0:00

Coming up on this week in

0:02

space, Trump's pick for NASA Chief

0:04

meets the U.S. Senate. There's a

0:07

new comment in the night sky,

0:09

and we're going to talk to

0:11

Dr. Phil Metzker in Florida about

0:14

all the ins and outs of

0:16

landing on the moon, on Mars,

0:18

and how we're going to safeguard

0:20

our stuff once we get there.

0:22

So tune in. This is

0:24

this week in space episode

0:27

number 156 recorded on April

0:29

11th 2025 rocket blast Hello,

0:31

and welcome to another episode

0:33

of this week in space the

0:35

rocket blast edition I'm rod pilot

0:37

chief of Ad Astor magazine. I'm

0:40

joined by that space ace himself

0:42

Tarak Malek editor-in-chief at space.com. Hello

0:44

partner Hello, low-rod Space Ace was

0:46

a great arcade game back in

0:48

the day. Very much fun, yes.

0:50

I just can't get away from

0:52

it. A few minutes will be

0:54

joined by Dr. Phil Metzger from

0:57

the University of Central Florida, who's

0:59

an expert in many things, including

1:01

CIS lunar space, and specifically has

1:03

worked on the problem of rocket plumes

1:05

when landing spacecraft on the moon and

1:07

Mars. Exciting. Which may not be something

1:10

you thought a lot about. Many people

1:12

haven't, up until recently, but it's a

1:14

big problem. And basically, it's kind

1:16

of like assaulting Normandy Beach in

1:18

1945. You know, there's a lot

1:20

of very dangerous stuff heading at

1:23

you. So it's somebody that's gonna

1:25

need to be reckoned with and

1:27

he's just the man to listen to.

1:29

But before we start, please don't forget

1:31

to do as a solid and make

1:33

sure to like subscribe and all the

1:36

other podcast things to let us

1:38

know that we have your love because that's

1:40

important. And now it's space joke time.

1:43

All right, I'm ready. And this

1:45

is a space joke from

1:47

Name Redacted. Hey Toric! Hey Rod!

1:49

How's it going? Have you heard

1:51

there's a new sheriff in town that

1:53

is a DC? Uh, no, no, I've not

1:56

heard that. Who is this? Yeah, it's

1:58

time to get out of Doge. Okay,

2:00

name under dacted, that was mine. And

2:02

I didn't use AI. I was too

2:05

stupid. I thought it was clear. I

2:07

thought it was clear. Not very spacey.

2:09

I guess NASA, I guess I'm about.

2:11

Well, I'll give it to you. With

2:13

the science budget being slashed, I think

2:16

it's plenty spacey. Now I've heard that

2:18

some people want to hang us high

2:20

with a joke time on this show,

2:22

but you can help. Send your best

2:25

worst or most of different space joke

2:27

to us at TWIS at TWIS at

2:29

TWED. Now, let's talk about some headlines.

2:31

Headlines. Headline news. Headline news. I got

2:34

it! You nailed it. So, hey, we

2:36

just had a confirmation hearing finally. Finally,

2:38

finally, at last. For our favorite prospective

2:40

candidate for NASA administrator, who I like

2:43

to call Space Jesus. Is he our

2:45

favorite or is he the only one

2:47

right now? I haven't heard of any

2:49

alternatives, but I don't think I'd, you

2:52

know, there's always a case to be

2:54

made in my humble opinion for a

2:56

strong politician in that position because you

2:58

really need to know how to brass

3:01

knuckle with people to keep your budget

3:03

straight. But if they put a number,

3:05

and I haven't heard who the deputy

3:07

might be under Jared, I suspect they

3:10

will be a politician. Hopefully, somebody who

3:12

can handle that heavy lifting for them.

3:14

And then we suspect Greg Autry will

3:16

be in position number three. That's the

3:19

CFO talk, right? So that's a team

3:21

right there. But I'd like to get

3:23

your take on the hearings because the

3:25

one thing that stuck out to me

3:28

more than anything, and I forget which

3:30

Senator it was, but he said, now

3:32

Mr. Isaacman, I just want to know

3:34

if Elon Musk was in your meeting

3:37

with Donald Trump. Yep, that was Senator

3:39

Ed Markey. Jared said it was a

3:41

meeting between me and the president. It

3:43

was a meeting with the president. Yeah.

3:46

And then he asked that question four

3:48

or five more times, and Jared would

3:50

probably repeat the same answer every time.

3:52

So clearly that was something that was

3:55

prepped of script. He also asked Jared

3:57

Isaacman to answer yes or no, and

3:59

he refused to answer yes or no,

4:01

and just repeated that he was there

4:04

for meeting with the president. And that's

4:06

actually one of the things I wanted

4:08

to talk about. It was actually a

4:10

very interesting and long. I think it

4:13

lasted about like two and a half,

4:15

three hours, the hearing itself, until about

4:17

1230. Yeah, about two and a half

4:19

hours. And it wasn't just Jared Isaac

4:22

Min alone under his, you know, being

4:24

pitched as the Trump's NASA chief, you

4:26

know, to be confirmed. There was a

4:28

member of the board, I believe, for

4:31

the FCC, as well. And she was

4:33

grilled. about independence from Elon Musk and

4:35

Starlink in FCC communications which was very

4:37

interesting in its own right but you

4:40

know but for us and for the

4:42

purposes of the show Clearly, Trump has

4:44

a favorite, it's Jared Isaacman, billionaire, shift

4:46

four, CEO, made his billions with that

4:49

payment system. Every time you check out

4:51

at a store or whatever, if it

4:53

says shift four, he's getting some of

4:55

your ducats, you know, while you're doing

4:58

that. And that's where he got all

5:00

of his billions so that he can

5:02

have a private air force. He has

5:04

the largest private air force. He actually

5:07

trains US military pilots with his, what

5:09

was that company he cofounded. And he

5:11

has flown to space. twice. Excuse me,

5:13

but let me just say, maybe a

5:16

good preparation for being NASA administrator is

5:18

the fact that his private Air Force

5:20

plays the adversary in the war games.

