Risk and commercial space companies

[music] As we all saw, flight 13 aborted on the pad. And this is exactly what was supposed to happen. [music] Safety systems kicked in, protected the entire architecture. It was perfect. But that pad got me to thinking about the differences between government [music] space and commercial space. specifically their risk postures and what we actually need from each to get humanity [music] to the stars. Buckle up, put your tray tables in their stowed and locked position. Project Tomorrow Orbit 18, episode 21 is now departing. >> Good morning. How's everything up in the sky? [music] >> [music] >> It was so close. I was so excited when we saw the countdown coming down and I was like, "Oh my god." [clears throat] Like, [snorts] this was kind of Starship's moment sort of. I mean, they're all Starship's moment, but you know, all of that work and like refining this test architecture and getting to the point where it basically was going to go on the first try and I saw it go 3 2 1 zero. I'm like, oh my god, SpaceX, you did it. And then right as I was thinking that, boom, engines cut off. And I'm like, you know, you know, better better be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground. So, you know, I it is the it's the expected outcome. It's what you want to have happen when the systems are not performing as they should. And I remember looking at the telemetry going, huh? Like not all the engines lit up and and that's real telemetry. So like, okay, cool. Uh, but it got me to thinking, you know, there is a difference between commercial space and government space. And there's a difference in threshold with regards to risk posture, right? Like h how we look at risk. And so we've got Dave and Titan here uh this week uh to talk about, you know, I think some of the differences between commercial aerospace, which is a little more cowboy, and government aerospace, which is a little more um oh, what's the right word? Uh what's the opposite of cowboy? Um just risk risk averse, right? And so >> riskverse, >> you know, I I guess the first question is is there is there a problem because well, first off, do we agree that there's a different risk posture between government space and commercial space just in general? And I'm not when I say commercial space, I don't mean just SpaceX. I mean Blue Origin, SpaceX, uh uh Rocket Lab, you know, pick your commercial company. Do do you guys think there is a difference there or have they all kind of coalesed into the same risk posture? Well, I think they I think the commercial space always has looked toward government space for direction about risk, but they're in a position with a different uh a different motive if financial and so they can look at things a little differently than the government space uh can um and take a little more risk in the development that now uncrrewed versus crude that's a different story of course but uh that's the I would say they they have a a little more a little more cowboy in them because they have that opportunity to try things the government has either not tried or won't try being riskaverse. >> Yeah. I mean, go ahead, Dave. >> I was going to say I'll I'll agree. I I'm going to almost divide government space in half, though. There's um NASA space and military space. I think military space is much less risk adverse than NASA space. [snorts] I mean that would uncrrew on. >> Yeah. But also >> I think we lost Dave's uh so Dave is using satellites. >> But I'll also say uh >> Yeah. Yeah. Dave, we're losing you. We're losing you to the cosmos. There's a solar flare. >> Space [laughter] covered in space. >> Uh try Well, we've got some of your audio back. Dave, we'll wait for you to stabilize again. But um you know you know there is certainly a difference between commercial space and well I'm sorry between military space and NASA. Uh however to the best of my knowledge military space doesn't bring humans up and so does that extra moment of pause happen because you know NASA's flying giant ugly bags of mostly water or is it a Star Trek reference for all of you? You're welcome. Um or or or or does it permeate too deep? I I guess I guess there's a line. There's a line. >> Um I think it's historic de development over the last five decades. >> Okay. >> We have >> I mean you've got NAS NASA's had to deal with three disasters and so they've learned they've learned and they've not learned. There's a whole other argument there. there's a a potential for a gen generational loss of knowledge from Apollo 1 to Challenger to Colombia. Uh but now with information technology being more accessible, information is available quickly, commercial space as the ability to learn from their mistakes and with with financial motivations being the primary driver, they build that in they build that uh that caution in to everything they do. Hopefully. >> So, you know, I guess is government space too riskaverse at this point, right? Like should commercial space even be looking to government space for for their risk posture or or is is commercial space doing the right thing and be like, "No, no, no, no. We're going to that doesn't make any sense." Uh, you know, the famous line with NASA is failure is not an option, right? But if failure is not an option, success takes forever. Right. Because you can never fail. If you can never fail, uh it makes success much much harder. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'll say >> commercial space can look towards government space for collecting the risk factors, but then they make their own decision on the way to those. >> Yeah. >> All right. So then what can government learn from commercial, >> right? like what are some of the things that commercial space doing is doing really really well that government space and when I say government space maybe I mean just NASA and not um Space Force uh but like yeah what is what are some of the things they can learn >> well there's there's plenty obviously you've got in the case of NASA you have a lot of generational um processes and I mean they they NASA literally went out and said hey we want to uh send people to the space and we don't want to do it. We want you guys to do it better, faster, cheaper. So, they hired him to do it and of course it took some time and that as new things always do. Um, but uh yeah, the commercial space is proving depending on the company you look at, they they're better at some things than others and so forth. So, NASA can definitely look to that new technologies, new processes. Um, that's where you're going to happen. That kind of thing is going to happen in commercial space because it's all about cost and anything that makes it cheaper and safer hopefully they'll do it and NASA can learn from that. >> I think government can learn government can learn not to get caught by paralysis by analysis. >> Yeah. >> Well, in fairness uh some commercial space seems to have that too, right? there's still some commercial space that is a little old school in the way they think and they kind of take that uh analysis paralysis and take forever. Although uh I I I think that those companies are learning that they have to change or they will not survive. >> Yeah. When you talk about commercial when you talk about commercial space you have to break into new space and old space too. You got to break that down. >> Ooh, that's a good point. And we just had we just had an interesting development from Blue Origin who is hiring welders to work 24/7 with overtime to get their pad ready cuz all of a sudden they decided they had urgency. >> Yeah. I wonder do how do we classify Blue Origin? Are they new space or old space? >> Right. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Right. I would say they're I would say they were old older space and they're they're they're rebirthing themselves as as a newer space after uh some urgency fell in their lap. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. When when when it was when it was called upon when something happened that they weren't ready for or maybe hadn't planned for um they had two choices old space or new space and they it sounds like they picked new space. uh Aravail said uh the motto showed and the motto being uh failure is not an option should only be applied to human space flight um and I I think even then it's only in select circumstances right it's select it's a circumstance where something has gone wrong and you you've got to bring your humans back like the Apollo 13 uh moment right like that's famously where the line comes from I don't even know if uh Jean Crant said that line or if that was just the movie I don't know if any of you know if that's how he'll line he did >> yeah he did he did he dead yet. >> So, okay, cool. And I I mean, in that moment, I agree with him, right? Like, you're not going to fail these humans. Like, you you've got to get them back. Having said that, I feel like they took that moment and stretched it way too far of like, okay, fail. Like, look at the space shuttle program. At the end of the program, the engineers built into the space shuttle layers and layers and layers of redundancy with the idea being that some of this stuff is going to fail. They knew it was going to fail and they still wanted to be able to launch on time and safely. And so that those layers of redundancy were built in not so that every system had to be functioning to lift off, but so that they could actually lift off and still have redundancy when some of that redundancy failed and actually still be safe on the way to orbit. But by the end of the shuttle program, every single system had to be working perfectly or they would not launch the shuttle. Now, I'm not sure what's right or wrong, right? Because if