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

Sourced by podcast-ingest on 2026-07-28. Auto-transcribed via AssemblyAI (universal-2, en). Speakers identified by AssemblyAI Speaker Identification using the per-podcast host/regulars hints; the resulting label→name mapping is in the frontmatter. Duration: 1h28m. Episode page: (not provided). Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/DVVTS1596453089.mp3.

Show notes (from RSS)

The mates chat with Jared Isaacman on NASA’s plan for a Moon base by 2028, Optimus Robots on the Moon, and the truth about UFO’s.

Get access to metatrends 10+ years before anyone else - https://qr.diamandis.com/metatrends

Peter H. Diamandis, MD, is the Founder of XPRIZE, Singularity University, ZeroG, and A360

Salim Ismail is the founder of Open ExO, a GP at Exponential Venture Capital/The Organizational Singularity Fund and a sought after global speaker and thought leader.

Dave Blundin is the founder & GP of Link Ventures

Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross is a computer scientist and founder of Reified

Jared Isaacman is an entrepreneur, pilot, and commercial astronaut who has served as the 15th administrator of NASA since December 2025.

–

My companies:

Apply to Dave's and my new fund:https://qr.diamandis.com/linkventureslanding

Go to Blitzy to book a free demo and start building today: https://qr.diamandis.com/blitzy

Your body is incredibly good at hiding disease. Schedule a call with Fountain Life to add healthy decades to your life, and to learn more about their Memberships: https://www.fountainlife.com/peter

_

Connect with Peter:

X

Instagram

Substack

Website

Xprize

A360

Connect with Dave:

Web

X

LinkedIn

Instagram

TikTok

Connect with Salim:

LinkedIn

X

Join Salim’s 10X Shift

Subscribe to Salim’s YouTube channel

Exponential Venture Capital

Connect with Alex

Website

LinkedIn

X

Email

Substack

Spotify

Threads

Connect with Jared:

X

Instagram

Listen to MOONSHOTS:

Apple

YouTube

–

*Recorded on July 21st, 2026

*The views expressed by me and all guests are personal opinions and do not constitute Financial, Medical, or Legal advice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Peter Diamandis: 2028, an aggressive timeline for landing on the moon steps. Getting there. When do humanoid robots enter that equation? Can you give us a few details?

Jared Isaacman: The most expensive part of doing that is not the nuclear fuel. It's not the modifications needed for lunar surface. It's we all enjoyed the headlines of Artemis 2, but reminded us of what's possible and got us all excited. We don't want to wait several years in between the next episode, right?

C: I'd be curious to hear your timelines for deploying humanoid robots with your NASA hat on.

Jared Isaacman: Any area that you're going to human involvement eventually. It would be crazy not to, you know, make a force multiplier and put humanoid robots there to do some of the work.

C: This is, I think, the question on the minds of many people I've spoken with. Are we alone?

Jared Isaacman: In my mind, I would think. Now that's a Moonshot.

Dave Blundin: Ladies and gentlemen,

Peter Diamandis: we just flew humans around the moon for the first time since 1972. We've announced plans to land American astronauts on the lunar south pole in 2028. Two competing moon landers are being built right now. And there's plans to run NASA, a $25 billion agency more like a startup than a bureaucracy. And the man driving it all flew to space twice as a private mission commander before even taking the job. I've known most of the NASA administrators in the last 40 years. In my humble opinion, our guest today is the greatest of them all. I want. Welcome everybody to MoonShot, your number one podcast in all things AI and exponential tech. Your front row seat to Singularity. Today my Moonshot mates and I are going to be diving deep into humanity's future in space with our extraordinary guest, Jared Isaacman, the 15th administrator of NASA. Let me take a moment to properly introduce Jared. He didn't come up through the regular route of being a member of the astronaut corps or government agency. He's a builder and he founded his first company, Shift4 Payments at the age of 16 in his parents garage and then built it into a payments company processing hundreds of billions of dollars annually. He's a jet pilot who's flown in air shows and set around the world speed records. And then he did something epic, purchasing two private Falcon 9 Dragon missions. He commanded Inspiration 4 in 2021, the first all civilian orbital mission. And then in 2024, he commanded Polaris dawn, where he performed the first ever commercial spacewalk. Stepping out of a Dragon capsule into the vacuum of space. During his start at NASA, he laid out five key get America back to the moon, build a permanent moon base, begin using nuclear power in space, ignite a real orbital economy, and reinvigorate the science that lets us look for life among the stars. Jared, welcome to the Moonshots and Moonshot Mates. We've known each other for 17 years, and I could not be more proud to have you on the show.