5:22

So, oh yeah, there you go. If

5:25

you're used to shooting down pilots and

5:27

mock battles, maybe that's a good thing

5:29

for running NASA. I'm sorry. Yeah, I

5:31

mean, so, so this, I mean, and

5:34

he is a pilot. He doesn't just

5:36

own the company. He flies those supersonic

5:38

planes. And so he is, he's got

5:40

a lot of that experience just, it's

5:43

not with the military. It's not with

5:45

NASA, right, it's this private stuff. that

5:47

he has done over time, and he

5:49

bought two flights already with SpaceX. He

5:52

flew the first all-private mission to orbit,

5:54

Inspiration 4, back in 2022. Just last

5:56

year, he did the first private spacewalk

5:58

with his crew on Paleristan, and he

6:01

did buy or reserve at least two

6:03

more flights, including the first crude flight

6:05

of Starship. If he's confirmed, though... As

6:07

NASA administrator those missions are going to

6:10

be on hold because that that would

6:12

otherwise make him both customer and then

6:14

I guess contractor to SpaceX and I

6:16

think I read that he was actually

6:19

going to cancel them if he was

6:21

confirmed, but at least on hold. Yeah,

6:23

at least at least on hold. But

6:25

it was very interesting, you know, during

6:27

the panel, he was grilled repeatedly by

6:30

Ted Cruz of Houston and others about

6:32

what his plans would be. And then

6:34

also the impact that Elon Musk may

6:36

or may not have had on those

6:39

plans. And two things really stood out,

6:41

three things actually. Number one, he really

6:43

feels that the path that we're on

6:45

with SLS to get to the moon

6:48

for Artemis 3 etc is like the

6:50

fastest if not the most efficient way

6:52

to do it this is the system

6:54

that we have so he anticipates kind

6:57

of you know seeing that through so

6:59

so that we can achieve well to

7:01

be specific though flying through Artemis 2

7:03

and Artemis 3 exactly and I think

7:06

he's leaving it open for that proposed

7:08

off ramp from Scott Pace and others

7:10

where we say okay do we now

7:12

move off of SLS exactly but the

7:15

Artemis 3 that was like the question

7:17

Are we going to go to the

7:19

moon with that or not? And so,

7:21

but a little bit of a twist

7:24

to that is that he doesn't see

7:26

the moon as the end-all destination, that

7:28

the Artemis program is making it out

7:30

to be. He sees it as like

7:33

the stepping stone to Mars. We've heard

7:35

that a lot, but it seems like

7:37

it has a bigger focus. That's not

7:39

surprising because he seems to be very

7:42

close with Elon Musk. That's what Elon's

7:44

whole spiel is about. Number two, he

7:46

said that he didn't anticipate that he

7:48

didn't anticipate. big cuts to science, which

7:51

is really at odds with something we're

7:53

going to talk about in a little

7:55

bit too, like it was too early

7:57

to tell. So kind of the jury

8:00

was still out, very similar than he

8:02

was asked. about closing NASA centers or

8:04

moving them. There's a push to move

8:06

NASA headquarters to Kennedy Space Center, for

8:09

example. And he said that it's too

8:11

early to understand he needs to get

8:13

the lay of the land once or

8:15

if he is confirmed. So that's interesting.

8:18

But a lot of talk was about

8:20

his independence from Elon Musk. How much

8:22

of an actual independent operator will he

8:24

be? He was asked repeatedly by senators.

8:27

Did Elon? have any input in your

8:29

plan for NASA? No, no, he said.

8:31

In fact, he didn't have detailed discussions

8:33

with Elon Musk at all. He did

8:36

admit that when he went to Maralago

8:38

to meet with President Trump to interview

8:40

for the position, that he did, I

8:42

guess, have some kind of conversation in

8:45

passing with Elon. And so they kept

8:47

pressing, did you have a meeting with

8:49

Elon? Yes. No, did you have a

8:51

conversation with Elon? Perhaps. I mean, it

8:54

was just, it gets to the point

8:56

where it's absurd the way they're parsing.

8:58

I understand the importance of knowing the

9:00

difference. He did finally come out and

9:03

say, look, SpaceX works for us, not

9:05

the other way around. Which I thought

9:07

was a good thing for him to

9:09

say, and he did also confirm. that

9:12

he plans to stay with the ISS

9:14

through 2030 because of course Elon's was

9:16

saying, oh let's get rid of it.

9:18

Well he said that he wants to

9:21

talk to Elon must have found out

9:23

what his reasoning is to end the

9:25

space station. He doesn't see the need

9:27

to end it early but wants to

9:30

know what the reasoning is. That's what

9:32

he said during the time. He was

9:34

very enlightening. What do you think the

9:36

reasoning might be? Yeah I know. Would

9:39

a couple of starships in orbit make

9:41

a good... space station base okay i

9:43

don't know i don't know but it

9:45

was quite interesting but the the big

9:48

exchange with with the senator edmarky from

9:50

massachusetts was i think that the the

9:52

the big sticking point was Elon Musk

9:54

in the room when Donald Trump offered

9:57

you the job right yes or no

9:59

he wouldn't say it sounds very much

10:01

that through that omission that i mean

10:03

Elon might have been in that room

10:06

which you would expect He's like his

10:08

biggest customer right now for private space

10:10

flights. So we'll have to see if...

10:12

You know, does Elon being in the

10:15

room necessarily indicate that he envisions having

10:17

Jared be a soccer puppet at NASA,

10:19

which I don't think any of us

10:21

believe would be the case? And if

10:24

he wasn't shoveling gold to blooms on

10:26

the musk to Trump's desk, I don't

10:28

see the problem. Well, I guess it's

10:30

just, it's a matter of optics, right?

10:32

Because if the answer is yes, and

10:35

if he says yes to, yes, Elon

10:37

was there, I had a meeting with

10:39

him about NASA and everything, then it's

10:41

a really bad luck. It looks like

10:44

Elon. is able to walk over the

10:46

president to get his yes man in

10:48

charge. It makes Jared look like a

10:50

yes man, and that's the only reason

10:53

that he's there. And it makes Trump

10:55

look like he has no say that

10:57

he's just kind of throwing Elon a

10:59

bone to get what he needs. So

11:02

I can see that there's optics there,

11:04

but I really hope that anyone that

11:06

gets, you know, that if Jared does

11:08

get a confirmed, Jared Isaacman, that there

11:11

will be independent. You know administrator in

11:13

charge for the best of the government.

11:15

He said that was his his guiding

11:17

star. What is the best? Path for

11:20

the country for NASA for the legacy

11:22

of the US space program not for

11:24

this company for that company for this

11:26

party etc so that's encouraging I think

11:29

well in time will tell and I'm

11:31

no expert and this is just a

11:33

personal opinion but I've met him a

11:35

few times I've heard I think three

11:38

addresses by him. We'll probably hear another

11:40

one at the ISDC that you'll be

11:42

attending because he's going to be one

11:44

of our keynotes. And far as, you

11:47

know, anybody can tell, he's sincere. He's

11:49

on the right side of the angels.

11:51

He really wants the best for the

11:53

country in the space program. There's no

11:56

political agenda there, at least not that's

11:58

obvious. Of course, you can't be NASA

12:00

administrator without being a politician to some

12:02

extent. but i think he'll be as

12:05

good as we've had so it is

12:07

it is it is very challenging i

12:09

agree with you He seems like a

12:11

great guy. I've met him as well.

12:14

I've interviewed him as well. And he

12:16

seems to know also what he's talking

12:18

about in a very unique way. Like

12:20

we talked about the private space force.

