Jared Isaacman: NASA's Moon Base by 2028, Optimus Robots on the Moon, The Truth About UFOs | Ep #274

17:21Jared Isaacman:In terms of orbital data centers, if Elon and SpaceX are betting on this right now, There is no reason to believe this will not come into existence. Never, ever, ever bet against Elon, right? A hundred percent, right? And I never bet against an extremely well-capitalized Elon. So people ask, you know, in my position as NASA administrator, what do I think of, for example, of SpaceX as an IPO? Like, first of all, I'm thrilled with any of our partners that are essential to undertaking and achieving our mission. And like, again, number one national space policy objective, return American astronauts to the lunar surface, build the moon base out.

17:59Jared Isaacman:We can't do it without them. So the fact that they're extremely well capitalized right now is a fantastic thing, not to mention the engineering talent that's in there. And, you know, I think without question, you know, the greatest entrepreneur and engineer in recent history at the helm. So I think that's all very good. No doubt it will come into existence. What I kind of care about beyond the potential of space-based data centers and harnessing our free fusion reactor that's out there is the prospect of an expanded space economy. Because I will tell you, I'm a little bit more measured in this.

18:34Jared Isaacman:Maybe just having started my company in 1999, when you started to see the final days before the dot-com bubble there, we at times get enamored by the potential of things, as it was with the internet then, and how it may be today in some respects with commercial space. Launch observation and communications, those are the only things we know for sure. And people say that all the time. I'm like, it's your obligation for NASA to go to the moon and establish a lunar economy. I'm like, what does that mean? I can't guarantee that we can get more value out of the lunar regolith and all the cost that goes into getting there and extracting what you need and then bringing it back to Earth or manufacturing there.

19:17Jared Isaacman:There's kind of no guarantee on all that. Our job is to go out, try and change the world in air and space. And if along the way you can have pioneering breakthroughs in commercial space, fantastic. because I don't believe we will all live in that exciting future we imagined as kids if it's entirely funded by taxpayers. So to see perhaps another leg beyond launch observation and communications and say, orbital data center is a thing, the math closes, the economic potential there is real, and it will help fund a lot of the things we are all excited about in space, like maybe lots of commercial space stations or the infrastructure we want to see on the moon, fantastic.

19:57Jared Isaacman:We should all be really excited about it.

20:00Peter Diamandis:Amazing. Salim, over to you, pal. I have a quick anecdote where I used to be the head of innovation at Yahoo running their incubator in San Francisco. And we had NASA speakers come and speak because I wanted these developers to understand what real innovation looked like. And we once had this kind of 70-plus-year-old fellow who'd worked on the Apollo program. You have to imagine 300 tight jeans, white sneaker, gelled hair, MacBook developers all sitting in this room. and during the Q &A asked, what's the biggest difference in the space industry between when you were launching on the Apollo program and today?

20:33Peter Diamandis:And he said, huh. And he goes, maybe it's computers because back then all information was transmitted via carbon copy paper. The pink sheet went here, the green sheet went. And you could see these 300 developers look up and I could see their brains exploding one by one as they looked at the implications of this. Totally incredible. You've kind of looked at this unbelievable transformation of NASA where you have launch capacity, you have capital, you have technical expertise all locked up, but those are now becoming abundant. As those become abundant, how do you steer NASA? What does it enable, what does it provide for the private sector to take it to the next level?

21:12Jared Isaacman:Yeah, I, again, kind of use this as an opportunity, maybe hit on another point too, because I would have loved that for that NASA scientist or engineer from the Apollo era, beyond just computer, I think there's something else that's very different, which is focus. And that's going to be even more important as launch costs continue to come down materially. And what we see from commercial industry and private capital is willing to fund is available, is how well do we wield it and use it? And who's a great example of this, of focus? It's Elon and SpaceX, right? This is a person. And it's not just, obviously, it's SpaceX.

21:52Jared Isaacman:He did a Tesla, too. This is somebody who has no problem executing the Cortez model of burning the ships. I mean, could have the greatest rocket with an unbelievable economic model to support it and endless demand and says, nope, obsolete, time to focus on the next thing.

22:10Peter Diamandis:He's going to shut down Falcon 1 and he's going to shut down Falcon 9. But it makes great video, doesn't it?

22:16Jared Isaacman:And you think about that during the Apollo era. And I mentioned this from time to time to members of Congress to help them too, is that if you go back to, I think it's the 1965 NASA Authorization Act, it's five pages. And it's got some standard template language, but more or less it says, beat the Russians to the moon. X dollars that go to Apollo, X dollars that go to Gemini, right? And outside of that, all this flexibility, but essentially to focus on one or two incredibly important things to the nation. You see, again, SpaceX is very good at doing that. Tesla is okay. This generation of vehicle, its time has come.

22:52Jared Isaacman:I'm now focusing on doing one or two things extremely well. That has changed considerably at NASA from the space race, where for a very long time, and I do believe this is absent global competition, have been asked to do everything for everyone and try and make as many people as happy as you possibly can. And as a result, you generally make no one happy.

23:17Peter Diamandis:In as many congressional districts as possible.

23:19Jared Isaacman:Yeah. I mean, you know, even now I think about it, I was, you know, forgive the kind of DOW example, but, you know, we were talking about procurement of next generation aircraft and such. I was like, isn't it so fascinating that right now at a time where, I mean, the F-47 has been available, so you're a sixth generation fighter, that we will still advocate for production of fourth generation, fifth generation, and sixth generation. And as a result, probably what you want to buy from sixth generation is several times more expensive than it needs to be, and you'll get a lot less of them because you're divvying up your resources in so many different directions.

23:54Jared Isaacman:You would never see that happen with some of the entrepreneurs we're talking about in their companies. You'd be like, why would I be doing that? It's 50 years old. It's literally a half century ago. I'm going to focus everything I can at doing what I'm supposed to be doing today really well. And NASA, that is something President Trump has been able to give us with our national space policy. And now, actually, global competition being in a second space race has enabled us to do is say, we can't do everything for everyone anymore. We're going to go back and dust off the playbook from the 60s and start focusing on doing a couple things that are extremely hard very well.

24:24Jared Isaacman:And to your question, having things like lower launch costs available and private capital willing to make investments alongside government, so it's not 4.5 % of the discretionary budget anymore. hopefully helps us get back to some of those headlines that were made in the 1960s, but on a different level today.

24:41Peter Diamandis:Well, you know, when you have all of the capability, you know, the biggest constraint for NASA has always been the rate limiting step, right? When do you see fleets of humanoid robots out there doing things? And when do you envision the moon becoming almost a platform that a broader ecosystem can build off of?

25:04Jared Isaacman:Well, look, I think in terms of rate, the biggest driver there is going to be just, I mean, it's going to be the breakthroughs in rapid reusability until, I mean, Starship is obviously the first example of a vehicle where we don't throw away the, you know, the upper stage. Building multiple factories to mass produce that hardware, multiple launch pads. And of course, you know, Blue Origin is New Glenn's vehicle, you know, is going to have obviously already proven reusability with the first stage. I think Stoke is trying to do reusable first and second stage. I'm sure Rocket Lab with Neutron is going to get there.