Jared Isaacman: Well, Peter, thanks for having me on the show. It's absolute pleasure to reconnect. I'm going to challenge you a little bit on that. I appreciate the generous introduction. It's super early right now.

Peter Diamandis: I know it is. I have faith.

Jared Isaacman: I have plenty of time to screw things up. But I'll tell you, right now, we are all everybody at NASA, from leadership down to the engineers and technicians, we are having a great time right now. We're moving very quickly. There isn't a person who shows up to work every day at NASA that's not excited about changing the world in air and space. And everybody is just really enthusiastic about getting after it.

Peter Diamandis: Yeah, agreed. You know, you said something very nice that 17 years ago in Baikonur, I got you started on this mission. Is that actually true?

Jared Isaacman: That is now. I mean, look, since kindergarten, right, I wanted to be an astronaut like a lot of kids that just look up at the night sky and imagine the possibilities. I just never thought it was even close to possible or achievable. That's why I became a pilot. I started undertaking some mini adventures, like flying around the world on those speed records. And somehow along the way, you found me and invited me to Baikonur. And it was during that trip I was like, well, maybe it is a possibility. So you absolutely helped steer me down this path. And just so you know, I mean, it's only been a matter of days since I came back from my second visit to Baikonur. I have to tell you, it was very different than the first trip. I didn't have any Russian delegations coming out to meet with me. When you and I were on that journey.

Peter Diamandis: Yeah, that was the mission. I think Richard Garrett was flying into space. I had actually brought Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey to that mission, too. We watched the mission from a bunker about a half a kilometer from the launch pad and then went outside to watch it. It was like an epic. It was like the thunder of God before you.

Jared Isaacman: Yeah, they don't.

Dave Blundin: They.

Jared Isaacman: I always describe it as. We were like a solid par three away from the launch pad when we were there. And they have moved us back a little bit, I can say, as of this current launch, but still. I mean, I walked Anil Menon right up to the ladder of Soyuz and then was involved in a bilateral discussion with our counterparts in Russia, 100 yards away. I mean, a building right next to that fully fueled vehicle. So it's, it's a little different.

Peter Diamandis: Crazy.

Dave Blundin: Wait, was that first one the one where you said, if anything goes wrong with this launch, yeah. What happens?

Peter Diamandis: So Sergei was there, we had two or three, you know, Soviet era Russians there, you know, with incredible outfits in the bunker. And we walked outside, Sergei asked the question, so what happens if something goes wrong? In Russian. And the response, which he translated was like, enjoy. It'll be the last thing you ever experienced.

Jared Isaacman: Well, that's, I mean, there was plenty of risk before we ever got there. Like, we all had to go on a Soviet T154 airliner. I mean, this is the same plane that I think took out a lot of the Polish political leadership a few decades ago. So everyone, you know, the entire Google leadership team, not to mention whoever else you invited on board, had some serious concentration risk on that old Soviet plane. Just even getting to Baikonur, it was,

Peter Diamandis: it was like Eric was saying, like, do not let the media know that we're here.

Dave Blundin: Well, I tell you, it's so cool to have somebody that fearless running a government agency. That's gotta be rare. But you've got, you've got the DNA for it. That's really cool.

Peter Diamandis: Jared. Let me kick it off. You know, on this podcast we talk a lot about AI exponentials, robotics, and have to imagine that living at this moment in the singularity, it's got a chance to really accelerate NASA's timeline across moon, Mars and everything else. And the first question is, you know, we talk a lot about the large language models, the small embedded language models that are going into robots and everything. Can you imagine a time when NASA basically allows full autonomy on all of its robots and probes and these robots and probes, whether they're in Titan or Mars or moving out to Europa, are on their own investigating what's interesting and deciding what experiments to run independent of scientists back on Earth?

Jared Isaacman: 100%. So I mean, we still, no matter what, want to get the data back. It's just if you have a limited window of opportunity to do so, do you let the on orbit or, I'm sorry, the on mission AI make the determination of what is the most interesting data in the least amount of time I have available possible and send it home before perhaps destruction. And there's already a mission designed for that, which is DaVinci which is going to Venus. And in that pressure environment, that mission will not live long. So we're designing it from the get go to have on mission AI and it will determine what, what actions it needs to take based on the data it's able to collect as quickly as it possibly can, use it to inform its mission direction and then send home what's most useful back to the scientific community. So that's probably the first and best example, but just the beginning for where we should be going with this technology.

