Inside NASA's Plan to Return to The Moon, Reach Mars, and Go Nuclear | The a16z Show

Administrator Isaacman opened with a stark assessment: NASA has promised for 35 years to return to the moon, invested $100 billion, yet currently launches its Space Launch System rocket every 3.5 years—«the worst cadence by far of NASA designed rockets.» Meanwhile, China has publicly committed to landing before 2030, leaving America with less than one year of schedule margin. The consequences of failure extend far beyond missed headlines. «If you don't think there's national security implications of saying for 35 years and putting hundred billion dollars in that America will return to the moon and then coming up short… you're completely mistaken,» Isaacman warned, «because that says if they're broken here, imagine where else they're broken.»

The root causes are institutional: decades without real competition led NASA to outsource core competencies, allow industry consolidation to dictate terms, and spread resources thin across «side quest projects» that distracted from the world-changing mission taxpayers funded. The result is hardware obsolete by delivery, 51 nuclear propulsion programs that never flew, fewer flagship science missions, and—most tellingly—«less kids dressing up as astronauts for Halloween.» With bipartisan support secured through nearly $10 billion in the Working Families Tax Credit Act and a presidential mandate for space superiority, Isaacman now has the policy backing and budget to restructure. The question is whether NASA can rebuild fast enough to win a race that hinges on months, not years.

With support from OPM Director Scott Cooper, NASA is launching «NASA Force»—a program of term-based appointments from industry to rebuild the agency's atrophied core competencies. These industry partners will mentor and train NASA civil servants in critical disciplines like launch operations, mission control, and propulsion design, while offering exchange opportunities for NASA talent to rotate through commercial firms. The initiative directly addresses the 75% contractor problem and aims to restore in-house expertise in capabilities that define NASA's identity.

Isaacman emphasized that NASA should focus on «the near impossible where you can't close a business case»—challenges no private entity would undertake due to liability, long timelines, or single-customer demand. Nuclear power and propulsion in space is the archetype: enabling Mars missions but carrying risks and costs that deter commercial investment. Once NASA achieves breakthroughs, it hands capabilities to industry, where «competitive dynamics improve the product or capability and bring down costs.» The model depends on NASA doing what only NASA can do, then getting out of the way.

President Trump's national space policy directs NASA to «invest in the next giant leap capabilities,» and Isaacman has made nuclear power and propulsion the cornerstone of that mandate. He has personally promised the president that «America will get underway in space on nuclear power before the end of his term»—a breakthrough that will fundamentally alter the economics and physics of deep-space exploration. Nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) won't be the fastest point-to-point transit option, but it will move large masses toward Mars efficiently and provide the same reactor technology needed for surface power to mine propellant and enable return journeys.

Isaacman sees nuclear as the domain where NASA must lead because «lots of great nuclear companies» are focused on terrestrial energy demand and unlikely to shoulder the liability of launching reactors. Once NASA proves the technology, industry can refine and scale it. The moon will serve as the proving ground for these capabilities—testing in-situ resource manufacturing, power systems, and long-duration operations in an environment where help is days away, not months. «We're gonna see astronauts on Mars in our lifetime,» Isaacman predicted, and nuclear propulsion is the enabling technology that makes sustainable, round-trip human missions feasible.