25:38Jared Isaacman:All of that is critical to bringing down the cost to accelerate mass to orbit, in which case it doesn't matter if you're using it for commercial space stations, for commercial purposes, scientific missions, or transporting lots of mass efficiently to the surface of the moon. Now, that's key to everything in NASA. We're going to be able to get far more of our dollars doing the near impossible task than simply paying for the cost to get there. Great example, I said, we're thinking about repurposing something the taxpayer has already paid for, which is the engineering development unit of the Perseverance and Curiosity rover.

26:14Jared Isaacman:It's just sitting there at JPL. I mean, that's probably like, I don't know, a half a billion all in that's just sitting there. No question. I'm like, well, we were all talking. Why don't we just put it on the moon? It'll be a great rover and it can survive in the permanently shaded regions. The most expensive part of doing that is not the nuclear fuel. It's not the modifications needed for lunar surface. It's getting it there. And that's getting it there in the most mature and competitive launch environment that we've had in the history of the space program. So the next breakthroughs that come thereafter with full rapid reusability is going to be enabling for everything we want to do, not least of which is on the lunar surface.

26:52Jared Isaacman:Now, again, if you're talking about armies of humanoid robots on the lunar surface as well that are actually going to start building out the infrastructure, you'll start to go from what NASA's vision of a phase one moon base, which is a lot of broke down stuff everywhere. As we, we learned the science of survival, which I refer to almost as a junkyard in early days to that more utopian dome of a city, you know, that probably some of us envision that that's, that's going to, that's what's going to bridge the gap between those two worlds. This episode is brought to you by Blitzy autonomous software development with

27:25Peter Diamandis:infinite code context. Blitzy uses thousands of specialized AI agents that think for hours to understand enterprise-scale code bases with millions of lines of code. Engineers start every development sprint with the Blitzy platform, bringing in their development requirements. The Blitzy platform provides a plan, then generates and precompiles code for each task. Blitzy delivers 80 % or more of the development work autonomously, while providing a guide for the final 20 % of human development work required to complete the sprint. Enterprises are achieving a 5x engineering velocity increase when incorporating Blitzy as their pre-IDE development tool, pairing it with their coding co-pilot of choice to bring an AI-native SDLC into their org.

28:15Peter Diamandis:Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit Blitzy.com to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzy today.

28:25Peter Diamandis:Let's talk about the moon a second, Jared. 2028, an aggressive timeline for landing on the moon. Thank you for that. It's super great to have aggressive timelines once again. Once we land on the moon, give me a step-by-step, if you would, for getting a lunar base there. Because getting a permanent lunar base where humanity for the first time is ever existing off the planet of Earth, beyond Earth's orbit, is huge. Steps getting there. When do humanoid robots enter that equation? Can you give us a few details?

28:54Jared Isaacman:Sure. I think it's imperative that we do a lot of littles at first, which I think is fully akin to the space race in the 1960s. We had Mercury before Gemini, Gemini before Apollo, lots of Apollo missions before we landed on the moon. And in this world that we've been in absent competition for some time where I told you that focus is a problem and we are distributing money everywhere to make everybody happy, we kind of are forgetting all of those interim steps to getting to the exciting outcome. And we just design a dream state, a dream state as a service sometimes. And it's usually very late and much more expensive than we want.

29:33Jared Isaacman:And none of us want that. We all enjoyed the headlines of Artemis II. You know, even though we had done very similar things, you know, a half a half century earlier, you know, it reminded us of what's possible and got us all excited. We don't want to wait several years in between the next the next episode. Right. So I think getting back to doing a lot of littles up front and learning what does and doesn't work to inform the next phase. It worked very well for NASA in the 1960s. We're bringing it back. So what I described phase one. And this is before the astronauts ever get there in 28. We're going to be dropping landers and rovers on a near monthly basis.

30:06Jared Isaacman:We're going to take advantage of the commercial market that exists today, the CLPS program that started years past. We're going to start printing these things off. We'll learn from every one of them in that incredibly harsh environment on the lunar South Pole. Because if we're going there and we're going to build a base, we better at least do it near the water ice or what are we doing there? And we're going to learn how to survive in that environment. And we're going to do it before we lock in the dream state. So I'm like, I don't want to hear how we're locking in lunar comms, surface or orbital yet, or what our power source is going to be.

30:36Jared Isaacman:or what the interface is going to be between the rover and some future state nuclear reactor. Let's start landing stuff now and learning in this environment, and we'll use it to roll into a subsequent design. And phase one is going to leave a lot of debris everywhere like that, a lot of dead rovers and landers. But we're going to learn from it, and then we'll roll into phase two. And I think once starships are launching with frequency and they've worked out orbital prop transfer, and once Blue Origin's got their on-orbit aggregation strategy, down, then when you're moving mass very efficiently to surface, that's when you roll in the humanoid robots.

31:11Jared Isaacman:Again, you want the least you want the fewest reasons possible to ever put an astronaut in a suit outside the base unless there was no other alternative. And humanoid robots are going to give you that.

31:20Peter Diamandis:Best guess under over when we see the first humanoid robot walking on the moon.

31:24Jared Isaacman:In my mind, I would think that on the uncrewed lander demonstrations, which both Blue Origin and SpaceX need to do in advance of the lunar landing, that's already contractual. I'd kind of be shocked if somebody didn't smuggle one on board. But we're not waiting that long, right? I mean, you're talking the next four years, maybe six years as a window as these start showing up and building that infrastructure.

31:48Peter Diamandis:Boots on the moon, except they're optimists or figure boots on the moon, circa 2028, 29. That's great. Alex, over to you, pal. Yeah, pulling on this lunar theme. Jared, 20 years ago, you were a civilian pilot with ambition, and you, in some sense, you bought your way into space. There are many civilian pilots out there right now, some of whom have written to me, that would absolutely love a path to the moon, a path to be basically a civilian settler corps, including apparently Peter, who would love to be civilian settlers or reserve astronauts with a way to the moon. Question for you, does NASA, do you and or NASA have any plans or have you contemplated setting up a civilian settler corps to enable those trained civilian pilots who want to move to the moon or spend time on the moon to travel and move to the moon or to Mars?

32:43Peter Diamandis:Or do you perceive that pathway as being purely commercial and not flowing through NASA?

32:49Jared Isaacman:So there's a lot there to that. Let me just first say that having an aviation background is hardly a requirement anymore. I mean, there are certainly advantages that come in. But if you think about what a crew of astronauts should look like going from the Earth to the Moon or Mars, having one or two people with that background, important and helpful for sure. If you want, I think number one in this, and this also very much qualifies Peter, is medical professionals. The technology to enable humans to go to Mars is going to happen far faster or sooner than having the countermeasures in place for how demanding physiologically it is to be in space, not to mention psychologically as well, especially when you get to extreme distances like Mars.

33:41Jared Isaacman:I just don't ever see a world in our lifetime where you're not going to have considerable investments in medical professionals supporting outposts on the moon and certainly Mars someday. Now, what does that mean? Again, what is NASA's charter again? I think we're out there trying to, again, unlock the secrets of the universe. And every step, moon, Mars thereafter, is just a step on that journey for crewed and uncrewed missions. And there will always be a need for NASA astronauts. And I'd be shocked if you didn't see at some point in time that NASA astronauts played a role in helping train and certify commercial or private crews going on those those missions.