Dave Blundin: The timelines with everything AI are compressing and compressing and compressing. So now we're talking a lot on the pod about speedrunning Star Trek and getting to that destination in some bounded timeframe. But two questions for you. One, one, AI back here on the ground, how is it accelerating the rate at which you design new ships, new missions and then also humanoids out in space doing a lot of what an astronaut like you would have done historically. Now you can take a lot more risk if you're launching a humanoid robot than, than an astronaut.

Jared Isaacman: Yeah. So good question. Maybe just if I can reframe it just a little bit to say like what are we doing with AI right now and how is that informing NASA's mission? And I'll tell you one, like we are structurally very disadv relative to any of the hyperscalers where a government agency, I mean if you think about even NASA's budget, which said the beginning of $25 billion a year, I mean the hyperscalers are investing many times NASA's budget into just, you know, hardware procurement right now. So how do you, how do you even be smart knowing you're at somewhat of a disadvantage at NASA to get the most out of the capability to further our mission, ensure America's competitiveness in the high ground of space. And I'll tell you, President Trump with OSTP Director Kratzios have come up with a really good idea the agenda. I don't know how familiar you are with it, but we are. Okay, so you're all tracking everybody in government is kind of kicking into this,

Peter Diamandis: but the audience may not be. So if you want to hit that.

Jared Isaacman: Yeah, yeah, sure. So I mean again it's recognizing even whole of government is disadvantaged. And the worst thing possible is for every government agency to throw what little dollars it can at the problem and hope for good outcomes. Instead it's kind of collecting consolidating resources into the Department of Energy, which by the way for a very long time has had some pret Substantial computing power available to it. Obviously even that gets quickly outdated. But they've always had the budget for investments in compute and consolidating your AI strategy, leveraging some data that's very unique to government agencies just based on the work that's being done, and having a whole of government approach to leveraging the potential of AI and NASA's job. We submitted two overarching themes to leverage the Genesis program. Number one is what have we missed and what are we likely to miss? That's just my way of describing it. We have collected so much data over the decades from various NASA missions. What have we overlooked in it? I mean, there wasn't just that long ago headlines were made from a, you know, a teenager in Texas who leveraged AI and went through some archival NASA data and found new galaxies. I mean, that's not something we should generally want to overlook. And we've since extended an internship offer to him, and I think he may start next year. But that problem's going to, and maybe you call it a problem or an opportunity is only going to get worse when you think about the constellations of satellites that are going up even for Earth observation and space weather, let alone new missions like Nancy Grace Roman Telescope, which will launch August 30th on a Falcon Heavy. I mean, you know, 100 times the field of view of Hubble, a thousand times the scan rate. You're going be gathering so much data, and then there's so many new missions again that will be going up. So how do we just leverage AI to go through this immense amount of data that we have for scientific breakthroughs we might have overlooked or could likely overlook? And that kind of goes to the heart of NASA's mission of unlocking the secrets of the universe. The second category is extending our reach. And that kind of goes to your advanced spacecraft design. I'm kind of concentrating that into propulsion. But, you know, so whether, you know, you have on orbit or on mission robotics, whether that's actually necessary or not, what I care about is, you know, overcoming the tyranny of distance in space right now, which, you know, you have, you know, appreciating that we barely, barely even scratch the surface in our solar system, let alone the next closest star system. And industry is doing a fantastic job of maturing chemical propulsion. You know, so from rapid reusability or, you know, like, you see the Evol performance that they get out of even Merlin, let alone Raptor, which is very early in its, you know, its kind of design cycle. How do we go? How do we leverage AI and go well beyond that and try and unlock a little bit more of the energy potential from matter, which is almost, you know, I mean, immeasurable in chemical propulsion to, you know, I don't know, 1/10 of 1% with fission or a half a percent with fusion until we ultimately get to the desired destination of, you know, antimatter annihilation, which maybe actually gives us the real potential to start thinking beyond, beyond what's in the reach of our solar system. So those are two overarching themes.

Peter Diamandis: Alex, over to you, pal.

C: Amazing. Well, Jared, I would say NASA has a storied history of human space flight on the one hand, and on the other hand, sending lots of non humanoid robots throughout the solar system. I'd be curious to hear your timelines, what you perceive as the future in the context of Artemis in the near term or other planets in the solar system for deploying humanoid robots with your NASA hat on throughout the solar system. And what role and what timeline you perceive humanoid robots to the extent Friend of the Pod Elon has characterized the Optimus as the ultimate Von Neumann probe for the solar system. What role you see humanoids in constructing Artemis and other facilities elsewhere?

