--- author: a16z date: '2026-05-06' guest: '' layout: post.njk source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cCWrrQp1v4 speaker: a16z tags: - space-exploration - lunar-base - mars-mission - nuclear-propulsion - space-economy title: NASA重返月球、登陆火星及核动力计划：a16z深度访谈 summary: 本期访谈聚焦 NASA 的重返月球与登陆火星计划，以及其在核动力推进领域的投入。NASA 局长 Jared Isaacman 阐述了重返月球的紧迫性，强调了其国家安全及科学经济潜力。他批判了过去太空探索的低效率和高成本，提出通过重建核心能力、标准化火箭（SLS）、增加发射频率、与私营企业紧密合作等方式来加速进程。访谈还深入探讨了核动力在深空探测中的关键作用，以及 NASA 如何通过公私合作推动太空经济发展，并展望了在火星寻找生命的可能性。 insight: '' draft: true series: '' category: tech-trends area: tech-engineering project: [] people: - Jared Isaacman companies_orgs: - NASA - SpaceX - Blue Origin - OPM products_models: - Artemis 2 - Artemis 3 - SLS rocket - Orion spacecraft - Human Landing System - Nuclear power and propulsion media_books: [] status: evergreen --- ### 重返月球的紧迫性与效率挑战 **Administrator**: 我们将重拾那个习惯，在几个月内发射月球火箭，而不是几年。
Original English **Administrator**: We are going to get back into the habit of launching moon rockets in months, not years.
**Interviewer**: 我们为什么必须重返月球？
Original English **Interviewer**: >> Why is it so important for us to go back to the moon?
**Administrator**: 这是一个许下的承诺，也是我们必须兑现的承诺。当我们重返月球时，美国不会在美国的竞争对手占据月球主要地段时袖手旁观。**美国宇航员**将在月球表面建造**特朗普总统**的月球基地，我们将实现地表作业所能提供的科学、经济和国家安全潜力。很多人在我上任之初认为，工业界和政界都不会允许你做你想做的事情。但你知道吗？他们都明白，在美国关于重返月球的35年承诺和投入千亿美元却最终失利之间存在巨大差异，而这绝非没有国家安全影响，你完全错了。
Original English **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**: 很高兴能与这么多企业家、运营者、投资者和政策制定者齐聚一堂，他们正在帮助我们开创**太空探索**的下一个黄金时代。我喜欢与那些不仅仰望星空、憧憬无限可能，而且拥有将想法变为现实的经验和决心的人们在一起。没有任何一个组织比**NASA**更能欣赏这种决心。说到这里，在接下来的几周里，**美国**将派遣英勇的 **Artemis 2** **宇航员**比几代人以来任何人类旅行过的最远距离飞向太空，进行为期10天的绕月飞行任务，测试 **Space Launch System (SLS) 火箭**和 **Orion 飞船**，然后返回地球。现在，**唐纳德·特朗普总统**在他的第一个任期内采取了决定性步骤，建立了 **Artemis**计划。事实上，就在我宣誓就职的那天，他重申了美国对太空优势的承诺，为NASA设定了明确的任务和目标：重返月球，建立基地。所以这次我们是回来就地扎根。得益于《**the Working Families Tax Credit Act**》通过的历史性投资，NASA已获得近100亿美元的支持，以实现这一国家使命。总统签署的这项两党承诺法案为我们提供了资源，让我们能带着目标和紧迫感前进，因为我们知道美国的领导地位在高地——太空——至关重要。所以我们拥有总统的授权，拥有资源，当然也拥有宝贵的历史经验。我们拥有充足的硬件。我们拥有国内和国际合作伙伴。