34:23Jared Isaacman:The same way that as a pilot, you know, whether it's an FAA examiner or an FAA designee is verifying that a pilot is safe to fly in in national airspace to take off and land. And what is something that is inherently dangerous? Well, you know, several times that once you start leaving our atmosphere. So there'll be a role for NASA astronauts in this. And hopefully as costs come down, again, back to rapid reusability and you have the ability to put hundreds and thousands of people in space through, you know, through government programs, you're going to you're going to you're going to require a lot more NASA astronauts.

34:56Jared Isaacman:But but no doubt there is going to be a time period where private and commercial will far out overtake that in terms of the number of people living and working in space on moon or elsewhere. And I'd love to think that the expertise inherent with NASA will help set up those private and commercial astronauts for success.

35:13Peter Diamandis:Alex, we're going to speed run the moon as a harsh mistress without the rocks falling on Earth. Rod's from God, Peter. Rod's from God. Dave, over to you, pal. Yeah, you mentioned a second ago that the South Pole of the moon is a particularly harsh environment. I'd love to drill in on that. And is it harsher in particular or is it just the moon in general is harsh that you're referring to?

35:35Jared Isaacman:Well, I think the moon in general is rather harsh, but I mean, you're talking about negative 400 degrees in some of the permanently shaded regions. I mean, we actually have survival problems in the South Pole of the moon that exceed that of Mars. So, you know, it's certainly going to be the, as I said, again, the optimal proving ground that we've been gifted several days away from Earth for everything else that humankind should hope to achieve in space someday. So at least it's close enough to come home if we run into some challenges.

36:08Peter Diamandis:So then what does that mean for this race that's on right now? Your launch costs are coming down like crazy, and that's because of reusability. And at the same time, the idea of having mass drivers on the moon as a way to get more things into orbit is a really compelling idea. And so that idea is moving at a pretty good clip, too. So, you know, there's a view of the world where launch costs come down so much that, you know, when you watch one of these launches, the amount of energy it takes to get a ton into orbit is just mind-boggling. And not being in the gravity well is really compelling. You know, you can just railgun it right off the moon instead.

36:44Peter Diamandis:On the other hand, you were just describing how harsh an environment that is. So actually manufacturing the first railguns on the moon and then getting something significant, you know, manufactured there to launch is a pretty daunting challenge. So how do you see the timelines of those two ways of getting things into space competing with each other?

37:01Jared Isaacman:Well, it's a really interesting question. Here's one where, again, you don't bet against Elon and his big engineering brain on the subject. I mean, how cool would it be to have a mass driver on the moon? I'm all for it. But it does beg the question a little bit that if Starship is, and just, again, broadly, rapid reusability is such a game changer, where you're turning around these vehicles in a matter of hours and your cost is essentially the consumables, if you have to bring a lot of the materials necessary to assemble, build, whatever it is you're looking to accelerate off of the moon with the mass driver to the moon, could you not just bring it from the get-go?

37:44Jared Isaacman:So, you'd have to be highly confident that, again, the costs to refine, extract, manufacture from the regolith on the moon, unless we're starting to get really going and retrieving asteroids and everything else, will be lower. And then, essentially, 3D printing it on the moon and using the mass driver to accelerate will be lower and more economical than transporting the materials to the moon in the first place through what should be an extremely economical form of bringing mass to the surface of the moon. But that's, again, people that are far smarter than me are thinking out the long-term picture on that.

38:24Jared Isaacman:I just want to get us back to the moon because we've been waiting damn long enough.

38:28Peter Diamandis:Yeah, we have. Salim? You know, there's a huge tension in geopolitics where the going to space is really kind of a humanity effort. And I love the way NASA is always positioned that way. How do you take into account all the geopolitical tensions with China, India, Russia all trying to get to the moon? And long term, do you see that resolving in some way? Or does it just stay attention and you just figure out how to navigate it? But is the competition better than the collaboration for your budget, at least for all mankind?

39:01Jared Isaacman:Yeah, of course it is. Look, there's nothing wrong with having good, healthy. We're Americans. We like competition. It worked very well for us in the 1960s. And now now what happens? Peter and I go to Baikonur in 2008 and the same rocket we were competing against was helping. I mean, it was really the beginning of the commercial space era in a lot of ways. And then, again, just days ago, I was able to take a close friend in NASA astronaut and walk him to the ladder of Soyuz. So what an example of where competition fueled so much for the benefit of all in early days and now turns into a collaborative effort of which without, you would not be able to sustain the International Space Station, especially in cases like Crew-11 where NASA had to recall our crew complement.

39:48Jared Isaacman:and yet you were able to have continuity because there was an American who was up there, Chris Williams, via the Soyuz method. So, look, where competition starts can lead to really totally fine outcomes in the end. Right now, China and the U.S. for sure are both very committed to getting to the moon. The Chinese and their roadmap, it will lead to success. There's no doubt. I mean, they will absolutely do what the Soviets could not in the 1960s. We would certainly like to get there before them. They're building a base. We're going to build a base. This is fine. This is all good things. And certainly we've shown that even having a space race can help.

40:34Jared Isaacman:And its eventual collaborative means, if it turns into collaborative means like we have in the International Space Station, can transcend a lot of the geopolitical strife that can happen here on Earth.

40:46Peter Diamandis:Chinese on the moon by 2030, that's their goal? Do you think they hit it?

40:51Jared Isaacman:Yes, I do. I think that they have a second mover advantage in a lot of ways. They do not have any baggage. What do I mean by that? If you look at the way they're, I want to say their civil space program, but they've recently merged that back again into their military efforts. It's all on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo era. They're building centers and recruiting the people they need to do one thing. Stennis just doing propulsion, for example. Kennedy Space Center just launching rockets. Marshall doing a lot of the engineering. Texas being the operations and training center. That's how they all began.

41:32Jared Isaacman:If you think about it, it's analogous, again, to the Manhattan Project of what did we need Los Alamos for? What did we need Oak Ridge for? And what happens absent competition is all those centers that were built to serve a specific purpose where you recruited talent to do a specific job turn into doing anything other than maybe what they were doing in the first place, or at least adding on a lot of other things that can distract from its original intended purpose. Now, what are we doing at NASA? We're going around and refocusing everybody back into that original direction. The Chinese do not have any of that baggage right now.

42:09Jared Isaacman:They're literally starting from scratch and highly focused in their effort. They're drawing on a playbook that worked very well for us in the 1960s. I have no doubt they're going to achieve their goals.

42:18Peter Diamandis:And they have five-year plans, not annual budget cycles. Yeah. Yeah. Salim. Yeah. When you look at the constraints that you're facing culturally at NASA, you know, there used to be this huge mantra that failure is not an option, right? And clearly your mindset is one of nonstop experimentation and learning. What are the biggest hurdles that you're facing in shifting the culture inside NASA to something like the new model of how we build organizations?