Jared Isaacman: Well, I think any place that we believe there is a realistic probability of building an eventual human outpost, so the Moon for sure. I mean, we've been blessed with having this proving ground three to four days away from Earth. We are absolutely going to build a base there and make the most of it. So any area that you're going to have human involvement eventually, it would be crazy not to make a force multiplier and put humanoid robots there to do some of the work. Honestly, when you think about having human beings on the moon base and saying, well, what's their job going to be the least possible? It's still incredibly dangerous the moment they walk outside. It's incredibly dangerous to be there in the first place. Leveraging robotics there for all things from infrastructure, build out logistics is imperative. I mean, you want there to be no alternative but to put an astronaut outside the habitat for an eva. And the same would be applicable for Mars, which is the next logical destination, the next stepping stone on this grand journey that we're undertaking. But there's plenty of places obviously where why would we even need to, you know, require a humanoid robot there? Like we, you know, you think about exciting missions to seek out signs of life or ancient life that could have existed in our solar system. So take Europa Clipper or. I'm very, you know, optimistic that we might be able to commission a mission to Enceladus at some point in time or you know, Dragonfly for example, going to Saturn's moon of Titan. We just need to build the best probe or discovery instrument for that mission to get us the data that we're excited for. And it doesn't necessarily have to obviously take on any sort of humanoid form.

Peter Diamandis: You like that Sleem? I bet. Dave, back to you pal.

Dave Blundin: Yeah, I love that split focus of hey, we have reams of proprietary data, let's say it, and then trans solar. You know, nobody in the commercial world, you know, I totally get the big budgets, but nobody in the commercial world is going to work on fusion or antimatter annihilation to get to other solar systems. So that's, that's just incredibly cool. But at the same time orbital data centers have stolen the Spotlight recently. What's NASA's position on orbital data centers? And you know it's going to create a huge amount of launch capacity. So maybe assembling things for trans solar in space is part of, the, part of the stepping stone there. But what is the position on orbital data centers?

Jared Isaacman: Well first just to hit, I mean even, even unlocking fission forms of propulsion I would still argue would be a major distraction for a lot of commercial industry right now when I mean there is so much potential else there. Not to mention all the terrestrial applications for fission power when we trying to win an AI race which I think is by the way just to point out, extremely healthy for NASA. I think the worst thing for NASA is the world's most accomplished space agency is trying to do what the rest of industry is doing. I don't think that is a good thing for recruiting the best talent or retaining it or workforce development right now I see NASA, this is our opportunity to have the Hyman Rickover nuclear Navy transition and start working again on the near impossible what others are not focused on that have no obvious business use cases where NASA will not be one customer of many and truly have those kind of pioneering breakthroughs for the benefit again for all humankind. Enabling capabilities for surface power on the moon, for Mars surface power at some point and to be able to undertake again realistic exploration missions, the outer solar system. So even fission power, by the way, it was a huge step in the right direction for NASA outside of where industry should rightfully be trying to raise capital and put their attention to it 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.

Peter Diamandis: Never Ever, ever bet against Elon?

Jared Isaacman: 100%. I never bet against an extremely well capitalized Elon. People ask my position as NAS administrator, what do I think of, for example of SpaceX as an IPO? First of all, I'm thrilled with any of our partners that are essential to undertaking achieving our mission. Like again, number one national space policy objective, return American astronauts to the lunar surface, build the moon base out. 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 I think without question the greatest entrepreneur and engineer in recent history at the helm. I think that's all very good. No doubt it will come into existence. What I 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. Maybe just having started my company in 1999 when you started to see the final days before the dot com bubble, there is like 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 it's your obligation for NASA to go to the moon and establish a lunar economy. What does that mean? I can't guarantee that we can get more value out of the lunar regolith than all the cost that goes into getting there and extracting what you need and then bringing it back to Earth or manufacturing there. 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. We should all be really excited about it.

Peter Diamandis: Amazing. Salim, over to you. Patrick.

Salim Ismail: 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 and A asked what's the biggest difference in the space industry between when you were launching on the Apollo program and today? 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, 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 seen, you've kind of locked it, looked at this unbelievable transformation of NASA where you have launch capacity, you have a capital, you have technical expertise all locked up and 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?