12:23

It's a very different perspective. And we

12:25

saw... I think we saw a lot

12:27

of similar talk about Jim Bryden seeing

12:29

when he was selected, and we got

12:32

Artemis out of that. We got a

12:34

lot of steadfast, and there was pushback

12:36

to many efforts by that first Trump

12:38

administration to shut down Earth science under

12:41

Brydenstein. In fact, they resurrected some programs.

12:43

So we'll see. I think that in

12:45

the climate, it's a much more politicized

12:47

and dynamic one than there was back

12:50

in that first one, so we'll see

12:52

how this whole thing... Sounds out, because

12:54

sadly, like you just said, it touches

12:56

everything now. Nothing is apolitical, even if

12:59

it seems like NASA would be one

13:01

of those. Well, nothing at NASA is

13:03

safe, including the Goddard Space Center, which

13:05

we're talking about closing. Okay, let's try

13:08

and get through a couple more. Yes,

13:10

yes. You're going to insist on talking

13:12

about Katie Perry again, Katie, Katie, Katie.

13:14

What about Katie? Because baby she's a

13:17

fire? work, right? She's going to show

13:19

us what's what she's worth. I hope

13:21

not. I hope not. No, no. That

13:23

indicates explosion in flight. We don't like

13:26

that. Well, well, uh, Katie Perry is

13:28

going to space. As of right now,

13:30

the next time you and I speak,

13:32

a pop star will have flown in

13:35

space. Lauren Sanchez, fiancé and I guess

13:37

former journalist Wright of Jeff Bizos, has

13:39

recruited an all-female crew, the world's first,

13:41

to launch on a Blue Origins New

13:44

Shepherd. Lift-off is set for 10 a.m.

13:46

Eastern Time on April 14th, as we're

13:48

recording this, Katie Perry is on the

13:50

crew, as is Gail King of CBS

13:53

News. Also, I think she's Oprah's friend,

13:55

if memory serves. And a number of

13:57

other other luminaries, it's actually quite interesting.

13:59

They have picked Isherbo, a former NASA

14:02

astrophysist, and like a... a STEM person,

14:04

you have Karen Flynn, a filmmaker, and

14:06

Amanda Wynn, I believe she's an activist,

14:08

if memory serves, and they are all

14:11

very accomplished women, and now they've all

14:13

been brought together on one crew to

14:15

launch on New Shepherd, and not since

14:17

Valentina Taras Shkova's flight, have we had

14:20

a flight that was just a full

14:22

female crew? And of course, that was

14:24

just one. person back in the 60s.

14:26

So that's pretty much it. You know,

14:29

like one of the biggest pop stars

14:31

on the planet is going to launch

14:33

into space. It's really going to happen

14:35

this time, not like Lance Bass when

14:38

he was trying to get to the

14:40

space station way back when. And it's

14:42

going to be interesting to see how

14:44

it all goes. It will be live

14:46

streamed. And it's gotten a lot of

14:49

pushback. I think we might have talked

14:51

about it a little bit. There's been

14:53

a lot of criticism about what kind

14:55

of a look this is for Katie

14:58

Perry for all the crew, but mostly

15:00

Katie Perry. In fact, actress Olivia Munn

15:02

called her out saying it was one

15:04

of the biggest waste of money in

15:07

a really tough economy. where everyone else

15:09

is like under, you know, feeling the

15:11

pinch. But here these people are going

15:13

on an extravagant space flight. More so

15:16

than any other blue origin space tourist

15:18

flight. You know, am I seeing the

15:20

backlash? And it's very strange, you know,

15:22

at this point in time to see

15:25

how severe it is. Yeah, that's not

15:27

like it's tying up NASA resources. I

15:29

mean, I suppose before Sarah Brightwell. chicken

15:31

out of her trip to the space

15:34

station, I suppose you could have said.

15:36

Oh Sarah Brimman, that's right, she was

15:38

going to go to the space then,

15:40

yeah. Yeah, and you could argue, is

15:43

that what happened? Is that what happened?

15:45

She, she decided not to go, yeah,

15:47

well, I don't know if she's afraid,

15:49

but she decided not to go, yeah,

15:52

well, I don't know if she's afraid,

15:54

but she decided not to go, which

15:56

she's afraid, but, you know, a blue

15:58

orge and new shepherd flight. He was

16:01

completely private and independent and doesn't type

16:03

any of that. Also last 10 minutes,

16:05

that's it. It's like, yeah. But it

16:07

launches and it comes back down, it's

16:10

over with. So. We have a new

16:12

comet coming. Comet swan, yeah. So did

16:14

you find this one? I don't remember

16:16

putting this one on. No, that's you.

16:19

Oh, wow, look at that. That's me.

16:21

I'm so smart. Do we have a

16:23

link? Yes. Yes. So it's a brand

16:25

new found comet. It was discovered on

16:28

March 29th by Skywacher Vladimir. I think

16:30

it's Bizzougli. I think that's how you

16:32

pronounce his name of the Nepro Ukraine

16:34

who found it. And then it was

16:37

in fact followed up on it. It's

16:39

this new comet. So it is called

16:41

comet C20-25 F2 Swan. And this weekend

16:43

is the best weekend to look for

16:46

it. We're getting reports that it is

16:48

already visible to the unaided eye, which

16:50

is really exciting. Some of our Asher

16:52

photographer friends have been sending us great

16:55

images of it. And so if you

16:57

are looking to try to see this

16:59

comment, you need really dark skies, because

17:01

it isn't like the brightest. It's not

17:04

like a great comment. Because, you know,

17:06

even a... I think at its closest

17:08

point it's going to be like 89

17:10

million miles away, something like that. But

17:13

this weekend is, you know, I've been

17:15

told by our experts at space.com. It's

17:17

the best time to really look for

17:19

it because after this weekend, you know,

17:22

getting into mid-next week, it's going to

17:24

go into the southern hemisphere. It will

17:26

be a southern hemisphere primarily object at

17:28

that point in time. So great for

17:31

everybody in Chile, not so great for

17:33

us. And so I advise anyone if

17:35

you can get out to really dark

17:37

skies, you know, check out one of

17:40

these guides, see where it is in

17:42

your night sky, and let me know

17:44

if you can see it. I would

17:46

like to know what it looks like,

17:49

because I haven't seen a comment in

17:51

a comment in forever. So back during

17:53

the pandemic, I ran out trying to

17:55

see two comments and I drove probably

17:58

three to four hours each time. And

18:00

it was still bright. I mean,

18:02

there's just nowhere, unless I hop

18:04

on the boat and go offshore

18:07

for about three hours, there is

18:09

just nowhere dark in the California.