42:49Jared Isaacman:Well, I would just say that I don't think the culture of, and I don't even say accepting more risk, really, a lot of what you see, at least in my opinion, when you see some of the things that SpaceX have done and how they choose to operate, is very similar to how NASA operated in the 1960s. I mean, we had the same 20-something-year-olds that were burning themselves out, brilliant minds doing incredible things, making tough decisions, extreme ownership, moving with urgency. and look how many people talk about NASA doesn't blow up rockets. Go back into the late 1950s, early 1960s on YouTube, and you can see plenty of examples of our iterative design philosophy not working out initially, and then rolling in what we learned into subsequent versions.

43:44Jared Isaacman:In a lot of ways, they've drawn on what worked well for NASA during that time period. They're They're far more efficient with their capital allocation than any government agency. There's no doubt about that. And we are just going back. I mean, that's what we're trying to do, is pivot a little bit more in the direction of where we started. And focusing, again, our resources on those kind of, you know, those near impossible type objectives. Now, where I'd say there's sometimes resistance is when people generally hate change. That's just human behavior. and absent competition and a policy of trying to make everyone happy for so long, trying to get people to stop doing what they're passionate about or what they've been working on for a long time, which could be awesome and very cool work, but saying, we've got to get back to the moon.

44:32Jared Isaacman:We've got to build the moon base. We can never give up the moon again. We have to help industry to the extent possible and rapid reusability as a true game changer, enabler for all the other things we want to do. Science is fantastic. I love Hubble. I love James Webb. I love all that we're working on. We just need to do more of it. We can't get comfortable launching flagship missions every 10 years. We want to be doing it annually. And even now, I'll tell you in meetings when somebody brings up like, we're really excited about this. It's going to launch in 2035. We're really excited about this.

45:03Jared Isaacman:It's going to launch in 2045. It was like, I don't want my grandchildren to be excited about this mission. I want to be excited about it. So those are the things where culturally implementing some change can be, you know, a challenge, but we're getting there.

45:18Peter Diamandis:I love you for that. You know, let's talk about nuclear one second. Thank you for reigniting nuclear as a propulsion system and an energy source. So on the nuclear propulsion side, you know, I will sort of jokingly say how long before we can make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs or more near term, how long before we can get to Mars in 90 days? What's your plan to nuclear propulsion?

45:44Jared Isaacman:First plan is just put a win up on the board, which is what SR1 Freedom is. It's a lot of repurposed hardware, no doubt. It's funny, I think Politico put an article out today on, NASA administrator intends to spend$2.5 billion on his nuclear power and propulsion spaceship. It was like, actually, the taxpayers spent that money over the last few years already. I'm just repurposing it into something that has real practical value instead of sitting in a warehouse or in a lab for some time period. So the PPE element, power propulsion element from the gateway, we repurpose. That's basically the main spacecraft.

46:19Jared Isaacman:All of its electric thrusters, it's already integrated into it. We have a nuclear reactor, at least components of it that have been matured and funded by other services for decades at INL that we're going to use as the baseline for the reactor. So look, this is what Nautilus was. Nautilus was a diesel boat, and it got repurposed in a nuclear sub. A lot of people don't know it, but even Rickover said, hey, it was the 70 % solution, but it gave birth to the nuclear Navy. We're trying to do the exact same thing at NASA. So SR-1 is not going to knock your socks off out of the gate. It's not mass-optimized by any means, but it's a step in the right direction.

46:56Jared Isaacman:What comes thereafter will continue to be optimized until what I think is the ultimate goal is to be able to bring astronauts to Mars and back with the fewest miracles required. And that may not always be the fastest way, but if it doesn't require cryogenic refueling as a step to getting the boots on Mars, that's a win. So I actually think that the first human mission to Mars will be, at least if it was NASA, would be chemically augmented nuclear electric propulsion and be able to send astronauts to Mars and bring them back, not the fastest, but without having to require a lot of extra miracles along the way.

47:35Jared Isaacman:And we just got to keep going. This is the whole point of taking it out of the lab, getting into practical application, budgeting it properly. Because material science is the hotter we can run the reactor, the more mass we can save because we don't need football field size radiators that are up there. The better we can do with power conversion, the more we challenge solar as the optimal pathway, at least inside of Jupiter. But there's no doubt if you want to go in the outer solar system and you want to at least delay the necessity of cryogenic refueling for missions to crude missions to Mars and back, like we got to be making investments in nuclear.

48:11Jared Isaacman:Love it. Dave.

48:13Peter Diamandis:Yeah. You know, if you if you achieve that goal, it seems like the technical risk is seems like a very doable challenge. You know, it's out there, but doable. Then you have this kind of foot race between are we trying to put boots on Mars so that we can then back up humanity on Mars someday? Or is it more likely that we start putting humans in orbit, you know, kneel colonies in the asteroid belt and using that material, which is, you know, surprisingly abundant? Because you've got these two science fiction views of the world, you know, or the future of humanity, one where there are many, many space stations out there.

48:47Peter Diamandis:and they're huge they have 10 000 people on them the other is no we've colonized mars and that's our backup copy of humanity and there's kind of a an equal foot race between those two views of where we're going to do you have a you have a preference between those versus bezos in that

49:00Jared Isaacman:regard yeah very much so very much so yeah well i mean look step one uh we need rapid reusability and on-orbit assembly because whatever spacecraft are going to take humans to mars whether it's just the lucky few to support an outpost versus necessarily a colony or actually achievable missions. On-orbit assembly is everything. Rapid reusability is our step in that direction. Look, from my perspective, we cross the oceans for a better life. It's extremely unlikely in any near term that you're going to go to Mars and have a better life or live on a space station and have a better life. I think a lot of initial motivation in our lifetimes will probably be much more akin to going to Antarctica for an extended scientific duration or campaign down there.

49:58Jared Isaacman:But it's just a step. Again, we're trying to conquer the tyranny of distance that is inherent in our solar system and our galaxy and beyond. We have to start somewhere. And we're lucky we've got a moon that's nearby to help us learn. The next step is Mars. That is going to be another learning environment. Generally favor gravity, again, for overcoming the physiological challenges of being in space. So I guess we're getting totally, we've evolved to be born and live in a mega space station is not, I guess, out of the realm of possible. But I think a lot of the problems that we know we encounter when even keeping people on the space station for six months, even a six, a third of gravity is going to make a huge difference along the way.

50:42Jared Isaacman:But presumably we will have conquered artificial gravity and such in that effort, too.

50:46Peter Diamandis:I love this saying, if God had wanted humanity to become an interplanetary species, she would have given us a moon. And we have one. Salim, over to you for asteroid mining. You know, asteroid mining has been this promise, Peter, you and I, you've kind of tracking that, you've invested and built companies around that. Do you think it's a real thing or is it perpetually 20 years away? And if it is, does NASA take an active role or do you just enable the private sector to go down there?

51:14Jared Isaacman:Well, I think we can be helpful. Again, I think about, again, our primary objective is, you know, if you want your NASA's sole focus to be on, you know, stimulating the economic potential of microgravity or from asteroids or on the lunar surface, put it under the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce has a space office. Again, I do think foundational. Our job is to go out and answer the questions. Are we alone? Unlock the secrets of the universe. World-changing, pioneering technological breakthroughs in air and space. From my perspective, if we are investing in the capabilities that are necessary to undertake missions to the moon to build a moon base to go to Mars.