Jared Isaacman: Yeah, again, kind of use this an opportunity, maybe hit on another point too because I would have loved 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. Who's a great example of this? Of focus? It's Elon and SpaceX. This is a person, it's not just obviously at SpaceX, he did at Tesla too. So this is somebody who has no problem executing the Cortez model of burning the ships. Right. I mean, could have the greatest rocket with an unbelievable economic model to support it in endless demand and says nope, obsolete. Time to focus on the next thing

Peter Diamandis: he's going to shut down Falcon 1 and he's going to shut down Falcon 9.

Dave Blundin: But it makes great video, doesn't it?

Jared 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, like 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. I'm now focusing on doing one or two things extremely well. That's. That has changed considerably at NASA from the space race, where for a very long time, and I do believe this is kind of 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

Peter Diamandis: no one happy in as many congressional districts as possible.

Jared Isaacman: Yeah, I mean, even now I think about it, I was, forgive the kind of Dow example, but 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 F47 has been developed so you're 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 6th 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. You would never see that happen with some of the entrepreneurs we're talking about in their companies and 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 is something 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. 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.

Salim Ismail: 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?

Jared 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 upper stage. Building multiple factories to mass produce that hardware, multiple launch pads. And of course Blue Origin is new. Glenn's vehicle 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. 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 gonna 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 taxpayers already paid for, which is the engineering development unit of the Perseverance and Curiosity rover. 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. And it can survive in the, you know, the permanently shaded regions. The most expensive part of doing that is not the nuclear fuel, it's not the modifications needed for the lunar surface. It's getting it there and that's getting it there in, you know, 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, is on the lunar surface. Now again, once you have, you know, 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 learn 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's what's going to bridge the gap between those two worlds.

F: This episode is brought to you by Blitzy Autonomous Software Development with Infinite Code Context Blitzi 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 blitzi platform, bringing in their development requirements. The Blizzy platform provides a plan, then generates and pre compiles code for each task. Blitsi 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 Blitzi as their pre IDE development tool, pairing it with their coding copilot of choice to bring an AI native SDLC into their org. Ready to 5x your engineering velocity? Visit blitzi.com to schedule a demo and start building with Blitzi today.

Peter 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?

Jared 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 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 is a service sometimes, and it's usually very late and much more expensive than we want and none of us want that. We all enjoyed the headlines of Artemis 2, even though we had done very similar things, you know, 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 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. 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, or what the interface is going to be between the rover in 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 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

Peter Diamandis: you that best guess under over when we see the first humanoid robot walking on the moon.

Jared 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.

Peter 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.

C: Yeah, pulling on this lunar theme. Jarrah. 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? Or do you perceive that pathway as being purely commercial and not flowing through NASA?

Jared Isaacman: So there's a lot there to that. Let me just first say that having an aviation background is, is hardly a requirement anymore. I mean, there is 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 gonna happen far, 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. So 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, you know, again, what is NASA's charter again? I mean, 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, you know, 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 missions. 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 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'd 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, put hundreds and thousands of people in space through, you know, through government programs, you're going to. You're going to have, you're going to require a lot more NASA astronauts, 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.

Peter Diamandis: Alex, we're going to speedrun. The moon is a harsh mystery without the rocks falling on Earth.

C: Rods from God, Peter. Rods from God.

Peter Diamandis: Dave, over to you, pal.

Dave Blundin: Yeah, you know, you mentioned a second ago that the south pole of the moon is a particularly harsh environment. 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?

Jared 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've 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.

Dave Blundin: So then what does that mean for this race that's on right now? Your launch cross 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, you know, 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, just, you can just railgun it right off the moon instead. On the other hand, you were just describing how harsh an environment that is. So actually manufacturing the first rail guns 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?

Jared 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 think it would be, I mean, how Cool. Would it be to have a mass driver on the moon? I'm all for it, but it does, you know, it kind of does beg the question a little bit that if starship is. And just again, broadly rapid reusability, 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? So you'd have to be highly confident that again, the costs to, you know, refine, extract manufacture from the regolith on the moon, unless we're starting to get really, you know, going and retrieving asteroids and everything else will be lower than. And then essentially, you know, 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. I just want to get us back to the moon because we've been waiting damn long enough.

Peter Diamandis: Yeah, we have, Salim.

Salim Ismail: You know, there's a huge tension in geopolitics where the gluing of space is really kind of of a humanity effort. And I love the way NASA's 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?

Peter Diamandis: Is competition better than the collaboration for

C: your budget, at least for all mankind?

Jared 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 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 and 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. 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 US 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. 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.

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

Jared 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 that I want to say their civil space program, but they've recently merged that back again into their military efforts. It's a la the Manhattan Project and the Apollo era. I mean, 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. If you think about it, even 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, 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. 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.