18:11

And I suspect it's probably similar

18:13

where you are. All right. The

18:15

beach at Malibu and out in

18:17

the desert, you can get out

18:19

there too. But it's- Beacham Malibu

18:21

ain't dark anymore, brother. Oh no,

18:23

well, that was 25 years ago.

18:25

Yeah, I mean, probably, if you

18:27

went out to point conception or

18:29

something, or something, but anyway. All

18:31

right, everybody. Sounds like a high

18:34

school, a high school, like kissing

18:36

make-out point conception there. I'm not

18:38

gonna ask you about it. Not

18:40

for people like us that were

18:42

in band, but anyway, I digress.

18:44

All right, so we are gonna

18:46

be right back with Dr. Phil

18:48

Metzger to talk about rocket blasts,

18:50

so go nowhere. And we are

18:52

back with Dr. Phil Metzker, who

18:54

I've been. Aching to get on

18:56

the show for a long time.

18:58

Phil, I saw you recently at

19:01

a, which conference was that? It

19:03

was in Florida, that's all I

19:05

remember. Maybe. Maybe. ISDC probably, ISDC

19:07

probably, anyway. So I, it was

19:09

good to see you face to

19:11

face because I could finally say,

19:13

hey, we really want you on

19:15

the show. So here you are.

19:17

And that's a pleasure for us.

19:19

So for those view in podcast

19:21

land. Dr. Phil Metzger is a

19:23

research professor at the University of

19:25

Central Florida, the director of the

19:27

Stephen W. Hawking Center for Microgravity

19:30

Research and Education, co-founder of the

19:32

famed Swamp Works at KSC, which

19:34

we'll talk a little bit more

19:36

about later. And did I miss

19:38

anything important? No. That's enough. So

19:40

you're involved in an awful lot

19:42

of stuff, but I think what

19:44

captured my interest, and it's not

19:46

all we'll be talking about, but

19:48

your work with rocket plumes is

19:50

kind of a big deal because

19:52

we're discovering or figuring out that

19:54

having a rocket land nearby your

19:57

space habitat is kind of like

19:59

walking into a hail of machine

20:01

gun fire, which is not a

20:03

good look. think for lunar habitats.

20:05

Oh and I forgot you're part

20:07

of the lunar architecture team, the

20:09

Mars architecture team, and lunar exploration

20:11

analysis group who helped develop NASA's

20:13

technology roadmap for planetary surface technologies.

20:15

Going to all the places, all

20:17

the good places, right? Moon, Mars,

20:19

all the fun place. So can

20:21

you tell us a little bit

20:23

about the Institute at UCF? Sure,

20:26

yeah, when Stephen Hawking was alive,

20:28

you may remember he flew and

20:30

reduced gravity. Peter Diamandis put him

20:32

up to that. And at the

20:34

time, people were asking him, why

20:36

are you doing this? And he

20:38

said, it's because he thinks space

20:40

is our future. And if we

20:42

don't go to space, we're not

20:44

going to have a future. So

20:46

he wanted to get the public

20:48

interested in space. And he believed

20:50

that taking a microgravity flight was

20:53

a step toward space flight. That

20:55

was his attempt to get the

20:57

public more interested. And at the

20:59

time, some people at the University

21:01

of Central Florida approached him and

21:03

said, hey, would you like us

21:05

to continue this messaging that you're

21:07

doing by creating an institute in

21:09

your name? And he said, yes.

21:11

Well, it took about 10 years

21:13

to get it through the state

21:15

legislature in Florida. And in the

21:17

meantime, Stephen died. But we've worked

21:19

with his estate. And so we

21:22

stood up the Stephen Hawking Center

21:24

for microgravity research and education. And

21:26

they asked if I would lead

21:28

it a little over a year

21:30

ago. We're still trying to formulate

21:32

the goals of the center and

21:34

we're still working with the state

21:36

government trying to get all the

21:38

legal documents in place. What I

21:40

really, the direction I really wanted

21:42

to go is to help democratize

21:44

space, get more people invested in

21:46

space so that people all around

21:49

the world have equity in the

21:51

process of settling space and expending

21:53

industry into space. That way, once

21:55

we reach that massive scale up

21:57

point, which I think is only

21:59

some decades away, Once it starts

22:01

to scale up, whoever owns that

22:03

industry will never have a motive

22:05

to dilute their equity. And so

22:07

whoever owns it owns it. And

22:09

so I think it needs to

22:11

be democratized before we hit that

22:13

massive scale-up transition if we want

22:15

to keep society healthy, have democracy

22:18

survive into the future, etc. So

22:20

that's what I'm trying to aim

22:22

us towards. Well that sounds like

22:24

a very good plan and Tarak

22:26

I have one quick follow-up you

22:28

don't mind. Can you tell us

22:30

I toured Swamp Work years ago

22:32

I had been on a Caltech

22:34

working group with Rob Mueller and

22:36

then I had a chance to

22:38

go out to Florida and he

22:40

gave us a great tour and

22:42

we saw your your lunar I

22:45

guess you call the Simuliff Bay

22:47

and and some of the other

22:49

stuff you're doing there. Can you

22:51

tell us a little bit about

22:53

Swamp Works? Yeah so... There were,

22:55

I was in the technology development

22:57

group at NASA and I was

22:59

going back to school getting my

23:01

PhD at the time and there

23:03

was a point where NASA got

23:05

a windfall of cash back from

23:07

a contractor that had underperformed and

23:09

was sued. And we had to

23:11

spend the cash quickly. So I

23:14

volunteered to spend some of the

23:16

money on equipment for geotechnical testing.

23:18

And once I got the equipment,

23:20

I didn't really have anywhere to

23:22

keep it. And so a young

23:24

woman that you may have met

23:26

along the way. Jackie Quinn was

23:28

also the tech group. And she

23:30

pulled some levers and helped me

23:32

get a laboratory. And so I

23:34

knew Rob Bure and I asked

23:36

Rob if he wanted to go

23:38

in on this lab with me.

23:41

And we did. And then we

23:43

just had one success after another

23:45

over the next few years. We

23:47

ended up. taking ownership of a

23:49

large high bay out at the

23:51

space center, one serendipitous thing after

23:53

another. We were given a budget

23:55

of a million dollars to retrofit

23:57

the facility, and so we ended

23:59

up bringing it as the swamp

24:01

works and it was really a

24:03

bunch of young technologists that not

24:05

not all young I wasn't young

24:07

but mostly it was young technologists

24:10

at the Space Center who wanted

24:12

to be involved in extending civilization

24:14

beyond Earth and so we were

24:16

acting as entrepreneurs trying to create

24:18

this organization inside of NASA and

24:20

we got a lot of pushback

24:22

but the people at NASA headquarters

24:24

really loved what we were doing

24:26

and kept giving us funding and

24:28

so it grew into the swamp

24:30

works. So it's now focused on

24:32

developing technologies for mining, manufacturing, construction

24:34

in space, exploration in space, just

24:37

basically surface technologies for the surfaces

24:39

of planetary bodies. Is that swamp

24:41

works because it's going to be

24:43

a swamp on the moon or

24:45

because of the Florida swamp or

24:47

just because you know when you're

24:49

launching and testing new rocket stuff

24:51

your armpits get all swampy from

24:53

the stress? I don't know. What

24:55

does that come from? They don't

24:57

have skunks in Florida. No we

24:59

do actually have skunks in Florida.