51:55Jared Isaacman:And along the way, you can have demonstrations or work with industry that bring us closer to asteroid mining. We should do it. And we actually have some methods that we're exploring to do that. So, the America's Compete Act actually allows us to put prizes out there. And I'm very open to doing it, not trying to compete at all with the X Prize and that. But we could work or potentially partner on that. I'll let the lawyers weigh in on that. I'd like, go and do something cool with an asteroid. And we can put up$25 million. I don't know, hypothetically. But I would like to believe that by making investments in that, it's going to give us, I don't know, the hypergolf thrusters that we need to reduce the cost for landers on the moon or Mars someday.

52:36Jared Isaacman:I think it always has to be further in our scientific and exploration objectives as a space agency.

52:42Peter Diamandis:Welcome to the health section of Moonshots brought to you by Fountain Life. You know, AI is having an outsized impact on every aspect of our lives, how we teach our kids, how we run our companies. It also is having a huge impact on health, helping you prevent heart disease. One of the key things. I'm here with Dr. Dawn Musalem, our chief medical officer at Fountain. Heart disease has been personal for you as well, hasn't it? It really has, Peter. My daughter was five. My husband died of sudden cardiac death. And so this is a topic that is one that I am mission-driven to try to eradicate. Prevention first and early detection is absolutely critical.

53:18Peter Diamandis:50 % of people die of heart attacks with no warning signs. No shortness of breath, no pain, no nothing. No, silent killer. They just don't wake up in the morning. They don't wake up. And so, you know, AI, this is our mission to advance science, to try to help to one day democratize wellness. We know at Fountain Life, when we do this CT angiography with AI analytics, we are actually finding that 88 % of people coming in have detectable coronary disease. But Peter, what's more alarming to me is 23 % of those individuals had soft plaque. This is the plaque that would not traditionally be seen on CT looking at calcium scores alone.

53:54Peter Diamandis:And this is the plaque that we must intervene with, with the multimodal testing we're doing, including diagnostic laboratory studies partnered with healthy lifestyle recommendations. So listen, make sure you understand what's going on inside your body genetically, metabolically, and cardiovascularly. You can know, and it's your obligation to know. So check it out at fountainlife.com slash Peter to find out more and really make sure that you're the CEO of your own health. All right, back to the episode. Jared, let's talk about getting to Mars. So Elon is very aggressively committed to going to Mars.

54:30Peter Diamandis:And, you know, I was there with him when he was having the conversation and he basically said, we're going to shut down Falcon 9 because it's not going to get us to Mars. And we're going after Starship all in, you know, burning the boats, as you said. So the question is, when he decides to make those missions, is that funding for that fully private? Or do you imagine you're going to be able to step in and help fund those private missions? And what's a timeline? When do you think the earliest will set boots on Mars? You know, Optimus boots and then human boots. What's your under over on that?

55:07Jared Isaacman:Well, I think, again, I'm pretty excited about the TAM that SpaceX and others are pursuing right now with orbital data centers and such. Because, again, you saw the – here's an interesting stat. Actually, I was on a Fox interview and somebody started bringing up polling. And I was like, oh, man, I'm way out of my depth on this one. They were like, did you know that 69 % of the American public supports NASA returning to the moon in contrast to 30 some odd percent in 1967 at a comparable time period? And sorry, any any anyway, on that note, I think that SpaceX, SpaceX right now, if they were to put all of their capital and focus on going to Mars, it would be very different time frame than right now where their state intention is going to the moon.

56:03Jared Isaacman:So when you ask the question of, look, we're going back, Boots will be on the moon in 2028, we're going to build the base and learn from that environment, and SpaceX pursuing this mega TAM that allows them to make investments and capabilities for the good of all humankind, which is probably, again, why it's 69 % approval rate versus in the 1960s when it was 4.5 % of the discretionary budget. And I'm sure that was a big factor in why we were in the 30 % range for going to the moon because, hey, we got a lot of other problems back here on Earth. So good companies like SpaceX that are pursuing these massive TAMs and all this economic potential in space allows them to make investments alongside NASA to do all these great things for humankind is probably why you generally have greater public support for what we're pursuing.

56:46Jared Isaacman:But the fact that moon is step one for them right now, or at least stated intent, is certainly going to change some of the timelines on Mars and absolutely would change the quantity of people we're talking about on Mars. So we can make investments in nuclear power and propulsion as part of the national space policy. It is the next giant leap. And potentially put a pathway with the fewest miracles required to, I don't know, put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years. That's not obviously the Elon vision of like millions of people someday in a self-sustaining city on Mars. But NASA can do some things governmentally through taxpayer funding, leveraging investments in nuclear investments over many decades, plus industry coming alongside it.

57:30Jared Isaacman:SpaceX saying, forget the moon, we're going all in, like Elon was saying a couple years ago, is much faster, for sure. Because now you're concentrating all that brilliant brainpower and their capital and resources towards achieving that objective. So, it seems like we're on step one, going to the moon. It's going to happen in 2028. We're going to learn a lot there. In parallel, we're going to make investments in nuclear power and propulsion. SpaceX will unlock this, you know, along with the rest of industry that's pursuing all the economic potential in space. And hopefully that will free up a lot more resources for the next stop on this journey, which is Mars.

58:00Jared Isaacman:That's a different time frame. Again, I think, you know, you're probably in that 15-year time frame.

58:05Peter Diamandis:Best guess, first mission to Mars is private. First mission to Mars is NASA. I wouldn't say mission to Mars. I mean landed astronaut mission.

58:15Jared Isaacman:I would bet on NASA would probably be first. And that's just because I do think your first mission, if you want to bring back people to talk about it, like NASA is not doing one way missions. And as a result, I think your dependency on chemical propulsion has to be limited. Because otherwise, you're going to need a lot of Optimus robots on Mars, and they're going to be walking around dusting off all the solar panels without nuclear for making propellant. And then it's hard enough to fuel a launch pad here in 1G and under one atmosphere, let alone making the propellant on another planet, reloading a rocket and bringing it back.

58:58Peter Diamandis:I love that view, because if you scratched and clawed with chemical propellant your way to Mars, you'd be exactly repeating the 1960s moon mission where, yeah, we barely got there, but not in any kind of thing we can build on, not in a sustainable, reusable kind of way. But if you do it with nuclear propulsion, then you actually have a pathway to doing it repeatedly and not just going as a one off. It's such a cool vision.

59:23Jared Isaacman:Just initially, right? I mean, so there's no doubt. To me, Starship and everything it hopes to achieve is just when. There's no if on that one. So step one, get it going. Put up a lot of depots in low Earth orbit. Make the moon efficient transport of mass to the lunar surface. Build the infrastructure. Master a lot of in-situ resource skills you're going to need. Because those are all necessary if you want to pull off Mars in a return trip without nuclear. But even then, minimum, you're still going to want nuclear surface power if you can. And we're testing that on the moon as well. or else, again, you'll need a lot of Optimus robots cleaning off football fields of solar panels.

59:58Jared Isaacman:But step one to start that foundation, imagine the space shuttle orbiter equivalent, obviously assembled on orbit assembly, of these NEP, chemically augmented NEP spaceships. And yes, it might be three years round trip with 30-day surface time, but it's a start, and you get in a rotation until eventually the V6 starships are rolling, and you've got armies of Optimus robots and nuclear power on the surface of Mars. And then then you could be you could just you're just extending what you've already proven you can do to the moon to Mars. Dave, you want to continue?