Peter Diamandis: And they have five year plans, not annual budget cycles. Yeah, yeah.

Salim Ismail: 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 you're clearly your mindset is one of non stop 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?

Jared 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 examples of our iterative design philosophy not working out initially and then rolling in what we learned into subsequent versions. So in a lot of ways they've drawn on what worked well for NASA during that time period. 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 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 got to get back to the moon, we 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. You know, 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. 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, about it. So those are the things where culturally implementing some change can be a challenge. But we're getting there.

Peter Diamandis: I love you for that. 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, 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 plans on nuclear propulsion?

Jared Isaacman: So 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. You know, it's funny. I think Politico put an article out today on, you know, NASA administrator intends to spend two and a half billion dollars 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, 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 SR1 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. 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, you know, as 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. And we just gotta keep going, right? This is the whole point of taking it out of the lab, getting into practical application, budgeting it properly, because material sciences, the hotter we can run the reactor, the more mass we can save because we don't need football field sized 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 crewed missions to Mars and back, we got to be making investments in nuclear.

Peter Diamandis: Love it, Dave.

Dave Blundin: Yeah, if you achieve that goal, it seems like the technical risk is, seems like a very doable challenge. 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? Neil, colonies in the asteroid belt and using that material which is surprisingly abundant because you get these two science fiction views of the world or the future of humanity. One where there are many, many space stations out there 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 an equal foot race between those two views of where we're going too. Do you have a, do you have

Peter Diamandis: a preference between Elon vs Bezos in that regard?

Dave Blundin: Yeah, very much so. Very much so, yeah.

Jared Isaacman: Well, I mean, look, step one, 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 for, you know, to support an outpost versus is 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 and it's extremely unlikely in any near term that you are 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, but it's just a step. I mean, again, we're trying to conquer the Tyranny of distance that is inherent in our solar system, in our galaxy and beyond. And 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 the, the, you know, overcoming the physiological challenges of being in space. So I, you know, I guess if we're getting totally. We've evolved to be born and live in a, in a space, 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 you know, a six, a third of gravity is going to make a huge difference along the way. But presumably we will have conquered artificial gravity and such in that effort too.

Peter Diamandis: I love this saying, if God had wanted humanity to become interplanetary species, she would have given us a moon. And we have one Salim over to you for asteroid mining.

Salim Ismail: 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, down there?

Jared Isaacman: Well, I think we can be helpful again. I think about again our primary objective is if you want your NASA sole focus to be on 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. And that 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. So 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 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 Americas competes act actually allows us to put prizes out there. And I'm very open to doing it. Not trying to compete at all with them, the X prize in that. But we could work or partner. Yeah, potentially partner in that. I'll let the lawyers weigh in on it of like go and do something cool with an asteroid and we could 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 hypergal thrusters that we need to reduce the cost for landers on the moon or Mars. Someday, I think, always has to be furtherance of our scientific and exploration objectives. As a specific welcome to the health

Peter Diamandis: 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 Musailam, our chief medical officer at Fountain. Heart Disease has been personal for you as well, hasn't it?

F: It really has, Peter. When 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 erad prevention first. And early detection is absolutely critical. 50% of people die of heart attacks with no warning signs. Silent killer.

Peter Diamandis: No shortness of breath, no pain, no nothing.

F: No silent killer.

Peter Diamandis: They just don't wake up in the morning.

F: 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 artery disease. But, Peter, what's more alarming to me, as 23% of those individuals had soft plaque. This is the plaque that would not traditionally be seen on CT looking at calcium scores alone. 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.

Peter Diamandis: 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@fortunlife.com 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. 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 the in burning the boats, as you said. So the question is, when he decides to make those missions. Is the 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? Optimus boots and then human boots? What's your under over on that?

Jared 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. But 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. Sorry. Anyway, on that note, I think that SpaceX right now, if they were to put all of their capital in focus on going to Mars, it would be very different timeframe than right now where their stated intention is going to the moon. So when you ask the question of like we're going 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 megatam that allows them to make investments in capabilities for the good of all humankind. Which is probably again why it's 69% approval rate versus in the 1960s when it's 4.5% of the discretionary budget. 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. Good companies like SpaceX that are pursuing these massive TAMs and all this economic 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. But the fact that Moon is step one for them right now, or at least state 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 way with the fewest miracles required. I don't know, put four people on Mars in the next 10 to 15 years. That's not obviously the Elon vision of millions of people someday in a self sustaining city on Mars. But that's the NASA can do some Things governmentally through taxpayer funding, leveraging investments in nuclear investments over many decades plus industry coming alongside it. 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, creating all that brilliant brain power and their capital and resources towards achieving that objective. 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 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. That's a different time frame again, I think you're probably in that 15 year time frame.