you've got a tertiary system or a system with four or five what quad or pent redundancy, right? Like how many of those lines are you willing to lose before you go, okay, no, we're we're still fine, right? We're still, you know, one fault tolerant or whatever the case may be. But it's certainly that culture of like never fail, you know, everything has to be perfect on the pad crept in on, you know, certainly on NASA flights. Does anyone know does that culture still exist for the space launch system or have they kind of backed away from that a little bit? >> Yes, it uh at this point I'd have to assume that that it's still there because a lot of the a lot of what they're doing with the SLS they brought over from the shuttle era. But then again there's still I mean the the shuttle had two disasters and they were following the rules. Of course they had to rewrite the rules every time they had a disaster. Um but that it goes to a much deeper with NASA goes to a much deeper uh reasoning is that when okay well it starts back with Apollo one they had they had people at NASA saying this is going to be a problem that that the hatch is a problem the pure oxygen atmosphere but management ignored it and that repeated itself two more times. Somebody said this isn't going this is going to be a problem and management ignored it. So there's a there's a flaw in the system that still exists but with proper attention and people, you know, staying on top of NASA but preventing go fever essentially. >> Yeah. I mean >> that's what it comes down to. >> Sure. But it it feels like the engineers told management not to fly both times. So for the >> three times >> three times. So for Challenger, uh it they certainly said, "Hey, there's a problem with temperatures. Don't go." And they went anyhow. For Colombia, they said, "We think there's been an impact event. Can you retask one of the satellites and look at the leading wing?" Now, even if they had retasked the satellite, there was no safe haven for Colombia, right? There was nowhere it could go. And so that may have been a moot point, but at least they would have had the data where they could start initiating rescue missions. They didn't even have that data. They said, "Nope, it's too expensive to retask." What's the third one? Apollo 1 and that wasn't a day of type of of of event, but there were there's actually a very good book um oh I can't remember it's I had it in my tip of my tongue but the guy who was a project manager for the Apollo program uh for uh North American Rockwell who had documented everything that block one was a was a first pass and it should never have been built and they and Rockwell was or North American was very adamant about it but NASA said no we got to get some people we got to get bodies in face. So, we'll fly the block one, we'll build start piling the block two, and it just snowballed from there. >> So, I mean, it's it's interesting because I sit here and I think to myself, oh, commercial space has got I don't want to say go fever, but they certainly are less riskaverse. Now NASA certainly has a lot more time under their belt and they've got a lot of flights and frankly they had to learn the hard lessons that no one else had learned yet and commercial space takes those lessons and works with them right but also we haven't seen those types of disasters with commercial space has been launching Dragon successfully for quite some time with humans on board right and so uh now I don't they've not even come close to the number of flights that space shuttle had um with with Dragon missions. So maybe that's not exactly fair. >> Yeah, it's too early. It's a numbers game obviously. Um but I think in the case of commercial base in space of place of SpaceX in the case of SpaceX I should say um the the profit motivation helps change the way the culture is built rather than whe rather than rely rather than relying on people to remember things. They put the kind of safety requirements into the paperwork into the documentation into the procedures and they drill it into people cuz there's you know there's a quite a turnover the people working the uh hardware and so forth and so they have to have a Bible to go to and they can drill that safety in. Now NASA does the same thing but it gets because you're talking about government uh employees and so forth. There's the the motivation while still very serious about crew safety and so forth. There's still an uh as we've proven twi three times now, people will make decisions not based on the best uh best, you know, best case for the crew. It's more about schedule and so forth. And hopefully commercial will learn their lesson from that. But yeah, it's still a numbers game. There will be, as many people say, there will be a loss of life in the commercial business. In fact, there's an argument to be made that the reason that Blue shut down um New Shepard was the lawyers finally convinced the people that this was too risky uh putting civilians in these vehicles. That's one argument. So I mean what's interesting is uh you know we we talk about commercial space and they haven't had an instance yet and you know all that fun jazz but um you know they their motivation is different than government right so what what happens when it does become about just money right because it's like they have to make profit or they don't survive government space is different like they they whatever they can't. It's your tax dollars, right? They they're going to get their money regardless. Now, they they got to be careful because they don't want to hurt people because then, you know, public will no longer >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. But all vehicles, all cars, bikes, trains, planes, rockets, all vehicles, unfortunately, like the cold, harsh reality is there's going to be a failure. It it it sucks, but it's just going to happen. So, >> well, you know, we'd had we had one with uh I forget the CL classification, but the uh Starlininer that qualified as a near near disaster >> and but that that's a whole another that's a whole another show. >> Yeah. And that but that's also it's interesting because that that I would consider that commercial space, but it's like that's still kind of old commercial space, right? It's not that new mentality of, >> you know, I I I look at SpaceX and anyone can stop a rocket launch, anyone in the company, right? Not just the engineers. Like, if you've got a good data point of like, hey, there's a problem here, you can go straight to Elon and stop that rocket launch. And he'll take you seriously. Like Elon generally doesn't care where the data comes from just as long as it's like verifiable data, right? You can't just make stuff up. But like, >> right. uh I don't know that that is true of other companies and I don't know that that culture permeates. So maybe this is not a question of old space versus new space or um even um commercial space versus government space. Maybe this is a question of culture and maybe you know it's all going to depend on the company and it has or the the entity right and it doesn't really matter. It's did the leadership decide to instill a culture of safety of like hey you know SpaceX they do have a culture of safety it's move fast and break or what is it move fast break early but don't effectively don't hurt anyone right like never hurt anyone never uh you know my line >> for a long time was I can replace the rocket I can't replace you >> so uh I'll go in and I'll say hey I you know >> we're going to be 3 weeks late because it's I can't put people in that position cuz it would put their lives at risk. And generally speaking, you don't have to you don't have to debate them like especially if it puts lives at risk, they'll be like, "No, we're not doing that." Uh but they might find a better better way to do it that also doesn't put their life at risk. Anyhow, point is I think it may just be culture. >> Yeah. >> So then how do we instill a good culture? >> Always about culture. >> Yeah. How do we instill good culture everywhere then, right? Like I mean this goes to last week's show of like hey >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's you're right. It's about culture. It's always been about culture. And the trick is to communicate and share that information. Um, and that's what it always comes down to is communication. Uh, and I like that the fact that that anybody at at SpaceX can stop a launch with a with a good data point. I hope Blue has that. I hope everybody has something like that. Uh, because we've obviously seen within NASA people people who you should be listening to were not listened to. And that's to me that's ego and bad culture. Um and and it comes down to an argument can be made a government official if can't be charged criminally for making a bad decision. So they're off the hook no matter what. >> Uh commercial space. >> Oh yeah. They're they're they're protected from unless they do something you know blatant. I mean obvious criminal. But there was talk about that for Challenger. There was talk about that for Columbia. Um you know in the Russian space program there's always a scapegoat. and this old Soviet program in the Russian spacecraft, there's always there was always a scapegoat and um but uh yeah, and but in commercial space, it's about the almighty dollar profit and you've got stockholders and uh board of directors and they will take their pound of flesh. Well, it it's going to be interesting to see where this goes in the future and like how >> how different entities kind of like build this out and and where they go from. Welcome back, Dave. Hopefully, the solo player has gotten your signal back. >> Well, we we'll see. Zoom Zoom is actually one. I was hearing you all the time, but Zoom wasn't sending video. >> Ah, fun. >> Okay. >> Fun. Good times. Good times. There's always something. There's always something. All right. On that note, >> technology. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, do you have any final thoughts on like safety culture within commercial versus private space? By the way, I I I just I want to be clear. There's someone said this earlier like, did an event happen? No, not at all. Uh, and what here's where this topic came from is, you know, the vehicle aborted at T0. It did exactly as it was supposed to. And I was like, and I thought to myself, well, I mean, that a lot of the world won't understand. They'll think this is a failure and like, oh, SpaceX failed at T-minus 0. In my mind, I was like, "Oh, this that's a smashing success." The the onboard flight computers detected a problem and they're like, "Nope, let's not commit this thing to space." And at the very last within milliseconds, it was like, "No, we're done." Right. Yeah. Yeah. Here you go. Right. Here's here's some of the footage. Right. So, this was uh from the launch webcast. >> Oh, man. I got to give give uh SpaceX all of the crap for still using X. But you can get the stupid. Whatever. Whatever. And I I moved the credit bar up a little bit so you could see the telemetry kind of glitch and whatnot. And all the other glitches are just because X streaming sucks. I can say that now because I'm not there anymore. Uh [laughter] I don't have to totally lie anymore, right? So uh yeah, I mean this was a success >> and so many people look at that as a failure and it wasn't. It was a success of the test systems and the safety culture at SpaceX to be like, "No, let's not launch this massively huge vehicle with even a little bit of a problem." >> Well, thank thank god this doesn't have solids. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, uh I think >> Well, first off, that's culturally that's why SpaceX doesn't do solids, right? This this goes to culture again, right? Because you can't test them in advance. Uh and you can't shut them down. Yep. Yeah. That and that's and that's another if you back in NASA history that was a trade-off and that was a a cultural thing they they had you know with with good the the space shuttle design was getting too expensive and solids fixed the problem but was it a better engineering solution or I mean it was a good engineering solution but was it a crew safety issue? Yeah. from day one. There were people argued against it for the longest time and you know the risk mitigation is what they had to deal with. >> Yeah. I I guess my point was I saw this and I saw a success. Then I realized hey not everyone might see success and then I thought you know I wonder if NASA sees this as a success or not. And then then I started spiraling into everyone views safety differently. And then I went into it was just like this multi-pronged thing of like what it just it just spiraled out of control from from something that I viewed as a success and I was like, you know, maybe this might be fun to talk about on the show. And so, you know, that's where the topic comes from is just like watching flight 13 successfully abort on the pad. Uh cuz that was a successful abort. Anyhow, >> there you go. Any any final thoughts from uh either of you uh from uh Dave or uh uh Titan? >> Nope. >> Um yeah. Well, just on your last comment that it's important to pe that people who people in the space business, people in, [clears throat] you know, everyday people who watch the space program, they realize that that's part of it. I mean, the space shuttle, how many aborts, one abort with the last millisecond? Mike Baker's flight. I was there for that one. We're all like, "What happened?" Um, and that's part of it now. And the trick here is to educate people to know that's part of it. You want to be safety. It's like safe seat belts and airbags. Yeah. Sure, you don't want to use them, but be glad they're there and make sure they get tested and they work and so forth. So, yeah, and and don't look at the stock price. >> Well, you're telling me uh you know, the fun thing is if you want to go go to YouTube and search for uh space shuttle pad. It's really interesting to watch those. There are two actually, I'm going to give everyone a couple videos to search for. Uh the first one is space shuttle padort because there were some padds uh where the space shuttle main engines ignite but the solids don't. And so what's interesting and what people don't realize is when the space shuttle is on the pad and the solid and the the main engines ignite, the whole vehicle lists over, right? And so the vehicle starts swaying and then when they and then it's designed, they actually designed it so that like as it sways and kind of bounces back to the right position, that's when they light the solids and so it's in the perfect position. But when you don't light the solids, you sway and then you start swinging back and forth on this giant vehicle with all of this fuel. You're sitting there swaying and you can actually see in the paddleboard the vehicle swaying back and forth. It's fascinating. It's really cool. >> The second >> they call it the twang. >> The twang. That's exactly correct. The second thing to go watch for uh which is unrelated to anything. I mean it's kind of uh related to safety, but they did static fires of the space shuttle. Every brand new space shuttle went through a a full static fire test on the pad, which is the creepiest looking thing ever. And you can also find this video on YouTube. The space shuttle sits on the pad. It looks like a regular space shuttle. They fire the main engines, but it does not launch. And it just sits there and they just start counting up. T + 5, T + 10. All of this smoke burn just like engines just roaring away the shuttle like I want to go to space. Just locked onto the pad. Just just it's also really really awesome to look at. You know, I'm going to give you a third a third homework assignment, which is they will do uh tests of the sound suppression system, which is also very cool to look at, where there's no shuttle on the pad, and they're like, "YOLO, open it up." And you just see all of the water just go absolutely everywhere. It is the sheer power of all of that water. You you It's so hard to understand scale when you're looking at rockets, right? So when you take the rocket and you move it and then all you see is the water, you go, >> "Oh my god." So yeah. All right. Uh let's move on. Um there was a you know speaking of commercial space there was some uh there was a really cool test flight. I did not so in India has a privately developed orbital rocket. It's called Vicrim 1 and it launched and uh I didn't even know. Here you go. This is actually the launch footage. Um it's it's a small kind of like >> Yeah. Oh man, how cool. How cool. It's like a it's like a Falcon 1ish sized vehicle, right? It's like tiny. It it is what it is. >> But I didn't even know India was working on a commercial space vehicle. Did you guys know that at all? Am I just completely out of the loop? You're out of the loop, Danny. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Skyroot. They they started in like 18. I think they did a they had their suborbital rocket first launch in 22. Um, and it's it's it's very much like the Chinese commercial rocket launches. They use they stack a bunch of commercially available solids together and make a four- stage rocket. The fourth stage, I think, is is liquid fueled. Um, and that's just how they learn. And each company learns as they start small and build up. And I think they have plans for even bigger and larger vehicles and eventually to an all liquid uh rocket. But that's I was talking about before, you know, India is close fourth behind this ex Soviet Union and China and the United States. They're they're doing a lot with very little. And this is just another example of how you build your space economy as you get commercials out there. And so this is going to open up. We've seen how small launchers do have a market. uh and emerging countries, you know, they'll they'll be launching, I'm sure, a lot of small payloads for the India, but also other countries in South Asia and so forth. That's just another place to put their smaller, you know, your cube sets and your advanced cube sets and things like that, >> you know, and as Aravail says, super impressive that they got it on their first flight. Not a lot can say that. And I, you know, I absolutely agree. Um, very few very few can actually say that it rockets I I know everyone gets sick of us saying this, but rockets are hard. They're really really hard and especially on a vehicle that's like solids and liquids. So, you decided to make your life as hard as possible. [laughter] Right. >> Y >> So, yeah. Well, well done. How long have they been Do anyone know how long have they been working on this? Like I'm complet I didn't know. And are do they have other like China has a bunch of I'm going to air quote private companies working on aerospace. Is is Skyroot the only private company in India doing this or do they have more private companies that you guys are aware of? >> Skyroot is the only one I know of. >> Yeah, same. I only know Skyroot but um but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple more out there. I'm sure you know you're talking it's it's a private company but it's obviously getting government funding uh to get things going. Um, and like I said, they're using they're using the the tried andrue start small, work your way up methodology. Um, and but I wouldn't be surprised if more come along because, you know, one success breeds more success. >> Uh, so I just lost the comment, but