what we need to achieve and the

financial resources to do it. So the

president didn't just say return to the

moon and and build a moon base. He also

said invest in the next giant leap

capabilities. That's where nuclear power

and propulsion comes in. Uh and I've

checked in with the president multiple

times on this. I promise him America

will get underway in space on nuclear

power before the end of his term. Um

that's going to be a huge breakthrough.

Uh you know nucle you know especially

NEP technology is not going to be the

fastest way to get from point A to B but

it's going to be a way that we can move

a lot of mass towards Mars and it's also

going to be the same type of reactor

technology we'll use for power on the

surface so we can mine propellant and

come back. So we are taking uh

meaningful steps in that direction. We

will be able to use the moon base to

prove out capabilities before we

undertake it. And look, I think like

we're gonna see astronauts on Mars in

our lifetime.

Interviewer: >> What does it mean for the NASA budget?

Administrator: >> I I I've told everyone uh that I've come

across, look, we we got the right

topline to work within. We do we do have

to be better capital allocators. We

spent $200 million last year uh on a

canceled program. Like I was like, I

don't understand this. It's canceled.

Why we spend 200 million? Um we have a

we're we're not great capital allocators

at all. We spread it out. We do lots of

littles and look a lot of that is driven

from external stakeholders like um which

as I made as I referenced in my prepared

marks when you don't have a competitor

and the idea is build goodwill

everywhere fine but like when when

everything's on the line you got to

concentrate your resources on the

objectives that the taxpayers depend on

you to be able to achieve why we were

created in the first place. So you ask

me is $25 billion a year plus the plus

up that came from one big beautiful bill

enough to get the job done? Yeah, it

sure as hell is. A lot of times people

forget you million dollars, million

dollars, billion dollars, billion

dollars. 25 billion a year. I mean,

look, uh that's that's an in world

changing companies have uh have been

started for uh you know, less than a

million dollars. We can do an awful lot

with 25 billion a year.

Interviewer: >> Yeah. And of course, relationship with

private sector and commercial space

companies continues to grow and evolve

and change too. So, so I guess we put a

really fine point on it since I know we

have some space entrepreneurs in the

audience. What do you see as their

domain versus yours here?

Administrator: >> Yeah, I look uh again I think it's it's

NASA's job that we should be doing near

impossible where uh no other agency,

organization, company could ever close a

business case on because your demand

signal is one and there's probably no

logical revenue model to underwrite it.

That's where NASA should be putting our

attention and when we have big

breakthroughs, we hand it off to

industry and let you know competitive

dynamics improve the product or

capability and bring down costs.

um we we owe industry demand signals of

where we can forecast lots of demand

where it is potential that there will be

other customers beyond us in the you

know near to midterm and that's what

we're going to be doing in the near

future with the moon base. I mean you're

going to have lots of launches. I mean

lots of launches, lots of landers, lots

of rovers. And that's going to be an

opportunity to experiment again with

comms, navigation, insitue resource

manufacturing, scientific experiments,

habitation,

um you know, power like we are going to

be able to give demand signals so

industry knows where uh to concentrate

their resource. They'll just say when we

do it, we're going to do it with lots of

littles, iterative way, and not uh not

jump to the to the dream state because

that's uh that's where no one wins. Um

the taxpayers don't win. No one gets the

capabilities they want in the timeline

timelines that we require them.

Interviewer: >> Yeah. I mean NASA's really been on the

forefront. This has been the case for a

number of years in terms of public

private partnerships and thinking

differently about contracting. So how

does that continue?

Administrator: >> It does continue like we we we can't go

at this alone. I mean there is there is

no question. I mean right now this is

the most competitive healthy commercial

space industry in the history of

America's space program right now. When

we need launch there's lots of companies

we can buy launch from. When we need

landers lots of companies we buy

landers. We need comms and observation

navigation capabilities around the moon.

There's multiple companies that are

capable of competing for it. This is

good. Um so we will again we I don't

think people have long to wait. We'll

put the demand signal out there for what

we require. And I'm grateful that we

have, you know, again, the most

technologically advanced, well financed,

capitalized industry ready to meet the

need.

Interviewer: >> Life elsewhere. Do you think we're going

to find it?

Administrator: >> Uh, do I think we're going to find it? I

would say that if we went and uh brought

the samples back from Mars, um, which is

a program that people have been asking

about for a while, was canceled under

the last administration because it was

super expensive. Um, I think the odds

are extremely good you'd have uh direct

evidence of uh uh once microbial life. I

think the odds are really good of that

which um but I don't I don't think no

matter how many robotic missions we land

that are doing analysis that's that

phone home and say yeah it's like 90%

chance there was something there that

anyone will buy it until we actually

bring the the samples back and make a

conclusive statement. But what I will

say, I don't know about the rest of you

guys, but if you're ever, you know, the

late night having having cocktails with

friends and looking up at the stars and

being like, "Is life out there?" Right?

And people generally say, "Surely it

must be somewhere." I mean, we, you

know, you got two trillion galaxies and

how many stars are in them? And how many

of them probably had planet formations

within a Goldilock zone? Yeah, I'll take

that bet. But if you do find proof of

microbial life uh at some point on on

Mars when you bring those samples back,

you know, we have missions to Europa

Clipper that are out there searching for

life. You've got a octacopter,

nuclearpowered octacopter that we're

launching to Titan in 2028 searching for

life. If you start getting bio

signatures um you know from from other

worlds within our solar system, it

changes the dynamic entirely from like

surely it must be out there somewhere to

what if it's everywhere and and it might

be possible in our lifetimes to prove

that.

Interviewer: >> Okay, we're out of time. One one quick

kicker question for you. You going to go

back to space at some point

after you're done serving in the

government or maybe while you are.

Administrator: >> I think I'm going to be very busy the

next uh couple years but uh we'll see.

Thank you. That's the idea, right? We're

trying to be able to open it up for

everyone and thankfully you got industry

putting

lots of good resource into uh bringing

space from the few to the many. So

Interviewer: >> Jared Isaacman, administrator of NASA,

thank you so much.

Administrator: >> Thank you.