Peter Diamandis: Yes, first mission to Mars is private. First mission to Mars is NASA. And when you say mission to Mars, I mean landed astronaut mission I would

Jared Isaacman: 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 man emissions. And as a result, I think your dependency on chemical propulsion has to be limited in that because you're going to. 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, it's hard enough to fuel a launch pad here in one G and under one atmosphere, let alone making the propellant on another planet, reloading a rocket and bringing it back.

Dave Blundin: So 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, you know, a pathway to doing it repeatedly and not just going as a one off.

Jared Isaacman: It's such a cool vision just initially, right? I mean, so there's no doubt like to me, Starship and everything it hopes to achieve is just when, you know, 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, you know, efficient transport of mass to the lunar surface, build the infrastructure, master a lot of institute 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 optimist robots cleaning off football fields of solar panels. But step one, to start that foundation, imagine like 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 you're just extending what you've already proven you can do to the moon to Mars.

Peter Diamandis: Dave, you want to continue?

Dave Blundin: Yeah. Well, okay. So you've seen for all mankind, right? I'm sure.

Jared Isaacman: I gotta admit, I was there a lot during the first couple seasons and I've been really busy of late and such.

Dave Blundin: Imagine that. Well, you know, the way it plays out in the TV world is the US and Russia at the time are cooperating in space because everybody's just trying to build and create and survive and then something back on Earth 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 we talk a lot about on the podcast about Kimmy K3 coming out in a couple weeks. That's going to create all kinds of drama. Does that drama then come back to you?

Peter Diamandis: Six days, Dave.

Dave Blundin: Six days now. Oh, geez. Yeah, that's a turning point. Give us the inside baseball. How's 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's it work?

Jared Isaacman: I mean, you know, 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 have, I would say say, you know, 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 Bakanov. 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, you know, you know, the political climate that happens here on Earth now with the Chinese, you know, 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, 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 ultimate high ground of space at this point, I mean that is, is a war fighting domain. So in the horrifically unlikely event that day we never want to see come where things have devolved. I don't think it's going to be a shooting war on the surface of the moon between troops. 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. Achieve before it would ever require boots on the moon duking it out on the surface. I hope there is no scenario where that ever seems like a good idea.

Dave Blundin: 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 hey, our navy is finding new islands, we're just going to climb 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 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 the rules as we see them or how does that part work?

Jared Isaacman: Well, I don't think anyone is talking about new rules and we have the Outer Space Treaty and in some respects, sure. That is first come first serve in 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 you know, we're still even in NASA's moon based planned vision of dozens of landers over the next few years during phase one. There's still a lot of moon to go around 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, you know, where they're going to propagate them, 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, there's transponders and we are avoiding potential hazards in that respect at all costs. That needs to happen better in space.

Salim Ismail: 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 project has been really hampered by that lack of budgeting capabilities.

Peter Diamandis: How do you preserve the budget over the next five years to get the base built?

Salim Ismail: And can we help you increase it?

Dave Blundin: Yeah, can we donate?

Jared Isaacman: You know, it's an interesting thing. I mean people have talked about when I came in that, you know, the continuity between administrations and the variability and 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 I'm. NASA gets 25 billion a year. 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. 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 ECLSS system in it and a Ferris wheel and we're going to have big crop farms on the surface and 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. 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 lit, we're going to do low cost cost landers every month and we're going to start learning. 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 four lean. 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 SR1 to SR2. You know, 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 and 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, is its focus. $25 billion is a lot of money every year, a lot of money. The entire Manhattan Project over four years adjusted for inflation was $33 billion. We can do a lot every year with a reload of 25 billion. Just focus in on the needle moving objectives and design the programs. The architecture in such a way not too big to fail, that keeps on the chopping block. Do it in a logical evolutionary way to get to where you want to go.

Peter Diamandis: Amen. Alex, over to you about life in the universe of science.

C: 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 end the this point?

Jared Isaacman: So first of all I think the only 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 as 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, yeah, they were kind of swinging and misses in the past that people have 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 or, you know, that's just an example, not quite literally in that to say, okay, 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 balance. I think it would be extremely unlikely, like virtually non existent 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 know, you send Dragonfly to Titan, you get a mission off to Enceladus. And this is all in our backyard. This is our star system, right? Let alone, you know, the billions of other stars out there, the trillions of other galaxies and all of the exoplanets that would be in gold lock 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 to, you know, which I think just look, there's a lot again with the tyranny of distance in space that makes that, you know, a substantial obstacle. But I certainly believe that as we undertake more missions like Dragonfly and Europa Clipper and get even more advanced, where nuclear power and propulsion maybe can take our probes there and back with greater ease, that we might reach conclusions that at least probably to answer the question that we've been entrusted to solve is whether or not we're alone.