25:01

I think I remember when I

25:03

was a kid but... But no,

25:06

we wanted to be like the

25:08

Scunkworks or the Phantom Works. You

25:10

know, there's a number of these

25:12

innovation hubs around the country. We

25:14

were intentionally adopting methods from Silicon

25:16

Valley and from Kelly's, I forget

25:18

the name now, Kelly Johnson, his

25:20

methods of doing, running an engineering

25:22

organization. And so we wanted to

25:24

name it something like skunkworks. And

25:26

people tell me that I was

25:28

going to come up with the

25:30

name swamp works, but I don't

25:33

remember that. But it was just

25:35

because the Kennedy Space Center is

25:37

on a marsh. And it didn't

25:39

sound good to say marsh works.

25:41

So you changed it from marsh

25:43

to swamp. Oh, I think I

25:45

would have gone for gator works,

25:47

but all good. Phil, I'm very

25:49

curious, you know, I know that

25:51

you have a, like a bachelor's

25:53

degree in electrical engineering from Auburn,

25:55

a PhD in physics from, from

25:57

UCF, but I'm curious about the

25:59

path that puts you on that

26:02

road to space. If it's something

26:04

that's been with you since you

26:06

were like young, where you kind

26:08

of knew, it was something you

26:10

wanted to do on, you know,

26:12

for the future, or was it

26:14

something that you discovered a little

26:16

bit later on? as like a

26:18

side passion that really turned into

26:20

a career while you were trying

26:22

to do something else entirely. Yeah,

26:24

so I grew up assuming I

26:26

would work on space because I

26:29

grew up in Titusville, my dad

26:31

worked out of the cape and

26:33

everybody that I knew had a

26:35

dad or a mom or a

26:37

aunt or an uncle that worked

26:39

out at the space center and

26:41

it was just understood that's what

26:43

you do. You grow up and

26:45

a job of the cape. started

26:47

to get interested in other things

26:49

one way to college, was going

26:51

to get a degree in architecture,

26:53

decided that wasn't really for me,

26:55

and ended up just coming back

26:58

to the space program. And so

27:00

I got a job right out

27:02

of college working on the navigation

27:04

systems on the space shuttle, and

27:06

then I worked on the calm

27:08

and nav systems on the space

27:10

station. Along the way they started

27:12

talking about getting NASA more oriented

27:14

towards research less in operations. So

27:16

they were sending employees back to

27:18

get PhDs and I applied to

27:20

the program. I asked a bunch

27:22

of different managers what would be

27:25

a good research topic that I

27:27

could put on my application. And

27:29

one of the people I talked

27:31

to was Mike O'Neill. Mike was

27:33

the deputy to Joanne Morgan. I

27:35

don't know if you've heard of

27:37

Joanne. She was I think the

27:39

first female... person in the launch

27:41

control center at Kennedy. So the

27:43

first launch controller who is female.

27:45

She's kind of famous, but Joe

27:47

Ann and Mike talked about ideas

27:49

and they said, well, what about

27:51

when you have a rocket fuel

27:54

factory on Mars and you're going

27:56

to land on Mars and then

27:58

refuel to come back to Earth

28:00

when you land near it, you

28:02

don't want to sandblast it and

28:04

destroy it. So they suggested that

28:06

I study how rocket exhaust blood

28:08

soil. And I thought that was

28:10

really cool idea. So that was

28:12

what I adopted and I've been

28:14

doing that ever since now for

28:16

like... 25 years I've been studying

28:18

how rocket exhaust blows soil. So

28:21

if you grew up in Titusville,

28:23

you must remember the Titusville Mall,

28:25

which I saw I think in

28:27

1986, it was the first time

28:29

I'd ever been in a mall

28:31

that had, I think, eight-foot ceilings

28:33

or something. It was kind of

28:35

odd. I don't know if it

28:37

was the mall, but it was

28:39

a mall. And I remember walking

28:41

around going, yeah, I remember when

28:43

it was built. It was called

28:45

the Miracle City Mall. I don't

28:47

know why Titusville was considered a

28:50

Miracle City. It was kind of

28:52

a little backwater place my whole

28:54

life growing up, but it was

28:56

a big deal for Titusville when

28:58

we finally got a mall. Well,

29:00

and it's grown a lot the

29:02

last few years. I was there,

29:04

I don't know, I guess two

29:06

years ago, and I was really

29:08

impressed with how things had changed.

29:10

I like the swap meet in

29:12

Titusville on Route 1, which if

29:14

you dig, you can find a

29:17

lot of great space, like artifact

29:19

gems there, and they can make

29:21

really great hamburgers too. All right,

29:23

we're gonna go to a quick

29:25

break, and then we'll be right

29:27

back with our next set of

29:29

steering questions, so standby. So

29:36

are you focusing primarily on rocket

29:38

plumes at this point? Is that

29:40

your main area of research now?

29:42

Well, probably about 50%. The other

29:44

half I'm working on robotics for

29:46

mining construction and just operating on

29:48

the moon in general. Okay. And

29:50

maybe you could talk a bit

29:52

about why I mean I kind

29:54

of touched on it in the

29:56

intro. but there's a lot more

29:58

to it than that. Why it's

30:00

so important to worry about plumes,

30:02

because those of us that grew

30:04

up during the space race thought,

30:06

and of course there was nobody

30:08

else there when the lunar landers,

30:10

when the lunar module sat down,

30:12

but you know, watching the grainy

30:14

60 millimeter film from the limb

30:16

landings, you didn't get the impression

30:18

it was going to sandblast structures

30:20

a half a mile away, but

30:22

apparently that's a very real concern.