someone basically said, did you see that they almost had a Falcon one moment? Uh, but it was successful. So I um I didn't notice that. Yeah, thank you for that. Uh, I I didn't notice a Falcon. So, I assume a Falcon 1 moment, meaning either a loss of control, and I guess when I was scrolling through the video, um, I did see the Earth wobble in the background, so I wonder if they had some just some control issues of trying to keep it. >> Yeah, it's I don't know if you're going to be able to tell, but I was able to see it easier when I was >> Yeah, you can see the Earth kind of moving a little bit, but when you fast forward, >> it's wobbling. Yeah, but it's not wobbling a lot. You know, like Falcon 1 was it was like, "Oh, that's not good." Uh, this is, >> you know, is what it is. >> I I guess I didn't see a Falcon 1 moment. Did you guys? I I didn't see anything that looked like they were going to lose the mission. >> No, >> it looked smooth to me. >> It was pretty straightforward. >> Yeah, it looked it looked really smooth to me. Like I I just kind of whipped through it. I I mean, legit, congratulations to India for this. You mentioned larger rockets. Do we know what is Skyroot's kind of like I'll call it business plan like what are they you know SpaceX is trying to go to Mars Blue Origin's trying to open up a cis lunar econ economy. What is Skyroot trying to do? >> Uh best I can tell they're just trying to create small launchers to uh to help build the the market for or fill the market for uh small launch small payloads and so forth. I mean it like I said there's a plenty of market out there and in case with India I'm sure India's the government funding is helping to bring other uh other smaller companies technology companies building satellites and so forth it's about building their space shelter an incountry uh ability to uh put uh incountry payloads in space uh whether they be for weather or defense or uh commercial applications. I mean, that's kind of the that's kind of the blueprint now for these small countries building up their space programs. >> Okay, so I push back every time someone says that there's a market for small launchers. I'm not sure I agree. Uh, and here's why, and I don't know if I'll be right or wrong. First off, I I love the idea of more players. I think the more people playing in space, the better. However, I'm a little bit of a realist, and if you look at a vehicle, like look at Falcon 9 right now on their transporter emissions, right? they've been able to take the cost of giving your small payload and radically reduce it. You just have to be on a ride share mission now. And and then people will argue and be like, "Yeah, but if if you want to go to a weird orbit or you want to do whatever, uh you need to move with more speed, then like you can do, you know, you can do your own you can do rocket lab, you can do something like this, like skyroot or whatever." It's like, okay, I I get that. I get that. But is that where the market is going? Because you look at Starship, a fully reusable massive rocket, you're really only paying for fuel and pad wear. I'm not throwing this rocket away every time. So, and then everyone kind of looks at it like, "Yeah, but why would you put a teeny tiny little payload on a Starship?" It's like, well, for the same reason that it's it's the same problem that a lot of people had of like, why would you make a rocket reusable? The amount of fuel you need to use, you can't get like you're throwing that payload away. It's like, "No, just build a bigger rocket." Well, yeah, the rocket's too big. Just put less fuel on it. You get the rocket back. So, the cost the cost is just the fuel. Whereas the cost with anyone else that's building a nonfully reusable rocket is the is the vehicle. It's the vehicle and the fuel and the and the wear on the pad. It's the and the and the and the and like how do these small players compete with a vehicle like Starship? And actually, as I think that was Eeka said, cost, cost, cost. >> That's EA. >> Cost, cost, cost. That's my exact point. It's going to cost so much less to launch Starship than it is to launch a small Falcon one-sized rocket if you think about it, right? Like, >> yeah. >> So, how how do these guys compete? How do you compete with Starship? How do you compete with a fully they haven't announced yet, but like a fully reusable new Glenn? H how? The only thing I can see is the market is lowcost launches, not small launches. >> So, they've got a window. They've got a window until New Glenn and Starship are frequent enough to take their market away. Um, but they've also got a window to Yeah. all the weird orbits that ride sharing doesn't make sense. I mean, Starship makes great sense if you can ride share, you know, 100 kilos to orbit or whatever, right? 100 tons to orbit. Um if you're only taking one ton up and you want to go someplace weirder or on a special um time frame, um launching a 30 kilo satellite on a starship still makes it expensive because you're not sharing that cost across your gross weight. >> Uh we had a five pound super chat from uh FWD79, which I always mentally read as forward 79. I don't know what you actually want me to say but I heard a rumor that uh ISRO that's the uh Indian Space Research Organization if memory serves was financially struggling. So unlike NASA this was more of a necessity than incentive. So that's interesting. This is a a way to take uh a way to take kind of like commercial space and you know bring it down right or bring cost down. >> Well they've always been struggling. They've always struggled. They they're doing everything on a shoestring budget. That's just the reality of India. And but I think it goes it a little bit of skyroot is about the homegrown program. They're not necessarily trying to corner any market or make a huge amount of money, but they're trying to encourage that kind of thinking and uh creating a market within India. And you're right, once Starship go starts going up, yeah, a lot of the the case for small launch vehicles or small payloads is going to become it'll be tough to justify it. But in the case of India, I think they're just trying to grow their culture, grow their their their home home uh homegrown um industry so they can don't have to count on anybody else. But obviously if you get fully operational Starship, why would you go anywhere else? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, so debating against myself and talking about the other side of my mouth, if I may for a moment because it's [laughter] the thing I just Aravail makes a really good point in the chat room, which is I know some of the small sats on board were made by private Indian companies and and that is one market that Starship will never be able to get, which is if if you're an Indian company, you want to launch on an Indian launcher and like cool, they may be willing to spend more to keep it in their country, especially if it's a Department of Defense payload or something like that. And so, you know, I look at I look at places like Aron Spas and it's like, well, how are you going to stay in business? Well, you're going to stay in business by launching military satellites and things that you don't want shipped over to the United States or you don't want launched on a US carrier. That's it. Like, until they start going skating to where the puck is, not where it currently is, right? Until they start looking seriously at full reusability, that's their only hope. And and I wonder if uh for you know companies like uh Skyroot if if that's going to be one of their only hopes. Where I'm really impressed with in commercial space is the Chinese commercial space industry cuz they're like yeah got to be reusable. Like all of them they're like got to be reusable and they are making really good strides in making that happen. And so I don't know if you're not looking at reusability I don't think you survive long term. And I think long term is 10 years realistically. My guess is India is looking at reusability. Unfortunately, um reusability comes at a cost that I don't know if they're ready to go. >> Yeah, they've they've got they've got to, you know, they got to they got to crawl before they can walk and walk before they can run. So, they're obvious if if they're not looking at reusability, then I'd be very disappointed. >> I mean, that's fair, right? SpaceX did Falcon 1 to Falcon 9, Falcon 9 to Falcon 9 R, Falcon 9 R to Starship, and I I stopped all of the I didn't do any of the blocks or marks or anything in between of the Falcon 9, but there were a billion of them, right? But Falcon 9 to Falcon 9 reusables is what I'll I'll mark the the the thing as. And like it's it's really difficult to just start with a really really big rocket and and go from there. It's also very expensive. >> Oh yeah, >> it's extremely Yep. >> Like the all of the things are are crazy. So uh any final thoughts on um India and their uh uh like I I I was taken it by surprise. I guess I was so heads down for so long over at company X. I knew >> I just I just missed it. No, apparently everyone knew but me. I was just not in the know and I was I was really excited when I saw that. I was like, "Oh my freaking rock on India." Like I hadn't been thinking of you. I guess my last question is you know um Titan you had mentioned uh India's like number four, right? like it's still kind of the US and the US market. Uh and then I think China is probably number two right now, right? And then you Russia might be number three and then India. But I guess my question to you guys is is Russia number three? >> If if India has a commercial space program that just successfully launched, is Russia still number three or did Russia just slide to number four? I think it's it's Russia uh India is number four with a bullet >> going up and Russia's dropping. I think it's just a matter of time before it's painfully obvious. I mean Russia has a lot of technology and and uh generational knowledge that's been lost and they're struggling just to just to launch their own military payloads. That's basically all they're doing now. And and crews and payloads uh cargo to the space station. That's all they do. um they have no no um no international market and so forth and they you know if you watch them building their far east Asia uh launchpad out there the the headaches and the nightmares and the diamond encrusted Mercedes-Benz that they went through was just you couldn't you couldn't make that up. I got a son who's a writer who couldn't have written anything close to that and every time the story came out I was like yeah I could believe that. >> Yeah. Well, uh, it'll be interesting to watch. Um, yeah, I'm curious to see where the industry goes. Also, super surprising that China is in front of Russia at this point, right? It wasn't that long ago when those two were flipped where it used to be US, Russia. Yeah. >> And then >> actually, I would argue it was US, Russia. >> Well, you got to put Aron Spas in there somewhere. So like where >> probably US Russia Arion space China India would have been >> Yeah. That sounds >> 15 years ago. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's it's it's amazing to watch the market just change before our very eyes. I wonder where it will be in the next 10 to 15 years. Actually, that's a great question for everyone in the chat room. Leave it in the comments below. Where do you think the market will be in 10 to 15 years? So, what do you think that leaderboard is going to look like in uh we'll say 10 years uh in uh 2035? Will it still be the US on top? Will China be on top? I mean, maybe, right? They're they're going at it, right? Like, let me know in the comments. I'm I'm curious to know what you think and why. And why? Not just what it is, but and why you think that. Um, moving along. Uh, you know, we talk a lot about, uh, man, I I wish Jared was here because he and I would get into debates over Starlink, right? Because the problem with a massively huge constellation like Starlink is if you've got uh, telescopes on the Earth observing the solar system and you got, you know, these trains of Starlinks going by, it's not great. Now, SpaceX worked with astronomers to try to minimize that and be good stewards to our night sky as best they could. But you know, SpaceX wants to put a million more satellite. A million. Literally a million. We're going from tens of thousands to a million satellites on orbit, right? China wants to put tens of thousands of satellites on orbit. Uh I just learned of Zona XA, Zona Space Systems. They want to add 258 more satellites to LEO. Uh and that that's for a updated GPS system. Um, Amazon Leo, they're going to be adding 3,236 more satellites. Um, let's see here. Uh, Space Sale, uh, China Starling competitor. They want to add 15,000 more. There's a This is getting ridiculous. [laughter] The We're getting a a billion. Like, there's so many satellites that we're putting into lower Earth orbit. When When do we run out of room in low Earth orbit? I know space is big and and the Earth is massive, but we're talking about well over a million satellites at this point. Where's the line? When do we say, "Okay, no more." Titan, I'll I'll start with you. Where where do where do we draw the line? Or or don't we? Or don't we? And we go, "You know what? This is for the benefit of all mankind. Uh we'll have to build, >> you know, observing telescopes on the other side of the constellation." >> Well, that's that's part of it. I mean it's obvious uh that with the success of all the the uh observatories on in space observatories that you can do better science outside of the earth's atmosphere and so anybody who's planning long term for that kind of thing that's obviously they want to go you still want to have some earth-based terrestrial based observ observatories um but space while it is big yeah there is a limit and you you talk about the the Kessle syndrome but more I think it's more along the uh the Wall-E uh conundrum if you remember the movie and Wall-E that, you know, they've left Earth because they're surrounded by those satellites. I know it's a comical moment, but that's a potential problem and we need obviously there needs to be some adults in the room to say, "Whoa, wait a minute." You know, uh, a million this is too much and so forth. Um, but that's that's a cultural thing. And when um collisions become a problem, uh hopefully there's the the um uh the business model for um uh de-orbiting and and and salvaging in space becomes true. >> Uh so there's a great comment um from uh URL 86 says SpaceX can easily repay astronomers by enabling launching huge tele telescopes at a bargain. Yeah, absolutely. And by the way, any of the launch providers can like Amazon, anyone could be like, "You know what? Um, we're polluting the night sky." But it's more than just launching telescopes. Like, someone's got to build the telescope, too. And space-based observatories cost more. >> Yeah, that's that's the launch is the minor expense. The real expense is the optics and the platform. >> Mhm. AB. Well, maybe the NRO has another another Hubble like telescope hanging out that we could use to look at the night. >> Oh, yeah. They do. >> Yeah, >> they [laughter] probably do. They probably do and in another 5 to 10 years you'll be able to get the year 2000 model. >> Oh my god, that's so creepy. That's so creepy. But you know, okay, so it's more than it's I think it's more than just observing the night sky. Other things to think about are these satellites because they're in low earth orbit, they're still within the drag of our atmosphere. This is something that people don't really consider. They think these satellites are going to be up there for decades to come and they're not. They're up there for four or five years maybe and then they're designed to come come back down and then break up in the atmosphere. So it effectively just scatters and nothing hits the ground. But that means that we're dumping all of those all of that metal that the satellite is made up and all of the materials that the satellite is made up gets dumped into our atmosphere. Now when you're talking hundreds or thousands of satellites, the atmosphere is massive, right? It can absorb that. I would, again, not an expert, but I'm making assumptions. It could absorb that no problem. But when you're talking millions of satellites and dumping millions of I'm going to say pounds or kilos of metal into our upper atmosphere, does that create an environmental problem for the Earth? Have we actually thought about like what happens to these things? Is there another way that we can recover these things? Are are we are we damaging? There's a lot I don't know where this line is. I guess I'm asking everyone here, you know, Dave and Andrew, I'm asking you, but I'm also asking everyone on the chat room like where do you think the line is? Have we already crossed the line? Cuz I would argue, and this was my argument with Jared, is that like bandwidth and internet, access to the knowledge of all of humanity has become uh critical to life. Just like having access to water and having access to food, having access to knowledge goes to quality of life and your ability to live well. I I would I would make that argument. And so constellations like Starlink I think are for the greater good. But I I was really I was looking at just like the sheer number of satellites. I'm like, but where do I draw where do I draw that line? Right? Like cuz there's a point where it's like, okay, well this is this is no longer for the greater good. This is just for this is just for whatever. So yeah, my question to the chat room is is where is that line? Uh I I actually I don't really know. Um I think in my mind it was always around the size of Starlink. I'm going to say around 20,000 satellites or so. A million seems egregious. What do you guys think? >> I think a lot of those numbers are pie in the sky type numbers. They're people marketing numbers and so forth. People looking for investors. the reality is probably lower but um I think the advance of technology you're going to have uh higher bandwidth especially with lasers uh you won't need as many satellites instead of have to have such a con large constellation you can get to a a tedrris like uh network but in lower earth orbit uh whether you go larger or whatever um we see what the technology is but there's obvious a line obviously a line and as far as the pollution polluting the atmosphere that's something that people have to look at I don't know that any of the commercial companies or even NASA government agencies are looking at it right now, but they should be. >> A very apt comment from the chat room from Wayland Wink says, "There's an ISSA European Space Agency study looking at the effects of mega constellation re-entries that is coming out soon. Trademark. [laughter] I would I'd be very curious to see that because I maybe this is a non-issue, right? Like maybe the the all of the material makes it into the atmosphere, it gets recycled and dumped and and we're just fine because frankly all this material started on the Earth to begin with. So, if the atmosphere can absorb it and then bring it back down to the Earth, then maybe this is a non-issue. I don't know what I'm talking about. So, do not take what I'm saying as like, oh, any form of expert. It's just me thinking of like, hey, man, we're dumping all of this into our atmosphere somehow. Right? It's vaporizing into the atmosphere. Then what um the then I I do want to uh really quickly, you mentioned TEDRIS. Uh I just want to for those who don't know, Tedrris is the tracking relay data satellite system. It was a satellite system developed by NASA that allows you to communicate with spacecraft when on orbit. It's kind of how they talk to the International Space Station. And it's why uh there's no longer a blackout period when space shuttles or vehicles come back uh from space. It's how they were able to maintain communications with the space shuttle. And going back to our earlier conversation about Colombia, it's how they knew there was an issue almost immediately because there was no blackout period for Colombia on its way down. It should not have had a blackout period. And so once they started needing to do com checks, you knew you you knew there was something wrong. So, um, David, I interrupted you. You were going to say something. >> Well, I was going to say I'm wondering, are we going to evolve to a system like, uh, aviation with scheduled routes in space and specific planes and orbits that satellites have to be following each other like a train. uh and other open spaces that you have to not everybody can pick their own plane. You have a set of predefined planes and everybody has to live in those planes and that opens up bigger holes for astronomy. >> Yeah, that's a good point. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah. >> We're Yeah, we're going to have to like have an FAA of space that lets you navigate around all of the satellites in low Earth orbit so you know where your window is and you can make it through. Uh, and then everyone in the chat room has been me mentioning Kesler syndrome, which is basically when you've got one satellite that obliterates itself and all those fragments start hitting all of the satellites around it, which cause them to obliterate themselves, which causes a cascading effect of just destroying everything in that orbit cuz it just like it'll just start circling the earth. And if we get a Kesler syndrome type thing, I think we're landlocked at that point. I I don't see a way around. I don't see how we get off the Earth anymore at that point. Well, that's kind of where uh space junk recovery business comes in. They have people figure out the way, you know, it's magnets, nets, or harpoons. You pick your pick your method and go sticky balloons. I like the sticky balloons. I got to add that to my line. Uh when I ask cuz I may I meet so many people into that business and that just became the standard answer and question for him. What which one you wear? Not that any one is better than the other, but obviously there's going to be a market for it. And also to consider this, maybe instead of planning to de-orbit these vehicles, they come up with a way to bring them out of the lower Earth orbit. Kind of like the the link satellite right now going to uh bring Swift to a higher orbit. You put a a group of commercial satellites. Maybe SpaceX builds their own and they they bring them back up or bring them up and refurbish them in space. Talk about a space industry or economy in space. If you're refurbing your own satellites in space, putting the latest CPUs, uh, updating them or, you know, damaged ones and then put that back in. That's you want to talk about saving money, that's why you save money. >> Some really good points from the chat room. Urvel 86 says Kesler syndrome is not an issue at lower altitudes Starlink operates at. Uh, and and I would actually tend to agree, right, the um, they're still within the atmospheric drag, which I kind of mentioned earlier. So, if you do have an some sort of collision or the satellite just destroys itself, it will not be long. We're not talking years for it to come back down, like it's going to it's just going to come back. It's going to get sucked back into our gravity well and that orbital plane will in fact clear itself. So, arguably, you're you're you're right. And especially since most of the satellites we're talking about, the million plus constellations are going into planes around there, right? They all can't go into the exact same plane, but like they're they're all low enough where they'll be within the drag of our atmosphere. So, very valid point, right? Like we could have a Kesler syndrome type thing where it just, you know, hits a bunch of stuff, but then it would all just kind of go within a couple months. And so, we'd be grounded for a little while, but not for very long. Um, and then forward 79 says, "Earth has been bombarded with soot for billions of years. I personally don't think it's much of an issue with burning fossil fuels here. I mean, maybe you could be. I again I don't know. I I I I just can't imagine that throwing a whole bunch of stuff into our atmosphere constantly is a great idea, right? Like the the Earth is Earth is fragile. Well, that's not true at all. Earth will be here. Earth doesn't care, right? Like we could rip the atmosphere off the planet. Earth will still be here. We won't be here. We won't survive. But the Earth will be just fine. So, you know, it's not about saving the Earth. It's about saving us because uh you know you you destroy the atmosphere, you destroy us, not the earth. Just as just side note, >> the earth is much more robust than the inhabitants there. >> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. Uh also Dave, I love that you're on the show and you and you contributed like I I don't know how you did it, but you also gave five memberships. Uh so thank you very much for doing that week after. >> Well, I got to do that too, >> you know. [laughter] No. Uh so uh before before we go on to our first um uh conundrum uh any final thoughts on just these mega constellations uh and like >> we draw the line keep your eyes open. Yeah >> keep your eyes open and uh like I said a lot of it is uh you know marketing hype people everybody wants to get into it just like u uh you know on orbit u data centers. >> Well I will say >> and we'll see what happens. M >> look, SpaceX proved first person into the territory gets to claim the the turf. Uh Starlink is the success it is because they are the currently only viable constellation in space. LEO is >> closing their initial operating phase, but they're really not operating yet, and nobody else has got anything running. >> Titan, I'm going to push back slightly. Uh don't bet against Elon, man. like uh reusable rockets weren't a thing. They weren't possible. And then until they were uh Starlink itself, it was like, "Oh, that's way too many satellites. They're never going to do that." Until they did, right? Like if Elon says, "We're putting up a million satellites." Don't believe his time frame, but don't doubt that he'll actually do it. [laughter] >> Well, everything happens in Elon time, so you have to, you know, double the number and increase the units by one. [laughter] >> Yeah. But like >> I thought it was just I thought it was just add a zero >> pretty much. >> Elon Elon executes. Elon executes. So like >> Yes, he does. >> Like don't like >> SpaceX. That's true. That's true. Uh SpaceX executes. Uh so I would if SpaceX says we're going to launch a thousand a million satellites, don't write that off. If truly don't write that off. I I think they mean it. Uh I I would never bet against SpaceX. >> When they get FCC and FAA approval, then it's definitely going to happen. >> Yeah. >> Well, this one I think it's going to be mostly dependent on FAA be because the million are the AI satellites and I have a feeling their comm requirements are less than their space requirements because they can tie into the existing Starling cluster. >> Yeah, that makes sense. Well, they'll also be at a I believe they're going to be in a um terminator orbit flying at like a >> No, they're they're not they're Nope. They're they're in shells just like the uh Starlinks are. But they just announced this week, I don't know if you saw it, Jamie, they just added about 30% or 40% to their power budget. They grew them again. [laughter] >> They were already huge. >> Yeah. Well, they went from like 100 I I don't remember the numbers. It was like from 120 to 160 kW um available, which works out to be exactly the power needed for the current Nvidia, one current Nvidia rack. >> So, oh, and that's the other thing. People keep thinking it's an entire data center, and it's not. They make up and build a data center, but each object is is effectively, think of it like a single rack in a data center. Um, some great comments from the chat room I want to touch on. Stanj 720 7223 says comms are can be lasers. It doesn't need to corrupt the radio bands, right? Like you already have radio going space to ground on Starlink. Just use um the laser system to get into the Starlink system because you just need processing on the on orbit data center, right? Like the comm's already taken care of by Starlink. So you can be, you know, you can be really smart about that. And then uh Dean White 9386 says twice as long to a miracle is still a miracle. 100%. 