那么，为什么这一切要花费这么长时间？为什么成本这么高？我们该如何解决？这些问题的答案很大程度上是因为我们几十年来缺乏真正的竞争。你知道，在上次太空竞赛之后，我们是唯一的参与者。所以我们与世界各地建立了伙伴关系来传播善意。我们将精力分散在广泛的科学研究上。我们承担了许多“支线任务”项目，其中一些非常酷，但最终却分散了纳税人委托给我们的改变世界的使命。成本高昂是因为我们外包了许多核心能力。行业进行了整合。我们让利益相关者设定优先事项来服务于选民利益，并采纳了旨在让每个人都开心的政策。也许除了美国人民以及全世界那些等待NASA创造的头条新闻的人们之外，让每个人都开心。结果是，我们每三年多才发射一次月球火箭。这是NASA设计的火箭中最糟糕的发射频率。硬件在其交付时已过时。51个核推进项目从未飞行过。旗舰科学和探索任务减少。行星探测减少，宇航员在太空中的人数减少，孩子们在万圣节装扮成宇航员的人数也减少。我不喜欢这样。**特朗普总统**不喜欢这样。显然**特朗普总统**不喜欢，鉴于他在国家太空政策方面试图实现的目标，但他可能认为当没有地缘政治对手能够挑战美国在最重要战略领域时，这一切是可以容忍的。但现在情况并非如此。NASA已声明，我们将在**特朗普总统**任期结束前完成重返月球的国家使命，并建立持久的存在。而我们的竞争对手则宣称在2030年前实现。所以，这不是难算的数学题。我们只有不到一年的优势，而他们可能会提前，如果近期的历史能说明什么，那我们肯定会迟到。**特朗普总统**不喜欢输，如果我在NASA做得好，那就不会发生。我上任的最初几个月都在努力把握挑战和机遇，这通常涉及到确保我们获得的大量资源——NASA的预算每年为250亿美元——集中用于最紧迫的目标，清除不必要的官僚主义，以及任何阻碍进展的障碍，以赋能员工，并确保我们的资本配置经过深思熟虑，能够实现预期结果，并且最好能提前完成。
Original English **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**: 为此，我们正在标准化 **SLS 火箭**，将发射频率从几年一次提高到几个月一次。我们将在2027年增加一项新任务，以降低风险并增强2028年**月球着陆**尝试的信心。正如我多次说过的，**Artemis** 是一个计划。我们从SLS开始，但并非止步于此。在阿波罗17号结束之后，将会有几十项任务持续进行，目标是在未来几十年内实现成本可负担、可重复的载人及货运月球表面任务。我们还将停止直接跳入“服务型梦想状态”，而是采取渐进式、演进式的方法，一步一步地建立月球基地。我们将从小型项目和LTV风格的着陆器及漫游车开始。我们将向工业界发出强烈的需求信号，以支持发射、着陆器和漫游车，我们可以为其配备电力、导航、通信、服务、地表改进能力，以及科学和其他能力，通过实验最终为第二阶段基础设施提供信息，并向长期居住迈进。所以，在座的各位，如果你们来向我推销“火星基地作为服务”的梦想状态，而唯一的客户是NASA，成本高达数十亿美元，而且从未实现过，我向你们保证，我们可能不会那么 receptive。我们不会强行建立一个不存在的轨道经济，但我当然可以根据**特朗普总统**的国家太空政策，为我们所需提供需求信号，我们将尽一切努力点燃我们都认为不可避免的**太空经济**。当我们重返月球时，美国不会在美国的竞争对手占据月球主要地段时袖手旁观。NASA宇航员将在月球表面建造**特朗普总统**的月球基地，我们将实现地表作业所能提供的科学、经济和国家安全潜力。NASA将实现月球目标并完成其他事情。我们将在太空投资**核动力和推进**技术，以便我们能进行到**火星**的下一次巨大飞跃。我们将点燃轨道经济，并发射更多科学探索任务。我们从不单独追求这些宏伟的事业。我们有国际伙伴。我们有商业行业，就像在座的许多人一样。但我们也需要科学、软件开发、工程、技术和运营人才来执行任务。因此，我很高兴地宣布，在**OPM**主管**斯科特·库珀**的鼎力支持下，我们正在启动**NASA Force**，以重建NASA的核心能力。这些来自行业合作伙伴的基于任期的任命将提供指导和培训，并帮助NASA员工积累经验、重建核心能力。同样，这些项目为NASA人才提供了轮岗到行业工作的机会。在NASA，我们没有借口。我们有政策、资源、意愿，得到了最具技术前瞻性的行业支持，我们拥有在1969年7月20日实现近乎不可能的制胜策略。这一切始于一个非常专注的计划，将资源再次集中于最具挑战性的目标，保持条理，汇集全国最优秀最聪明的人才，在他们身上灌输一种需要巨大能力、极致责任感和紧迫感的文化，与行业合作，朝着更大的目标迈出有意义的步伐，不断倾听数据并从中学习，永不接受失败。这就是NASA曾经改变世界的方式，这也是我们将再次做到这一点的方式。谢谢。现在，请欢迎**摩根·布伦南**登台。