1:00:29Peter Diamandis:Yeah. Well, OK. So you've seen For All Mankind, right? I'm sure.

1:00:33Jared Isaacman:I got to admit, I was there a lot during the first couple of seasons and I've been really busy of late.

1:00:41Peter Diamandis:Imagine that. Well, you know, the way it plays out in the TV world is, you know, the U.S. and Russia at the time are cooperating in space because everybody's just trying to, you know, build and create and survive. And then something back on Earth, you know, creates tension. And then they radio up and say, stop cooperating with the Russians. So here we are in a moon race with China. The competition is good. As you said, it's going to get everybody there faster. do you have a counterpart in China that you talk to or does it all get tied up? And, you know, we talk a lot about on the podcast about Kimmy K3 coming out in a couple of weeks.

1:01:14Peter Diamandis:That's going to create all kinds of drama. Does that drama then come back to you? Six days, Dave. Six days now. Oh, geez. Yeah, that's a turning point. Give us the inside baseball. How does it actually work? Can you talk to China or do you have to go to the White House and call from the bat phone or how does it work?

1:01:31Jared Isaacman:I mean, the foreign policy is established by the president and the secretary of state. Now, a lot of that policy has already been established with the International Space Station and our cooperation with the Russians for a while. So I would say regular sounds like a lot. It's probably more quarterly, maybe a little bit more frequent than that, communication with my counterpart in Russia, Director General Bukhanov. I was just with him during the Soyuz launch because there's already established norms of operation in half for more than a quarter of a century. And that certainly, again, has proven to transcend a lot of the political climate that happens here on Earth.

1:02:12Jared Isaacman:Now, with the Chinese, the Wolf Amendment pretty much restricts NASA from establishing any sort of norms. you know so there is some scientific data sharing outside of nasa with universities and such but that's you know um so i would say we are very much squarely in the competitor lane we obviously watch what they do and have an appreciation for their approach they very much watch what we do i would just say in terms of your for all my mankind i don't think it's a secret that you know the the ultimate high ground of space at this point i mean that is a that is a war fighting domain. So, you know, in the, you know, in the horrifically unlikely event, the day we never want to see come where, you know, that things have devolved, I don't think it's going to be a shooting war on the surface of the moon between troops.

1:03:03Jared Isaacman:You know, I think that there's a lot of things that would go down in space that have far more strategic implications back here on Earth to affect whatever war fighting means they're trying to achieve before it would ever require, you know, boots on the moon duking it out on the surface. I hope there is no scenario where that ever seems like a good idea.

1:03:24Peter Diamandis:What about just a quick follow-up on that? What about just the more narrow case? When the SpaceX IPO came out, it was very, very clear that it's first come, first serve in low Earth orbit. And it's been a long time since on Earth we've had land grabs where, you know, hey, our Navy is finding new islands, we're just going to claim them. Well, that's a long, long past idea. But now in space, low Earth orbit is first come, first serve. The moon is first come, first serve. So that that seems like is there any cooperation or does when the White House is deciding what the rules are, do they call NASA and you all get together and say, look, this is this is the rules as we see them?

1:04:01Peter Diamandis:Or how does that how does that part work?

1:04:03Jared Isaacman:Well, we're not I don't think anyone is talking about new rules. So we have the Outer Space Treaty. And in some respects, sure, that is first come, first serve. And that if I'm putting a you know, if we need to put a lander in a certain spot and we value that spot for whatever reason, you know, the first person to get it there is it. But I mean, look, it's a big moon. Even when you think about the South Pole, it's still rather you know, it's still rather large. And we're still, even in NASA's moon-based plan vision of dozens of landers over the next few years during phase one, there's still a lot of moon to go around.

1:04:39Jared Isaacman:And look, I think even when we think about low-Earth orbit and the orbital regimes that are available for data centers, comms, there's a lot of opportunity there. I think just making sure we are sharing information in terms of the orbital trajectories is obviously vital. And I know many in industry have spoken out and pointed out that if we fail to disclose information about where these orbital constellations are going to propagate, then that creates collision risk and problems that impact everybody. And that's something, again, that I think everybody, even in times of conflict, when we have airliners flying around the world, we're communicating with each other.

1:05:22Jared Isaacman:There's transponders. And we are avoiding potential hazards in that respect at all costs. That needs to happen better in space.

1:05:33Peter Diamandis:You know, when you look at how you try and manage a government department, every time a new cycle comes through, you're trying to negotiate and juggle budgeting, right? How do you make long-term commitments when the budgeting cycle goes up and down like a yo-yo with the political cycles? Is there a way of solving for that? Because I know previous projects have been really hampered by that lack of budgeting capability. How do you preserve the budget over the next five years to get the base built? And can we help you increase it? Yeah. Can we donate? You know, it's an interesting thing.

1:06:10Jared Isaacman:I mean, people have talked about when I came in that, you know, the continuity between administrations and the availability in the budget cycle is what forced us into certain situations like creating programs that are too big to fail. But in my opinion, they become too costly to succeed. Like, you know, NASA gets$25 billion a year, right? It's a lot of money. When people start saying, we don't have enough money to do the job, it's like, really? I know some of the most extraordinary companies in the world were founded for far less and have built some pretty impressive capabilities. If that's not the right number, what is?

1:06:46Jared Isaacman:What I think is important is preserving flexibility between administrations. You talk about phase one of the moon base. If I had come out and said, all right, here's the vision. It's going to be glass, and it's going to have this amazing closed-loop ecosystem in it, and a Ferris wheel, and we're going to have big crop farms on the surface. It's only going to cost$100 billion, but we'll be able to pay it off as a service to these three companies over time. It's going to get canceled. It's going to be under assault constantly. But what did we do with phase one? We said, look, we're going to do low-cost landers every month, and we're going to start learning.

1:07:21Jared Isaacman:And now, if a new administration comes in and says, you know what, once a month, it's too much. We can dial it back to eight, and we still feel like we can get where we want to go. That's fine. Or you have somebody very forwardly, we're going to go 15. We want to pick up the pace in this. Great. That is much better. Same with our nuclear program going from SR-1 to SR-2. We're not jumping right to Battlestar Galactica here. We want to start with the Nautilus, and maybe we'll do a nuclear mission to, I don't know, Enceladus or Uranus. That's another good one. Any of the outer solar system missions would be nice.

1:08:00Jared Isaacman:They'll start testing out high-temperature materials and better power conversion. A lot better than saying we're going to just build the Battlestar Galactica or something, and then that gets canceled. So, I think this is just smart capital allocation, guys, is really what it is. It's focus. $25 billion is a lot of money every year. A lot of money. The entire Manhattan Project, you know, over four years adjusted for inflation was$33 billion. We can do a lot every year with a reload of$25 billion. Just focus it on the needle moving objectives and design the programs, the architecture in such a way, not too big to fail, that keeps, you know, on the chopping block.

1:08:34Jared Isaacman:Do it in a logical, evolutionary way to get to where you want to go.