100% right. It's only impossible. And you've heard me, you guys have heard me say this so many times on this show. It's only impossible until it isn't, right? So like I cannot tell you how many people thought we were crazy 14, 15 years ago and like, "Oh, you're never going to do that." And um everything that uh we set out to do, we did. >> All the boxes have been checked. >> Oh, that's not just like television. >> Wait, wait, that's not true. Stage two reuse is still in work. It's still in work. Right. I remember we released an they released an animation of stage 2 reuse with these itty bitty little legs, right? And that uh that hasn't come to fruition yet, but I have no doubt that Starship Starship will be >> I'm sitting I'm sitting here looking at stage use hardware stage two reuse hardware in progress. I think it's coming uh very soon. >> Uh all right. Uh also uh from Forward 79 uh contributing two pounds. Thank you very much. Uh raise Kerszwheel's books are selling again and fast. Uh so Kurszwheel uh the futurist right like he uh that's what I always knew him for the futurist before he went to go and work at Google I think on their AI stuff. So uh also he does longevity Ray Kurszwhe is an interesting gentleman. >> Well he also I I think he also did music synthesizers. >> He man he does a little bit of everything. There's a little bit of everything, you know, and I know this is one of the topics. >> Well, you know, let's talk about this in After Dark. I don't know if you guys know this. I found out kind of like around the same time I found out that India had a commercial space program. Apparently, the International Space University, ISU, has gone belly up and is no more. And so, we we'll talk about that in After Dark, but like that's not good. That's not what we need stuff. We need stuff like that. >> All right, let's uh let's move on. Let's move to our first uh Katen conundrum. Uh because uh you know you know why not, right? Like we're still going to call it a Kaitton conundrum. Uh and this one is um this one's a a Jamie original. >> Oh jeez. >> Uh-huh. Which is how many engines did the Mars Colonial Transporter originally plan to have? Is it 27, 32, 33, or 42? Woohoo! We have music. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, we were struggling with every We were struggling with audio. Something fierce pre-show. It was great. >> You could you The chat room is neck and neck with uh 27 and 42. >> No. And 33's pulling it pulling up fast. >> Yeah. All right, we're going to call it there. All right. Uh Dave, what is your answer? How many engines did the Mars Colludial Transport originally plan to have? >> I have no clue, but I'm going to pull a Jamie and say 27 because that's three Falcons. >> That all right. Yeah. So, it's a Falcon Heavy, right? A Titan. >> Falcon Heavy. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a Falcon Heavy is worth >> 42. It's the answer to everything. >> Ultimate answer to life. >> The answer [laughter] to everything. >> And the chat room also chose 42 uh barely, right? It was neck andneck between uh 27 and 42. The correct answer for Mars colonial transporter was actually 27. So for those of you who answered 42, 42 was not in until the uh it the interplanet interplanetary transport system. The very very first announcement was a three-stage booster Mars Colonial Transporter and it had 27 engines. Was also the original announcement of a Raptor engine which uh what was announced was nothing like what actually ended up getting built. [laughter] But but uh yeah that the the original original first plan was 27 as announced at IA. Uh I think that was Guadalajara is when that one was announced and then it moved very quickly to IT and then right after that because everyone was no one how did this work? People didn't like that the C stood for colonial which is stupid whatever. Uh and then it was just plain stupid because it was like its and we all thought that that was a dumb name. And so then Elon was like fine we'll just call it the BFR the big Falcon rocket. >> That was [laughter] my favorite. Mind you, I'm a little bit sad that BFR didn't stick. And then he was like, and then one day the edict came down. It's like, nope, it's Starship. And everything from here on out will have Star in the name. And he wasn't kidding. Like everything would have star in the name. And now you've got Starship. The thing that I dislike about the Starship architecture is the ship is Starship, the booster is super heavy, and the stack is Starship. So when you say Starship, are you talking about the full stack or the ship? And I I personally the engineer brain in me hates that there's no differentiator between the two. So you never know what you're actually talking about. Which means my ability to speak with precision with other people is to what I was referencing the full stack or just the ship was gone. And so then you had to say start the starship stack or you just call it full stack or things like that which is not an official name for anything. But anyhow, >> yeah, thank thanks for playing. >> Very poorly. >> Yes. >> Very poorly overloaded term. >> Yeah. I love BFR. BFR was always and I love that it was big Falcon rocket and you always have to stall on Falcon too, right? Like you can't just go straight into it, right? You you always have to just kind of like, oh >> draw that f out for anticipation. [laughter] >> What are they going to say? What are they going to say? Um, all right. So, we've got uh a handful of comments from last week's show. There are only a handful of comments because last week was a technical nightmare. As many of you may remember, we had audio issues. We actually had a recording issue. So, all of the recordings were dumped and lost. And so, alls we had all the only thing we had left was the YouTube recording that didn't come down correctly. So, we couldn't actually post the nicely edited file after the fact. So, I don't think it reached as many people as it normally did, which meant that our comments weren't as much. But, you know, ah, live and learn. It happens. Uh, but we we had a couple. So, uh, the first one, uh, is, uh, if USSR had gotten to the moon first, I'm 100% sure NASA would have still gone as well. So, why didn't Russia or the USSR the Soviet Union ever go? That's an interesting point, right? Like, um, what do you guys think? Do you think, let's just say, um, oh god, what's the name of the the TV series, uh, the Apple >> For All Mankind? >> For All Mankind. Yeah. If you think for all mankind was true and the Soviet Union had beat the United States to the moon, do you think the United States still would have gone? >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. I think it would have been a Sputnik. >> It would have been a Sputnik moment and it would have motivated us even more. >> Why do you Why do you think the Soviet Union didn't go though? They had the N1. I mean, it didn't work well. [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, the it it it it uh it all comes down to the commitment. When uh when the United States decided to go to the moon, they built an entire program, funded it, and built hardware out, you know, developed the hardware and built it out. Um so there were literally Saturn 5 boosters laying around uh when it all came apart. And so there was there was the plan was there. We were moving forward. The Soviets were building one-offs. the N1 um they only built them one at a time and they didn't have the money to build the the and the resources to build the the fleet if you want to say it. Plus, there's um there's a there's a line of reasoning that says that we actually beat the Soviets in about 1961 is the point uh whenever NASA approved the budgets or Congress approved the budgets for the Saturn program is the moment we jumped ahead of the Soviets because the Soviets didn't commit to a even a a way forward till about 1965 >> uh on how to get there. We we worked on that in the late 50s early 60s and picked uh lunar rendevous where the Soviets were still front of it and a lot of that is the result of their system the competing um design bureaus and it was always you know a competition as opposed to a cooperation lots of great comments. Um, so Eeka says, I think we would have stayed. So that I mean it is kind of that for all mankind, right? So like that moment of, hey, we're still in competition. We're not going to give up here. Like let's keep going. Uh, it it is interesting. I I wonder if they had if the Soviet Union had beat the US. I wonder if we'd be further along in our space program cuz Nixon wouldn't have canceled everything cuz, you know, he there still would have been a competition. Or maybe he still would have canceled everything. he would have been like, "Oh, they beat us." Cuz he really did not like the space program, right? Like when when you look at uh space shuttle, like he he ripped out all of the architecture. He was like, "You can have the shuttle and nothing else." >> And that a lot of that was Congress, too. Um but when do we when we beat the Soviets and then they looked over we looked over our shoulder and they weren't even coming. In fact, I remember years ago they talked about how the Soviets tried to deny they even had a moon program that when they when the solute when the space station started flying, they said, "Well, that's what we've always that's been our, you know, they were trying to rewrite history essentially." >> Yeah, I agree because uh next comment from Dystopian Profit, the N1, that's the rocket. It didn't work and the development team was in tatters. I mean, the N1 rocket detonated multiple times and I think if I remember, if memory serves, it killed a lot of people on one of those detonations. Like, it came back down like on a building or like near a building and just took out like a lot of dev team that was working on the on the vehicle. And the N1 was absolutely a lunar rocket. No matter what the Soviet Union said, >> the N1 was designed for the moon. >> Yep. Well, I also think the technology gap that developed uh during that era between the electromechanical controls on the Soviets and the electronic controls on the Americans uh just doomed the N1 and anything in that er >> uh Aravail has two backto-back comments that are really great which is they tried four times. This is Soviet Union with the N1 failed all four times and the higherups said yeah we're not funding this anymore. And I think