Original English **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**: 你好，很高兴见到你。见到你太好了。大家好。**艾萨克曼局长**，谢谢你来到舞台上。你刚才在讲台上讲了很多我想深入探讨的内容。但首先，我必须从‘NASA Force’这个想法谈起，以及引进人才让NASA再次伟大、再次酷起来的这个想法。
Original English **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**: 是的。人们问我，你上任以来最大的惊喜是什么？我想很多事情都在预料之中。我有不止一次机会为之做准备。但我想说的是，在我走遍所有中心，进行这次史诗般的巡演后，最令人瞩目的是，我们许多核心能力要么已经完全丧失，因为我们外包了，然后你看看像**美国重返月球**的**Artemis**这样的计划，你有五个主要承包商、数百个分包商，你的75.5%的劳动力，注意，不是合作伙伴，不是商业伙伴，而是通过派遣机构的承包商。所以，他们都在使用不同的软件工具、协作工具、不同的HR系统，与不同的主要合同商、分包商沟通。我们已经为此投入了1000亿美元，并且滞后了好几年，这对任何人来说都是一个惊喜吗？不。就在你眼前。比如**任务控制**，任务控制被外包了。我想这会让在座的大多数人震惊，当宇航员通过无线电说‘休斯顿’，回应者却是外包人员。发射控制，我们发射台的运作。自上周五我说我们将重拾那个习惯，在几个月内发射月球火箭，而不是几年以来，人们一直很激动。**阿波罗7号**到**阿波罗8号**，相隔九周。九周！我们现在的发射频率是三年半一次。他们说，这不合理，你怎么可能把时间从三年半缩短呢？这是一个不切实际的计划。我说，不，我们将回归到过去的做法，因为我们将重建懂得如何做这些事情的劳动力。这是我们历史的一部分。所以，是的，我们非常重视**斯科特**和**OPM**的支持，让我们能够吸引人才回流到机构，从事诸如启用我们的发射台以实现高频发射、管理发射控制、管理任务控制等工作。我们肯定需要我们的伙伴。我们并非孤军奋战，但NASA必须重新掌握这些核心能力。
Original English **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**: 所以，加快速度。并且我想这过程也包括削减成本，将更多业务收归内部，是吗？
Original English **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**: 是的。我去了每一个中心，开始和员工交谈，我说：“好吧，你是在**任务控制**中心工作。你是我们的承包商之一。我知道我们对待每个人都差不多。你想成为公务员吗？有些福利与之相关。”他们说：“我从小就想为NASA工作。”他们的薪水完全一样，但是，你知道，科技公司或者劳务派遣公司会从中抽取40%的毛利润。所以，答案是，每年约有14亿美元的科学和探索资金流失，因为大约30年前有人设定了公务员的职业天花板。因此，75%的员工变成了承包商，这些承包商在那里工作了几十年，如果我们不改变，他们还会继续工作几十年。
Original English **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**: 我们一直在积极地进行这些对话。我们在国防领域也看到类似的对话。这种招募最优秀、最聪明人才的想法。在NASA，当你谈论与科技行业和私营部门的竞争时，这具体是什么样的？
Original English **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**: 嗯，对我来说，NASA应该做的是‘近乎不可能’的事情，即你无法通过商业模式来盈利，或者说除了NASA之外没有明显的市场需求。比如，我们曾经需要解决重型运载火箭和推进系统设计的问题。当时，我们是唯一的参与者。但现在情况并非如此。发射、观测和通信，这些是**太空经济**的基础，有其市场。如果NASA做的是行业也在做的事情，我们就错了，这将很难吸引和留住人才。所以你应该怎么做？转向别人不一定愿意涉足的方向。**核动力和推进**就是一个很好的例子。现在有很多出色的核能公司。我认为，在能源领域，陆地上有很大的需求。所以，这可能是近期需求信号。这样NASA就可以做一些别人不愿意承担发射核反应堆及其动力推进系统风险的事情，以便有一天我们能登陆**火星**并安全地带回我们的宇航员。这是一个很好的例子，说明NASA应该如何重新定位，再次挑战‘近乎不可能’。
Original English **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.