1:08:37Peter Diamandis:Amen. Alex, over to you about life in the universe of science. I'm curious, Jared, you've made public comments in the past commenting that you estimate a 90 % probability of life or former life on the Mars subsurface. I'd be very curious to hear what is your mental model of non-Earth-based life in the solar system, in the universe? Does it look more like panspermia? Does it look more like life is ubiquitous, life is rare? What is your mental model at this point?

1:09:11Jared Isaacman:So, first of all, I was discounting when I said 90%. I think if you talk to some of the brightest minds here at NASA, they would give you almost 100 % certainty that at one point there was microbial life on Mars. And I think really we're in this, you know, seeing is believing. I can't. No one's willing to make the declarative statement based on, you know, I would say, I want to say failed efforts. But, you know, they were kind of swinging and misses in the past that people said for sure it was there. And then they walk it back. I just don't think the scientific community is going to reach that consensus unless you bring those samples back to Earth and you get enough people looking under a microscope.

1:09:51Jared Isaacman:Or, you know, that's just an example, you know, not quite literally in that to say, OK, it was there. Now, if it turns out to be the case, and I think we're very much talking, again, very dead microbial life. I mean, for all purposes, Mars is at vacuum. I think it would be extremely unlikely, like a virtually nonexistent chance that there's anything still active there. But if you can prove that there was, at one point, microbial life there, and then Europa Clipper starts sending back some interesting data, and Titan. You send Dragonfly to Titan, you get a mission off to Enceladus. And this is all in our backyard.

1:10:31Jared Isaacman:This is our star system, right? Let alone the billions of other stars out there, the trillions of other galaxies and all of the exoplanets that would be in Goldilocks zones. It changes the dynamic a little bit from surely it must be out there somewhere to what if it's everywhere. Now, look, there is certainly an evolutionary nature to this and a technological filter you have to break through to some extent to actually have the, to cross into the intelligent life to come and visit us, which I think just, look, there's a lot, again, with the tyranny of distance in space that makes that a substantial obstacle.

1:11:20Jared Isaacman:But I certainly believe that as we undertake more missions like Dragonfly and Europa Clipper and get even more events where nuclear power and propulsion maybe can take our probes there and back with greater ease, that we might reach conclusions that at least, you know, that probably to answer the question that we've been entrusted to solve is whether or not we're alone.

1:11:46Peter Diamandis:You're arguably the NASA administrator during the most extraordinary time of scientific missions as well. I mean, Dragonfly looking for the chemistry of life on Titan's pretty extraordinary. Can you imagine a time where you're like 10Xing or 100Xing the science missions out there with AI and robotics? I mean, the price of manufacturing is plummeting by allowing yourself to increase the risk and just really aggressively sending out probes?

1:12:13Jared Isaacman:Here, here. I'm 100%, Peter. I think what we're faced with to some extent, right, is, and maybe this is a budgetary cycle point, is I do think that once big flagship programs have been greenlit, there is a risk element to it too, which is it can't fail. So therefore, I have to build in more and more redundancy. And if it's going to cost this much, then it better do even more than what I originally intended. And a$1 billion, by definition, flagship program becomes$3 billion. And as a result, it takes a really long time to come to fruition. But I think there's another element to it, too, the fear of what comes next.

1:12:52Jared Isaacman:And that's also a human nature thing. And a lot of us, you see across people's professional careers, they kind of entrench themselves and build moats and walls around whatever they do for almost job security to some extent and never want to engineer themselves out of a job. And then there's some extraordinary companies out there where people can't wait to engineer themselves out of a job because they believe whatever they work on next is 10 times cooler. We need to do the same thing here. So that's kind of the human side of it, aside from where technology will benefit us, is that if I'm working on Dragonfly, I'm going to bang this thing out so fast because whatever I work on thereafter is going to be 10x that.

1:13:38Jared Isaacman:And then get all of our teams, our science mission directorate budget,$7 billion a year. Do you believe with what you know to be coming into existence between AI and additive manufacturing that with$7 billion a year, we couldn't be cranking out seven Dragonflies a year? Hundreds.

1:13:54Peter Diamandis:Yeah, right?

1:13:56Jared Isaacman:So I'm totally with you. We have to move in that direction. And that's a cultural change, too, not to mention, obviously, technologically enabling. But it's just a matter of time. Can I just get a follow-on to that?

1:14:09Peter Diamandis:Your access to that AI, being a government agency, like when Mythos came out and now Fable 5, did you get preferential access? And can you use your government position to get the latest, greatest stuff? Because that's going to become an issue very soon. It's already, you know, it was an issue just a few weeks ago for the first time in history. But that's the bellwether for the future. But do you get special access to frontier AI going forward? Yeah.

1:14:36Jared Isaacman:So, I mean, I really have no interest in wading into any of the policy discussions in terms of what has to be made available to government in advance and whether it's optional or not. I think that Director Kratzios at OSTP and all those that contribute to ensuring government agencies are armed with the best technology for the good of the nation and humankind, they're doing that well. I'll leave that over there. I'll just say, where we have some access, when you think about things like nuclear power and propulsion, again, giving birth to NASA's nuclear-navy equivalency, you have a lot of data that would have come from a world that needs to be constantly doing analysis in that arena for a variety of programs.

1:15:27Jared Isaacman:And that could be an accelerant for some of NASA's ambitions that, you know, wouldn't be as applicable, I'd say, in the commercial or in the private sector, if that makes sense.

1:15:36Peter Diamandis:Alex, as we enter our final segment, let me give you the leadership here. Please take the lead. Beautiful. I have to ask, Administrator, this is, I think, the question on the minds of many people I've spoken with who would just love to hear your perspective, a bit of context. The Department of War recently dropped their fourth release under the presidential unsealing and reporting system for UAP encounters. The White House and the Department of War and other cabinet-level agencies have seen sort of, I would argue, a sea shift in terms of how they talk about UAPs and the possibility of non-human intelligence.

1:16:17Peter Diamandis:As we speak, I think based on the headlines I was seeing right before we started this recording. Representative Burleson is introducing right now an amendment to the NDAA to encode in statute a variety of UAP-oriented reporting requirements. So I have to ask you the biggest question, I think, and you may be gestured at this earlier by speaking of NASA's ultimate mission as answering the big questions of are we alone? What is your position on the allegations regarding the possibility that there's been an 80-year-long legacy program? What is your position on the so-called Fermi paradox? What is your position?

1:16:57Peter Diamandis:NASA had a study group a couple of years ago that was publicly announced and held a press conference on UAP studies. If I could bundle this all up into one big question, what is your position on all of these allegations that there has been such a legacy program?

1:17:14Jared Isaacman:So what I would say is, first of all, there's already statutory language that goes back to, I want to say, 2022 that created the Arrow Group within the Department of War, where it's mandatory public disclosure of any information related to UAPs. So I don't know if this is a matter of law anymore, because that got supercharged under President Trump and his, what we interpret as a direct order, the executive order, he put out a truth that said, release everything. And within a week of that, I was in the situation room with the heads of almost every government agency. And we all went in there like, what do you know?