30:24

So I wonder if you could

30:26

sort of elaborate on that. When

30:28

I first started working on this

30:30

topic, I was facing a lot

30:32

of resistance inside NASA because nobody

30:34

wanted to believe it was a

30:36

real problem. They said, you know,

30:38

we didn't have a problem in

30:40

Apollo, we didn't have a problem

30:42

in Viking landing on Mars, so

30:44

why is this a problem? And,

30:46

um... Because there was nothing there,

30:48

maybe? Well, you know, the thing

30:50

wasn't in Viking, they spent millions

30:52

of dollars, redesigning the Viking, the

30:54

Viking thrusters, to reduce the plume

30:56

effects, and it was successful. And

30:58

then on Apollo, we blew a

31:00

lot of dirt. They did a

31:02

lot of research and we blew

31:04

a lot of dirt at very

31:06

high velocity, but we didn't land

31:08

near any operational hardware, so we

31:10

didn't damage anything. And so that's

31:12

why they just have this memory

31:14

that it was no problem. But

31:16

we did, on Apollo 12, land

31:18

160 meters from the Surveyor 3

31:20

spacecraft. And the astronauts cut pieces

31:22

off and brought them back to

31:24

Earth. And there was a point

31:26

where I went to Houston and

31:28

went through the... the lunar receiving

31:30

laboratory. And I looked through all

31:32

of the parts they had brought

31:34

back from Surveyor and we checked

31:36

them out, got them shipped to

31:38

us, I used to keep them

31:41

in a safe. We had to

31:43

bolt the safe to the floor

31:45

to the concrete slab, bolt it

31:47

from the inside so you couldn't

31:49

steal the safe. And it had

31:51

to be in a facility that

31:53

was under security in addition to

31:55

the safe, you know. So these

31:57

were like national treasures. And we

31:59

studied them for several years. quantifying

32:01

how much they were sandblasted, what

32:03

we found out. was that the

32:05

sandblasting would have actually been a

32:07

thousand times worse, but they were

32:09

down inside of a crater. It's

32:11

called Surveyor Crater now. And the

32:13

Apollo lunar module landed on the

32:15

rim. So most of the spray

32:17

went over the surveyor, and only

32:19

a tiny fraction from particles colliding

32:21

with each other scattered out of

32:23

that main spray and sandblasted the

32:25

surveyor. But even so, it was

32:27

more than 100% coverage. for scouring

32:29

the entire surface, and then it

32:31

was peppered with little sand grains

32:33

that punctured holes all in the

32:35

paint. And so by counting the

32:37

sand grains, we could calculate the

32:39

quantity of material that was blown

32:41

in that direction. But then we

32:43

compared it to the pictures of

32:45

the blowing dust as we're landing,

32:47

and that's how we got the

32:49

comparison. But yeah, it totally scoured

32:51

up the surface. It etched. permanent

32:53

shadows into the hardware, ruin the

32:55

paint, surveyor damaged itself during its

32:57

own landing. It had a camera

32:59

looking sort of downward and the

33:01

plumes between the three veneer thrusters

33:03

meet in the middle and then

33:05

spray up. And so it sandblasted

33:07

the camera, brewing the lens. So

33:09

we do have some experience. Also,

33:11

by the way, you may remember

33:13

when Curiosity landed on Mars, it

33:15

got gravel all over the instrument

33:17

deck. And the aft wind sensor

33:19

was broken and they believe that

33:21

was because of a gravel strike.

33:23

A lot of people were really

33:25

surprised at that, but then we

33:27

finally got pictures during the perseverance

33:29

landing where you can actually see

33:31

during descent all the rocks blowing

33:33

all over the place. So yeah,

33:35

we do, we definitely have experience

33:37

of spacecraft getting damaged from plume

33:39

effects. And we've done a lot

33:41

of theory, a lot of analysis,

33:43

a lot of experiments. And we've

33:45

tried to quantify how much the

33:47

damage is going to be in

33:49

the future and it's pretty bad

33:51

if we don't mitigate it. Well,

33:53

I think it's worth mentioning for

33:55

both perseverance and curiosity. the kickback

33:57

material from the surface was from

33:59

a rocket pack that was probably,

34:01

I don't know, 20 feet in

34:03

the air, right? I'm sorry, that

34:05

was for the, which one? For

34:07

Curiosity and perseverance that we used

34:09

in the sky crane. So, you

34:11

know, Viking, you had those small

34:13

rocket motors that had. I think

34:16

12 or 16 little tiny nozzles.

34:18

And we had Rob Manning on

34:20

here a while ago and he

34:22

was talking about how by the

34:24

time they came around to the

34:26

21st century, that talent pool was

34:28

gone and they really could not

34:30

recreate those engines, which is part

34:32

of the reason I guess they

34:34

came up with Sky Crane. But

34:36

yeah, so if it was actually

34:38

a rocket engine right on the

34:40

surface, which I think Surveyor had.

34:42

I guess the effects would be

34:44

much worse. Well, there was a

34:46

scientist at JPL named Anita's and

34:48

Gupta. I think she's still there,

34:50

but she's not working on rocket

34:52

plumes now. I think she's working

34:54

on something else. Well, Anita did

34:56

the plume analysis for the sky

34:58

crane. And what she found was

35:00

that even though the sky crane

35:02

is way up high above the

35:04

above the surface, the jets from

35:06

those thrusters would be coherent narrow

35:08

jets. all the way to the

35:10

ground. And the reason why is

35:12

because Mars has enough of an

35:14

atmosphere to focus them into jets.

35:16

But it's not enough atmosphere to

35:18

cause turbulent mixing to taper the

35:20

jets off and extinct them at

35:22

a short length, like it would

35:24

be on Earth. So it's actually

35:26

a worst case on Mars. You

35:28

get these jets and they go

35:30

much longer than they would on

35:32

Earth. And so they reached all

35:34

the way to the surface. She

35:36

predicted that would happen. She predicted

35:38

the vehicle would get sandblasted as

35:40

it was being lowered to the

35:42

surface. But you know the way

35:44

it is when you talk to

35:46

people, it's hard to get them

35:48

to really grasp what you're saying

35:50

unless there's a visualization. So when

35:52

they finally saw the gravel all

35:54

over curiosity, they were saying, I

35:56

remember it on TV, they were

35:58

saying. We had no idea this

36:00

would happen. And I was going,

36:02

Anita told you what was going

36:04

to happen. But then they believed

36:06

it, you know, after seeing it,

36:08

because seeing really drives it home.

36:10

See, I think that's like a

36:12

thing that I find surprising, because

36:14

when we talk about plumes on

36:16

the moon, on Mars, maybe even

36:18

on Earth, we think about. blasting

36:20

other stuff that's nearby. Oh, your

36:22

fuel depot, oh, your habitat. But

36:24

not the spacecraft itself, and you're

36:26

not even there. I mean, we

36:28

were just talking about the SpaceX,

36:30

a Starship, when they did their

36:32

big first test launch, and, you

36:34

know, talk about like a plume

36:36

there, they lost a bunch of

36:38

engines because they kicked it all

36:40

up right into the, right into

36:42

the bottom of the rocket there.