### Artemis 重组与未来路径 **Interviewer**: 好的，让我们更深入地探讨一下**Artemis**计划，因为你刚刚宣布了重组。**Artemis 3**任务将不会登陆月球。你将返回**近地轨道**来测试**载人着陆系统**技术。你是如何——你是行动迅速的，对吧？你上任才两个月，两个半月。你是如何决定重组的？又是如何形成这条最有意义的前进道路的？
Original English **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**: 是的。对我来说，我认为这很明显。我不知道为什么这些决定没有早点做出，但你不能每三年半发射一次像SLS这样重要而复杂的火箭，并期望取得好结果。在 **Artemis 1**任务中，我们出现了氢气泄漏。三年半后，我们又遇到了氢气泄漏。在**Artemis 1**任务中，我们出现了氦气流动问题。三年半后，为什么**Artemis 2**没有绕月飞行，而是在**车辆装配大楼**里？还是氦气流动问题。如果你每三年半发射一次，你就无法获得肌肉记忆。人们致力于发射任务，然后他们会转向别处，你必须重新建立所有这些能力。这根本不是成功的 Recipe。我们还倾向于直接跳入“服务型梦想状态”，而忘记了你需要以迭代、渐进的方式来完成像重返月球这样充满挑战的任务。我们有**水星**、**双子座**、**阿波罗**，在**阿波罗11号**之前有大量的阿波罗任务。现在，我们应该从那时学到了一些东西。我们确实拥有我们伟大行业的强大力量来帮助我们。所以，我认为你不需要那么多任务。你肯定需要绕月飞行一次以上，然后着陆并结束。这行不通。所以，我们正在回归一些基本原则。我们正在2027年增加一项任务，以确保我们在发射台拥有肌肉记忆，这样当我们打算发射时，我们确实能够发射。然后在**近地轨道**与一到两个着陆器供应商会合，就像我们在**阿波罗9号**任务中做的那样。在将人员送往月球之前，建立对系统的信心，降低风险。我的意思是，这是生死攸关的区别，如果发生问题，你离身处水中只有几小时，或者几天。所以，我们必须把事情做对。重返月球极其困难。我们必须以一种明智的方式去做。
Original English **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**: SLS火箭非常昂贵、精妙且复杂。你刚才提到三年半一次的发射周期。波音公司能足够快地制造出来吗？你能获得足够多的火箭来跟上你想要的发射节奏吗？
Original English **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**: 是的。你知道，你看，我的意思是，很多人在我上任之初都认为，工业界不会让你做你想做的事，政界也不会让你做你想做的事。但你知道吗？他们都明白，我们谈论的是几个月内的发射。美国在月球上获胜和失败之间的区别，以及所有相关的隐含意义。如果你不认为在35年的时间里投入千亿美元却最终失利，却没有国家安全影响，那你完全错了，因为这表明如果我们在太空领域都处于劣势，那么在其他方面呢？所以，是的，我认为工业界和许多政界人士长期以来一直迫使我们这样做，现在大家都在醒悟，并意识到我们只有几个月的优势，是时候做些不同的事情了。我非常感谢现在已经获得了几乎无条件的支持，能够以正确的方式做事。这包括工业界表示我们已准备好进入状态。现在，这需要的不仅仅是承诺，对吧？我们将在每一个主要承包商、每一个在关键路径上有组件的分包商那里安插负责任的工程师。这些公司的CEO将每30天向我汇报一次他们将如何满足我们的时间表，因为事关重大。我们必须把它做好。我以前公开说过。看，整个SLS项目，车辆架构是在工业界开始将火箭降落在船上之前构思出来的。你可以看着它说，它有点像航天飞机，但又不是。这是因为那里很多硬件都来自航天飞机。所以是的，这是我们现在正在利用的，大概是50-60年前的硬件。但这只是开始，不是结束。你知道，总统创造了一个将持续存在的项目，随着硬件的不断发展，这在如果你要频繁地进行月球往返任务时是必要的，因为你有一个可以维持的基地。所以，我们至少有Artemis 5或6的SLS计划。我们将充分利用它，然后我们将继续发展我们的架构，直到我们看到NASA宇航员在几个月内（而不是几年）往返月球。
Original English **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**: 是的，我们看到了需求信号，甚至在你上周宣布**Artemis**计划之前，整个行业就已经显示出对月球雄心的更多投资和关注。所以，在我们转向其他话题之前，我想先就**载人着陆系统**这个问题进行探讨，因为涉及到**Blue Origin**和**SpaceX**。它们准备好出发了吗？能否像你所需要的那样快速交付？特别是如果我们谈论的是**近地轨道**会合，而它们是为更深空的飞行而开发的。
Original English **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**: 是的。同样，当我们公布我们的计划，即制定一个切实可行的重返月球战略时，我们并非在真空中进行。我们与行业进行了沟通，确保我们获得了承诺。这就是为什么当公告发布时，你看到所有参与者都出来发推特支持，很多政界人士也做了同样的事情，因为这是重返月球的正确途径。现在，**SpaceX**和**Blue Origin**都必须进行无人测试，这本身就是计划的一部分。他们原本计划在2027年发射这些航天器。现在我们要求他们考虑如何与我们的**Orion**飞船在**近地轨道**会合，并开始降低风险。他们都承认，是的，我们需要做一些类似的事情，我们将与他们一起努力。我必须说，考虑到**Blue Origin**和**SpaceX**都在投资的技术，这些技术远不止于重返月球插上旗帜。这是真正建立基地、以低成本将大量物质运送到月球表面，并真正解锁其科学和经济潜力的能力。这是一个复杂的实现方式。所以，让他们与我们在近地轨道会合，比让他们与我们在月球轨道会合要容易得多，因为如果他们必须进行多次发射，而这些发射本可以用于着陆，那将不是一个好的权衡。所以，这是正确的过渡步骤。
Original English **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.