and a follow-up point to that, I think the US would have gone, but not if the next Saturn 5 next four Saturn 5 launches had blown up. And I I tend to agree. I think there would appetite for that would have um been seriously diminished, right? Like I I guess I get it. I get it. Right. But the Soviet Union was also very secretive, whereas the United States was doing this in the public's eye, right? Like everything was broadcast everywhere. the world could see the Saturn the Apollo program and the Saturn programs. So, but whereas with the Soviet Union, how many people actually knew about the N1 program at the time? Like >> very very few. >> Yeah. So, I don't >> very very few >> I don't know. I don't know. They they if you're working in secrecy, it's it's a little bit different. I I don't know. I don't know. Um and then DAG is it DAG overhaul? If the Soviet Union beat the US to the moon, NASA would have already gone to Mars. Uh maybe I'm actually I'm curious to know again what everyone here thinks. Like this is an interesting conversation. It's kind of that for all mankind kind of moment. Do you think if the Soviet Union had beat the United States uh to the moon, would we actually have a base on Mars by now? Would would we have continued out into the stars, kind of like the TV series For Mankind? Or do you think um we would have just gone nope, we don't see we don't see an advantage here? Like remember remember there's more acceptance of space now in the United States than there was during the Apollo program. Less than 50% of Americans wanted the Apollo program. It it rated less. Now it's it's not very much more right now. It's like 51 52% last. I uh take all those numbers with a grain of salt, but like you know, oh uh this is also a really good comment, man. You guys are just nailing these comments. Um John Jr. for DJ uh says, "Von Braun's work was ahead of its time, too. Genius is difficult to copy." >> Yeah. >> There's a >> Yeah. the uh um >> the chief designer, Soviet chief designer um uh Carloff was a a genius in his own right. Uh but the system is what hamstrung him. The Soviet system was not about cooperation. It was about competition. >> Well, Fosilla brings up a really great point. Uh Corv dying in 1966 slowed them a lot too, right? Like if you lose, imagine if the United States had lost von Braonn before the Saturn 5 was complete. >> Imagine if this United States had lost von Braonn in 1966. >> Like, woo. Oo. Right. Cuz like they had issues. >> Let's not pretend like the Saturn 5 worked great. It had issues. >> Yeah. But by the by ' 66 his original work is done. He they were they were working through problems. they had the it wasn't like he was the only guy who had the keys to the keys to the car, but he was he was more of a political motiv motivator at that point. Uh he was high enough up you know Disney was putting him on TV and so forth. So he was a more of a PR and so forth. I think his death would have been a problem problem but it wouldn't have slowed him down by much if any because by that point they the Apollo program was very mature at that I mean was moving along. Mercury and Gemini were going you know finished up too. This is really interesting from Foszilla. The creator for All Mankind said that Coralab surviving his surgery is where they differ and why Russia won the moon in the TV series. That's an interesting concept. I'm uh bit of a stretch. The N1 was not a good rocket. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That that that's I I Ron Moore uh big fan of his Star Trek work. A little bit BSG. Um he uh he he assumes >> a little bit wait a little bit BSG fighting words be careful now. >> Well well except the last episode. I enjoyed the whole thing. In fact we got to have a BSG talkath talk later about some things some classic episodes that I wish others would would take as inspiration for writing in science fiction. Um, I I mentioned earlier that the the the point in my mind when we won the race was when this when the Apollo program was funded and that they figured out how to do it and so forth and that fact that the Soviets were not didn't have a definitive plan till 65. Um, that's when it all happened. Uh, but for for for the sake of storytelling, Carl's death, yes, that's a very key point in the uh at least for morale uh within the Soviet program. I mean, there were a lot of things that worked against them. Um, you know, it it is interesting. I wonder if the if parallel universe is our thing, I wonder I wonder what Earth 927 is actually like where the Soviet Union beat him. Um, all right, moving along. Um, from uh Alexis Deppund 4939. Oh, by the way, the first comment was from Grubby. I don't think I mentioned their name, but this one's from Alexis. Uh, in my head cannon, Andrew is an ancestor of my favorite Star Trek characters, uh, Tom Paris. And I will say I I think the same thing every time I see your name on the screen. >> Actually, you know, there's more to truth to that than than you think because I I already played this game in my head. So, um, yes. So, Tom is my 10th great grandson. 10 times great great grandson. Um, and his father, anybody remember Tom's father's name, his name is Owen. Owen is my middle name and Owen is my grandson's name. And it gets better, right? My son works in Paris. Spent most of his career spending in Paris. So several generations from now, the Paris two Rs, the family will drop one of the Rs to be more French than British. And that's where the family line for Owen and Tom Paris comes. [laughter] You really have thought this through. That's hilarious. I love it. >> It was already there. >> I absolutely love it. >> It's already there. >> Is that your >> By the way, my great-grandfather's my great-grandfather's name was Thomas. >> Is was it really? >> Yes. >> Just keep it in the family. Keep it in the family. Is Star Trek uh where your your favorite Star Trek thing? >> It's one of them. I'm a fan of all Star Trek and I think both in Star Trek and Star Wars and any any franchise you talk about. It's like a family, right? And some of it you like some of your family and some of your family you're not like really fond of or care about, but it's all part of the family. >> Well, I want to talk to you about Battlestar Galactica, the reimagined Ron Moore, Battlestar Galactica and After Dark because uh that is some of my favorite sci-fi. Some of my favorite moments happened there. Another one, really great one that I absolutely love is Babylon 5, but we'll we'll move it out over sci-fi uh in After Dark. Um before we do that though, we've got one more trivia question for the team. >> Yep. All right. So, this one is, what is the chamber pressure of a Seale Raptor 3 in pounds per square inch PSI? >> African or European? >> I know, right? Right. Metric or >> I can't see. >> All right. 4820. 4820 is winning. The chat room is currently trying to look up the answer as fast as they can and doing conversions >> cuz I know they cheat. >> The problem is The problem is which which production date? >> That's That's fair. That's fair. I I think it's >> exactly >> cuz I I think it's a moving target. >> All right. So, the chat room has chosen 4820 pisses. Um Dave, what do you uh what do you vote for? >> I'm going to go with the chat room just cuz it's got a 20 in it. >> 4820 and Titan. >> I have no clue and I can't see [laughter] it anyway. >> Just guess. Just guess. It's It's 4,800. 4810. 4820. Okay. 4820. Everyone has chosen 4820 and everyone is wrong. The correct answer is 4,800 pounds per square inch. And now in fairness, it depends on the engine and it depends on so many different variables and maybe that's why some of them aborted this last week. Uh because Raptor, let's be clear, Raptor is a development engine, but that is based on um what was kind of like announced from SpaceX and like target uh target pressures and whatnot. Uh all right, I hope that was that was kind of a fun show. It was off to a little bit of a rocky start. Uh but you know, Does somebody get the points for everybody being wrong? >> Oh, yeah. Do I get points? I feel like I should get points. We can't give them to Ryan, right? Like, we can't give them to Although I love I love that it's still a Katen conundrum. Yeah. Uh, we give J. So, Sack is in my ear and he just asked he's our producer. He just asked how many points we give me. I think a million. Does that seem fair? >> Oh, [laughter] wait. No, no, no. Uh 4820 >> 48 4820 for the wrong answer that you all gave. >> I get 4,820 points cuz you all answered incorrectly. All right, we we'll we'll debate this in After Dark. And speaking of After Dark, a huge thank you to everyone who contributes to the show who will have access to After Dark coming up here in a moment. So, if you can contribute at the ground support level or higher, uh you actually get your name in the show and and a shout out from us and a huge thank you for making this show happen week after week, month after month, year after year. You can contribute both on YouTube as well as on Patreon. By the way, I realized earlier today, we don't actually scrub the name. So, technically speaking, if you contribute on both Patreon and YouTube, you get [music] your name in the show twice. And it cost you twice as much, though. Uh and then uh of course After Dark Orbit 18.21 [music] will be coming up just after this show. Uh this yeah this was an interesting show. Uh it was uh you know smaller than normal. I almost canled the show cuz we didn't have our normal number of hosts. But you know I I let me know what you think uh in the comments. Did this work for you? Should we have uh should we have punted this? Like how'd it work for you? On that note, thank you all so much for watching. We'll see you next week.