36:44

And they didn't even get off

36:46

the ground. They weren't even on

36:48

the moon. Yeah, I had a

36:51

graduate student just defend his PhD

36:53

last week and He he and

36:55

I did some research on that

36:57

Starship launch Because you can see

36:59

chunks of concrete flying up in

37:01

the air past the rocket and

37:03

then you can see Splashes in

37:05

the ocean and I measured from

37:07

the video that the height of

37:09

those splashes They were as tall

37:11

as a six-story building. Oh my

37:13

gosh, the giant chunks of concrete

37:15

hitting the water And so I

37:17

measured the timing, you know, how

37:19

long did it take the water

37:21

to the rocks to get to

37:23

the water, you know, the timing

37:25

of the chunks flying up in

37:27

the air, the farthest distance any

37:29

of the chunks traveled. And we

37:31

figured out they were traveling 90

37:33

meters per second. So basically a

37:35

football field per second, chunks of

37:37

concrete like half the size of

37:39

a Volkswagen. Wow. And so, um...

37:41

Yeah, it was a big blast.

37:43

The real fun thing that surprised

37:45

me the most though was they

37:47

got sand raining down on Port

37:49

Isabel, which was I think six

37:51

miles away. Yeah, that's where we

37:53

were over there. Yeah, now sand

37:55

should not be able to travel

37:57

that far in atmosphere because the

37:59

atmospheric drag. stop it. It shouldn't

38:01

go more than 100 meters or

38:03

so. No matter how fast you shoot

38:05

the sand, it's not going to

38:07

go that far. Now dust, really

38:10

fine dust, can get suspended and

38:12

carried infinitely far. You know, that's

38:14

why dust will come from Africa

38:16

across the Atlantic to the U.S.

38:18

But these were sand particles raining

38:20

down in Port Isabel. So we

38:23

were shocked and we did a

38:25

lot of research. We worked with

38:27

a professor at Rice University as

38:29

well. And we got people

38:31

to send us samples. And

38:33

what we found out was that

38:35

the sand flew up in the air

38:37

with this hot rocket exhaust. The

38:40

rocket exhaust was mostly water vapor.

38:42

And so the sand seated the

38:45

formation of raindrops. And it created

38:47

a hot. cloud that was rotating

38:49

and had internal rotation which kept

38:52

the sand in the raindrops suspended.

38:54

And this cloud traveled six miles

38:56

north and we measured the speed

38:59

of the cloud and we got

39:01

the local winds and everything made

39:04

sense. And then what happened was

39:06

by the time it got over

39:08

Port Isabel, the raindrops had grown

39:10

large enough seated around the sand

39:12

grains that they started to fall

39:15

out of the sky carrying the

39:17

sand with them. So that was

39:19

pretty remarkable. That Starship launch not

39:21

only blew up the launch pad,

39:23

it actually created a rainstorm over

39:25

Port Israel. So I guess it's

39:27

safe to say that you don't

39:29

want to be standing in a

39:31

cloth space suit, EBA suit, a

39:33

couple hundred meters away from anything

39:35

that's landing or taking off? No.

39:38

Well the thing about the moon

39:40

especially is that there's no atmosphere

39:42

to slow it down. Here on

39:44

the earth, the dust doesn't go

39:46

very far. You know, the sand

39:48

doesn't go very far normally, other

39:50

than unless it's carried in a rain

39:52

cloud. But the things that go

39:54

the farthest on earth would be

39:57

like concrete. But they don't go

39:59

that fast. because they're a nursery,

40:01

they don't speed up that fast. Well

40:03

on the moon it's the opposite. The

40:06

smaller things go the farthest because they

40:08

speed up the most in the rocket

40:10

exhaust and then there's no air to

40:13

slow them down. So the sand and

40:15

the dust will go close to the

40:17

speed of the rocket exhaust which is

40:19

like three kilometers per second and that's

40:22

above lunar escape velocity. So you do

40:24

blow dust completely off the moon into

40:26

orbit around the earth in the sun.

40:29

every time you land a large enough

40:31

rocket on the moon. And so you

40:33

do damage it very long distances. The

40:36

question is, well we can't make it

40:38

zero damage. You're going to damage things

40:40

all over the moon every time you

40:42

land on the moon. We can't make

40:45

it zero. The question is, how low

40:47

do we need to make it so

40:49

that it'll be good enough? Because the

40:52

space environment is constantly damaging your hardware

40:54

anyways. You know, there's dust in space,

40:56

it's falling to the moon, it's accelerating

40:59

as it falls. So you're always being

41:01

pummeled by dust in space. We just

41:03

need to get the level low enough

41:06

to where it's acceptable. But unfortunately, we

41:08

don't have any international agreement on how

41:10

low is low enough. And that's an

41:12

area we're going to have to work

41:15

on. Boy, so now we've got to

41:17

worry about moon smog on top of

41:19

everything else. Okay. Is

41:25

it moon smog or would it

41:27

be hail? Like moon, well, depends

41:29

on how big the particles are,

41:31

right? Hail hurts more than smog

41:33

does. So a natural, I guess,

41:36

progression from this is talking about

41:38

landing pads, and I think you've

41:40

done some work on robotically constructed

41:42

advanced landing pads, right? Yeah, when

41:44

I was at the swamp works,

41:46

we had a project one time

41:48

where we... brainstormed ways of doing

41:51

construction on the moon, like to

41:53

build a landing pad or to

41:55

build other things. And we came

41:57

up with 50 different... technologies and

41:59

they ranged from bringing polymer from

42:01

earth to mix with the soil

42:04

because the moon doesn't have any

42:06

natural cements. It doesn't have clay

42:08

minerals and it does have calcium

42:10

in the lunar highlands rock so

42:12

you could make cement but it

42:14

would be chemical processing to do

42:16

that. But so we talked about

42:19

bringing binders from earth using microwaves

42:21

to melt the soil using infrared

42:23

lasers and a lot of other

42:25

methods. It's basically the favorites nowadays

42:27

are microwave centering, bringing polymer from

42:29

earth. You can rake up rocks

42:31

from the moon, from the soil,

42:34

and then make a rock bed.

42:36

You wouldn't want that to be

42:38

in the center of your landing

42:40

pad, but the majority of the

42:42

acreage around the perimeter of your

42:44

pad could be rock gravel. Another

42:47

method would be baking pavers in

42:49

an oven, so like a convection

42:51

oven. or an infrared oven, so

42:53

that you're not necessarily using microwaves.

42:55

But then if you make pavers,

42:57

then you have to have robotics

42:59

to lay them down and grout

43:02

them to keep the gas from

43:04

going through. So those are some

43:06

of the methods. There's still other

43:08

groups working on other technologies. I've

43:10

worked a bit on the microwaving

43:12

one. I worked on methods to

43:14

get the energy lower. I was

43:17

hypothesizing that the... the lunar minerals

43:19

that are highly magnetic would probably

43:21

also be more microwave absorptive. And

43:23

so that was the hypothesis. We

43:25

tested it. We used magnetic fields

43:27

to sort the lunar soil simulents,

43:30

which were very high fidelity with

43:32

correct mineralogy. And it was true.