### 重返月球的意义与挑战 **Interviewer**: 我们为什么必须重返月球？作为NASA的局长，你看到了哪些潜在的好处和回报，又如何权衡风险？
Original English **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**: 回到我说的，这是一个许下的承诺，也是我们必须兑现的承诺。我的意思是，再次强调，35年来我们说过要做这件事。我指的是，一路走来已经花费了千亿美元。如果我们因此而失利，然后说‘现在，我们做到了’，你觉得‘我们在20世纪60年代和70年代做到了，那又有什么大不了的？’。是的，这是35年前你必须采取的立场。一旦你说你要回去，而新的竞赛已经开始，并且你又投入了1000亿美元的纳税人资金，你就有义务完成它。而且，我再说一遍，如果我们失败了，我的意思是，其影响是巨大的。我们的竞争对手会说，如果他们在太空——可能最重要的战略领域——都处于劣势，那么他们在其他地方又如何呢？然后开始侵蚀我们在所有最重要技术领域内的地盘。这是一个问题。这是真正的国家安全影响。但当我们到达那里时会发生什么？我们将学到东西。这就是为什么我们正在进行人类历史上最伟大的冒险——探索我们的太阳系、银河系和周围的宇宙。我们不知道我们可能会学到什么能够改变一切。我必须说，这里绝对是未来**火星**任务的试验场。我的意思是，能够到达南极并进行就地资源制造，与ICE合作。如果我们想把宇航员送往火星并让他们回来，这些是我们必须可靠使用的能力。我强调‘回来’的部分。把他们送过去相对容易。把他们带回家非常困难。让我们用月球作为试验场，当我们离家只有几天路程时，而不是9个月。你认为这是与中国或其他国家的太空竞赛吗？
Original English **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**: 是的，100%。我只想说，无论我们是否有可能在一年的时间表内有对手，上周我们宣布的这些改变仍然是正确的方向。也就是说，无论是否有竞争对手，你都不会每三年半发射一次月球火箭。你也不会从绕月飞行直接跳到登月。你仍然需要以一种深思熟虑、迭代和渐进的方式来做事情，才能实现宏伟的目标，你知道，这就是我们曾经定义美国的方式。如果我们想回到过去，我们就必须以聪明的方式去做。事实上，我们有竞争对手应该激励我们。但如果失败，也应该让我们担忧。
Original English **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.
### 火星探测与NASA预算 **Interviewer**: **火星**的时间表现在是怎样的？我们如何才能到达那里？在你考虑月球的更宏大、更长远的常态化规划时，这又是什么样的？
Original English **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.
Original English **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**: 这对NASA的预算意味着什么？
Original English **Interviewer**: >> What does it mean for the NASA budget?