Peter 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 is pretty extraordinary. Can you imagine a time where you're like 10xing or 100x 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.

Jared Isaacman: Hear, hear. 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 one. 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. And that's also a human nature thing. 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, 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. 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 cramming, cranking out seven dragonflies a year?

Peter Diamandis: Hundreds.

Jared Isaacman: Yeah.

C: Right.

Jared Isaacman: So I'm totally with you. We have to move in that directions. And that's a cultural change, too. Not to mention, obviously technologically enabling. But it's just a matter of time.

Dave Blundin: Can I ask you a follow up? 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. Do you get special access to frontier AI going forward?

Jared Isaacman: Yeah. 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. Like I think that Director Grazio said, oh, OSTP and all those that contribute to ensuring government agencies are armed with the best technology for really the good of the nation and humankind, they're doing that. Well, 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 know, 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 and that could be an accelerant for some of NASA's ambitions. That wouldn't be as applicable, I'd say in the commercial or in the private sector, if that makes sense.

Peter Diamandis: Alex, as we enter our final segment, let me give you the leadership. Please take the lead.

C: 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, 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 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 maybe 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? 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?

Jared Isaacman: So what I would say is since the 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 Washington war where it's mandatory you know, public disclosure of any information related to UAPs. So I don't know if weif 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, you know, I was, you know, in the Situation room with the heads of, you know, almost every government, an agency and we all went in there like is there, what do you know? And what I'll tell you is there is a top down push from the President and 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 trunks, I mean, I'm telling you 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. Can't explain right now does not mean it's unexplainable. We are gathering data. The best example is think about your doorbell cams. We have cameras on everything. I mean you 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 got a drone with an IR camera that catches something flying in the bottom corner. It's almost off frame, right. And is it, 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. 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, 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 an Iranian 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 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 and we are putting it out there as part of these disclosure efforts.

C: 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 US 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 even have been involved in such an effort? Even though I take you at your word, haven't seen anything firsthand. But nonetheless there are a number of whistleblowers and enough whistleblowers that Congress has already taken steps, as you mentioned via I think was the 2022 NDAA which incorporated the RO statutes. What is your position speaking either as an individual or as administrator of national NASA on all of these allegations?

Jared Isaacman: My position on this is that look, I don't want to comment as to the credibility of individuals. Look, I get 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 so some of it I look at and say this is really insightful. And some of it I say is that falls outside the bounds of what I think is perhaps credible on that just because somebody worked for the government or had a clearance does not necessarily mean that their interpretation of what they saw is accurate. So meaning I saw the same videos that 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 weather balloon, that was an Iranian one way attack drone or something of that it would

Peter Diamandis: be great if we had alien spacecraft. I mean that would definitely move the timeline forward by a couple of decades if nothing else.

C: I assume Jared, you'd be quite excited if all of these allegations amounted to something non Trivial?

Jared 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 ET level kind of technology that allowed you to 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 B2 or the B21 or the SR71 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. 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.

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

Jared Isaacman: I would also just put, and just say, like, 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? You know, they seem to be, they seem to be. And I'm not trying to be dismissive. Like I said, this is what. 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 of the claims, I'm just saying they tend to seem to show up where we keep our naval ships and where we test our advanced weapon systems.

Peter Diamandis: You want to ask Imad's closing question here, Saleem?

Salim Ismail: Which one? I can't remember.

Peter Diamandis: So Imad asked, when we went to the moon, the saying goes, once the moon, because it's hard. So what's the new organizing goal that keeps everybody reinvigorated? You said before Apollo had a singletarian mission and now we're sort of spread out. Is there sort of one thread that Pulls them all.

Jared 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 ecliss 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.

Peter Diamandis: Amazing. I hope everybody watching agrees with me that, 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.

Jared 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.

Peter Diamandis: Thank you, buddy. Thank you on behalf of the Moonshot Mates and everybody listening, listening. Awesome. Can't wait to watch your success next year.

C: Thank you, Administrator.

F: Administrator.

Jared Isaacman: Thanks guys.

Dave Blundin: Truly a bless.

Jared Isaacman: Take care.