1:18:00Jared Isaacman:So and and what I'll tell you is there is a top down push from the president, you know, in the Homeland Security Advisor saying, if you have any data on this, I don't care what classification level it is. It has to be disclosed. And this is under the pursue effort. And if you go through those four tranches, I mean, I'm telling you that there we have released video footage, photographic evidence, eyewitness account. Some of them are from FBI agents that took the footage on some of these. I mean, you're talking highly credible individuals on sightings that we can't explain. Now, I do want to be very clear here.

1:18:44Jared Isaacman:Can't explain right now does not mean it's unexplainable. We are gathering data. I mean, the best example is think about your doorbell cams. We have cameras on everything. I mean, you've got drones that are up continuously right now in combat zones, right? And there is absolutely, I mean, I can't tell you it's conclusive. You've got a drone with an IR camera that catches something flying in the bottom corner. It's almost off frame, right? And is it a missile because it's in a combat zone? Is it another drone? Or is it something else, right? And the president said, put it out. Turn to basically citizen scientists.

1:19:24Jared Isaacman:Put it out there. We want to combat the notion that this is not a subject that people want to be transparent about and that there's stigma associated. Put it out there. And again, like some of it, pretty wild stuff when you look at it. Some of it I look at and say, you know what, if I had a couple scientists and I had a few other video, I'm pretty sure it's a balloon or I'm pretty sure it's a bird or I'm pretty sure it's a it's an Iranian, you know, one way attack drone. But based on the angle, I can't say that for sure. But then there's other stuff that, honestly, we can't explain what it is.

1:19:57Jared Isaacman:And the president is pushing it out. I will tell you, I have immense access and have been a seat at the table since the get-go on this. I have no information, no knowledge. I take a lie detector test on any crash spaceships or bodies or biological organisms on this. But for sure, we're gathering a lot of data, and there is some unexplained anomalous phenomenon. on and we are putting it out there as part of these disclosure efforts.

1:20:22Peter Diamandis:What is your, just a quick follow-up then, there have been a number of House and Senate hearings where a number of whistleblowers have testified under oath that there has been an 80-plus year long U.S. government and contractor effort to collect and reverse engineer UAPs. Again, in speaking with folks before this interview, this was the single biggest question they wanted me to ask you. What is your position on these allegations that other government agencies, perhaps portions of NASA even, have been involved in such an effort, even though, I take you at your word, haven't seen anything firsthand.

1:21:03Peter Diamandis:But nonetheless, there are a number of whistleblowers and enough whistleblowers that Congress has already taken steps, as you mentioned, via, I think it was the 2022 NDAA, which incorporated the RO statutes. What is your position, speaking either as an individual or as administrator of NASA, on all of these allegations?

1:21:23Jared Isaacman:My position on this is that, look, I don't want to comment as to the credibility of individuals. Look, ever since I was first nominated to this position, I get dozens of emails every day from some very bright and smart people giving their views and thoughts on things NASA should be doing or things that NASA has done. And some of it I look at and say, this is really insightful. And some of it I say is that that falls outside the bounds of what I think is perhaps credible on that. Just because somebody who worked for the government or had a clearance does not necessarily mean that their interpretation of what they saw is accurate.

1:22:07Jared Isaacman:So meaning, I saw the same videos that, you know, and they've been disclosed, by the way, that people were referencing saying it was 100 % an alien spaceship. And we put these videos out and you can look at them and determine whether or not you think that to be the case. And I think some of it is certainly unexplained based on what we know. And I think some of it, if you probably put enough people behind it, you'd say that was a, that was a weather balloon. You know, that was, you know, that was an Iranian one-way attack drone or something, something of that nature.

1:22:41Peter Diamandis:It would be great if we had alien spacecraft. I mean, that would definitely move the timeline forward by a couple of decades, if nothing else. I assume, Jared, you'd be quite excited if all of these allegations amounted to something non-trivial.

1:22:55Jared Isaacman:Yeah, look, I mean, it's what our job is here, right? I mean, you know, whether you're a space enthusiast or the head of NASA, don't you want to know if there is intelligent life out there? Isn't that, again, I think part of the greatest adventure in human history? If there was some crashed, you know, ET-level kind of technology that allowed you to, you know, exceed the cosmic speed limit, then we'd be doing everything we could to reverse engineer it and get it going. Because I want to know what's in other star systems out there. So, if it were true, we're terrible at reverse engineering, because I don't think anyone would argue that what the B-2 or the B-21 or the SR-71 was capable of doing is well within the realms of physics and our technological means at that time period, not something that would have been derived from aliens, and certainly not something that would have helped aliens get from another star system to Earth in that time period.

1:23:55Jared Isaacman:But look, again, we're putting things out. It's very forward-leaning, but I have not seen anything. There's no secret programs that I'm aware of related to biologics or crashed.

1:24:04Peter Diamandis:When I've interviewed Elon on the subject, he said, I would know. But shouldn't we have better photographs? We have great cameras. Why are they all so crappy? Celine, you want to close us out with a question? Oh, please.

1:24:16Jared Isaacman:I would also just say, Like, you know, look, if I came all this distance from another world, I'd be very curious about, I mean, some of the best people watching ever is in Times Square. It's on the Las Vegas Strip. Like, why are they showing up where we test our weapons? Why are they, you know, like they seem to be, and I'm not trying to be dismissive. Like I said, this is a subject that if you are a true space enthusiast, if you're excited about, you should want to know, you should be excited about. So I'm not being dismissive of any claims. I'm just saying that they tend to seem to show up where we keep our naval ships and where we test our advanced weapon systems.

1:24:56Peter Diamandis:You want to ask Imad's closing question here, Salim? Which one? I can't remember. So Imad asked, when we went to the moon, you know, the saying was we went to the moon because it's hard. So what's the new organizing goal that keeps everybody reinvigorated? You said before Apollo had a singulitarian mission, and now we're sort of spread out. Is there sort of one thread that pulls them all?

1:25:23Jared Isaacman:Yeah, I mean, and I think just in the same way that going to the moon was hard, all of the pioneering technology to get there had a direct benefit back here on Earth. The same is, I think, equally applicable. To me, this is all setting up for the day that astronauts plant the stars and stripes on Mars. We are going to the moon, and we are building a moon base. first and foremost to master the skills to go to Mars. It's just as you said before, Peter, we've been given this gift of a moon, you know, three to four days away from us to test out all of the capabilities from the spacesuits to the ECOS, habitation, the physiological countermeasures for being in the harsh reality of space, for in-situ resource manufacturing, for propellant life support systems to get to Mars.

1:26:09Peter Diamandis:Amazing. I hope everybody watching agrees with me that, But, you know, Jared is one of our most extraordinary administrators. Buddy, I have known many. I have never been more excited in my life for what NASA is going to be doing. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for stepping into this role and really bringing all your entrepreneurial energy, your vision, your engineering, your science, your passion to this. Grateful so much.

1:26:32Jared Isaacman:Well, can I just reciprocate and say thank you for your endless extreme optimism. in every one of the subjects that you take interest in and every one of the companies you create and where you choose to put your energies and resources are all for the betterment of humanity, and it's infectious. So thank you, Peter.

1:26:51Peter Diamandis:Thank you, buddy. Thank you. On behalf of the Moonshot Mates and everybody listening, awesome. Can't wait to watch your success next year. Thank you, Administrator. Thanks, guys. Truly a blast. Take care.

1:27:08Thank you.