**Administrator**: 我告诉过我遇到的每个人，我们有合适的顶层预算来工作。我们确实必须成为更好的资本分配者。去年我们为一个被取消的项目花费了2亿美元。我当时就觉得，我不明白，它被取消了，为什么我们花了2亿美元？我们不是很好的资本分配者。我们把它分散了。我们做了很多零碎的小事，要知道，很多都来自于外部利益相关者。就像我之前提到的，当你没有竞争对手时，想法是建立善意，但当一切都岌岌可危时，你就必须集中资源在你依赖纳税人实现的目标上，这是我们最初被创建的原因。所以你问我，每年250亿美元加上一个大而美的法案带来的额外收入，够不够完成这项工作？是的，绝对够。很多时候，人们忘记了数百万美元，数百万美元，数十亿美元，数十亿美元。每年250亿美元。我的意思是，看看吧，这可以改变世界。一些公司甚至不到一百万美元就成立了。我们每年可以用250亿美元做很多事情。
Original English **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**: 是的。当然，与私营部门和商业航天公司的关系也在不断发展和演变。所以，我想在我们继续讨论其他话题之前，我想请你明确一下，我知道我们有一些太空企业家也在听众席上。你认为他们的领域是什么，而NASA的领域又是什么？
Original English **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**: 是的。我再次认为，NASA的工作应该是做‘近乎不可能’的事情，即没有任何其他机构、组织或公司能够通过商业模式盈利，因为你的需求信号只有一个，而且可能没有合乎逻辑的收入模式来支持它。这就是NASA应该关注的地方，当我们取得重大突破时，我们会将其交给行业，让他们通过竞争性动态来改进产品或能力，并降低成本。我们欠行业的是需求信号，表明在哪里我们可以预测大量需求，并且可能在近期到中期有除我们之外的其他客户。这就是我们将在不久的将来通过月球基地所做的。我的意思是，你会有很多发射。大量的发射、大量的着陆器、大量的漫游车。这将是一个实验各种通信、导航、就地资源制造、科学实验、居住，你知道，电力...的机会。我们可以提供需求信号，让行业知道应该在哪里集中资源。他们会说，当我们这样做时，我们将大量零散地、迭代地进行，而不是直接跳到“梦想状态”，因为在那里没有人会赢。纳税人不会赢。没有人能在我们所需的时间内获得他们想要的能力。
Original English **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**: 是的，NASA 一直处于最前沿。多年来，在公共私营伙伴关系和合同思维转变方面，一直是这种情况。那么，这种合作将如何继续？
Original English **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**: 它会继续下去，因为我们不能孤军奋战。毫无疑问。目前，这是美国太空计划历史上最具竞争力、最健康的商业航天产业。当我们 J 需要发射时，有很多公司可以购买发射服务。当我们 J 需要着陆器时，有很多公司可以购买着陆器。我们需要在月球周围的通信、观测和导航能力。有许多公司有能力为此竞争。这很好。所以，我们将再次，我认为人们不必等太久。我们将发出我们所需的需求信号。我很高兴我们拥有，再次强调，技术最先进、资金最雄厚、资本最充足的行业，随时准备满足需求。
Original English **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.
### 地外生命探索 **Interviewer**: 地球以外的生命。你认为我们会找到它吗？
Original English **Interviewer**: >> Life elsewhere. Do you think we're going to find it?
**Administrator**: 你问我是否认为我们会找到它吗？我想说，如果我们从**火星**带回样本——这是一个人们一直在询问的项目，在前任政府期间被取消了，因为它非常昂贵——我认为有极大的可能性你会直接找到微生物生命的证据。我认为找到这种生命的几率非常大。但是，我认为无论我们着陆多少个进行分析的机器人任务，无论它们能发回信息说‘是的，有90%的几率那里有东西’，除非我们真的带回样本并做出确凿的结论，否则没人会相信。但我想说，我不知道你们其他人怎么想，但如果你曾经在深夜和朋友喝鸡尾酒，抬头看星星，然后说：“生命在那里吗？”人们通常会说：“肯定有。”我的意思是，你有两万亿个星系，它们中有多少恒星？又有多少恒星可能在宜居带内形成了行星？是的，我敢打赌。但如果你确实发现了微生物生命的证据，在某个时候，当你把那些样本带回火星时，你知道，我们有**欧罗巴快船**任务在那里寻找生命。我们将在2028年发射一架**核动力八旋翼无人机**去**泰坦**寻找生命。如果你开始从太阳系内其他行星获得生物信号，它将完全改变局面，从‘肯定有’变成‘万一它们无处不在’，而且可能在我们有生之年能够证明这一点。
Original English **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**: 好的，我们时间到了。最后一个快速问题：在你结束政府任期后，你还会再次进入太空吗？或者也许在任职期间？
Original English **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**: 我认为未来几年我会非常忙碌，但我们会拭目以待。谢谢。这就是想法，对吧？我们正努力向所有人开放。值得庆幸的是，你得到了行业的支持，投入了大量的资源……
Original English **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**，NASA局长，非常感谢你。
Original English **Interviewer**: >> Jared Isaacman, administrator of NASA, thank you so much.
**Administrator**: 谢谢。
Original English **Administrator**: >> Thank you.