43:34

We were able to reduce the

43:36

energy by 70% by passing it

43:38

through a magnetic field first. mean

43:40

that you're like aiming like a

43:42

microwave gun at the at the

43:45

at the regalith and then it

43:47

just like bakes itself into a

43:49

flat plane is that what we're

43:51

talking about where I could just

43:53

like if like an astronaut who's

43:55

there just stands out there with

43:57

one of those little like a

44:00

garden hose thing and slowly cooks

44:02

himself a landing base for the

44:04

people to come? Yeah it would

44:06

be on a river and the

44:08

river would drive along slowly with

44:10

a horn antenna pointed down at

44:13

the ground just shooting microwaves in

44:15

it. Let me tell you a

44:17

little story. One time we had

44:19

a group, the Florida governor had

44:21

selected a group of, I think,

44:23

12 high school students, and for

44:25

us, it was an honor thing,

44:28

and they gave them a tour,

44:30

and in two or three days

44:32

at the Space Center. So I

44:34

had to host them in my

44:36

lab for half a day. And

44:38

I gave them each the task

44:40

of coming up with a technology

44:43

to build a lunar landing pad.

44:45

And I gave them all different

44:47

ideas. Well, one kid said he

44:49

wanted to microwave. So we had

44:51

a microwave oven in the lab.

44:53

And so he put a bowl

44:56

in a little. a little high

44:58

temperature bowl, a little bit of

45:00

lunar soil cement, stuck it in

45:02

there and hit start. Well, I

45:04

was working my way around the

45:06

room helping all the other students

45:08

with their projects. 20 minutes later,

45:11

20 minutes, I came back to

45:13

that student and said, how did

45:15

it turn out? He said, oh,

45:17

it's pretty good. Look in the

45:19

window and he had a bowl

45:21

of literal lava. And so I

45:23

immediately unplugged the microwave and I

45:26

went to grab it to take

45:28

it outside. It was so hot

45:30

I couldn't touch it. I had

45:32

to put on oven mittens and

45:34

carry the whole microwave outside and

45:36

set it outdoors. And it cracked

45:39

the turntable and melted the turntable

45:41

in place so it wouldn't rotate

45:43

anymore. And it cracked the beaker

45:45

that it was in. But yeah.

45:47

You can melt, you can melt

45:49

lunar soil in a microwave oven.

45:51

Well, you made a scientist that

45:54

day. That's a Murray, Madam Curie

45:56

moment right there of fun discovery.

45:58

I wanted to ask next about,

46:00

did you have a follow-up target?

46:02

I didn't mean to jump up.

46:04

Well, I'm just wondering, like, I

46:06

get the need to make these

46:09

landing pads, but I'm curious if

46:11

just in the studies, Phil, that

46:13

you ran, does it just make

46:15

more sense when we send people

46:17

there to not even build anywhere

46:19

near these things? Like, why build

46:22

above ground if you're going to

46:24

get sandblasted every time a Starship

46:26

brings some people down or your

46:28

cargo lander comes down where you

46:30

could just dig into a into

46:32

a into a cave? And then

46:34

nothing's going to hit you because

46:37

you're on the ground. Well, I've

46:39

never been a really big fan

46:41

of the idea of building in

46:43

caves. I think partly because I've

46:45

never seen one, you know, on

46:47

the moon. I know I've seen

46:49

pictures of skylights into into supposed

46:52

lava tubes. I don't doubt it.

46:54

There's surely lava tubes on the

46:56

moon. But are they are there

46:58

going to be enough lava tubes?

47:00

Are they going to be where

47:02

you want them? How hard is

47:05

it going to be to go

47:07

in and out? of lava tubes,

47:09

you know, what kind of infrastructure

47:11

do you need to lower things

47:13

down? People have talked about sealing

47:15

them off, you could do that,

47:17

you're not going to have a

47:20

perfect seal, but if you can

47:22

seal it good enough so that

47:24

the makeup rate on the air

47:26

isn't too high, then you could

47:28

do that. But to me, it

47:30

just seems like a lot of

47:32

complications, and maybe after we get

47:35

to the moon, after we get

47:37

experience working on the moon, that

47:39

might be the step to go.

47:41

Next, but I think the first

47:43

step is just building on the

47:45

surface, less complication, and also the

47:48

solar energy is on the surface,

47:50

communications is easier on the surface,

47:52

you know, so I think just

47:54

for simplicity, I would aim. that

47:56

way first. Now I do have

47:58

friends that are all into mining

48:00

under the ground on the moon

48:03

and we've had arguments about this.

48:05

The moon is is not like

48:07

the earth. The earth, the crust,

48:09

is constantly recycled and so we

48:11

have a lot of bedrock but

48:13

on the moon there's no recycling

48:15

of the crust and so for

48:18

billions of years it's been bombarded

48:20

and busted up and you have

48:22

to go down like 10 kilometers

48:24

before you get to bedrock. Well,

48:26

yeah, I mean, it's, there's, there's,

48:28

I mean, there are some pieces

48:31

of bedrock exposed in some of

48:33

the steep rims of, of the

48:35

deep basins from impacts, but, but

48:37

mostly, you just, there's, you're gonna

48:39

be digging through rubble for a

48:41

very long depth. When you finally

48:43

get down to the bedrock, it's

48:46

all shattered, it's shattered up bedrock,

48:48

you know, so, so. I don't

48:50

know what mining would be like

48:52

under those conditions. You know, you'd

48:54

have to be stabilizing the surface,

48:56

stabilizing the walls constantly as you

48:58

go. And I'm just not sure

49:01

that that's going to be that

49:03

easy. I've always focused on surface

49:05

mining, just scooping up the minerals

49:07

that are on the surface and

49:09

extracting resources from that. Like a

49:11

quarry more than like a hole,

49:14

like a in the grape mining.

49:16

You know, there's big strip mines

49:18

mines, so where they're getting copper

49:20

or... other resources. And the mine

49:22

might be 10 miles across, you

49:24

know, and a mile deep or

49:26

something crazy like that. You see

49:29

these gigantic trucks and they can

49:31

only do two trips per day.

49:33

It takes four hours to drive

49:35

to the bottom or two hours

49:37

or something. It's such a long

49:39

trip and then drive back out

49:41

against spiral up and out. So

49:44

you know, you can you can

49:46

have big mining operations that are

49:48

on the surface. It's not a

49:50

limit to the size. But But

49:52

that's the way I've always considered

49:54

it to be. Yeah, yeah. Well

49:57

let's do. those on the far

49:59

side so we don't have to

50:01

see them from Earth. We're going

50:03

to run to one more break

50:05

and we'll be right back. Stand

50:07

by. You've talked a bit about

50:09

the idea of industry on the

50:12

moon and infrastructure and supply chains

50:14

and so forth. I wonder if

50:16

you can comment on that and

50:18

what the tipping point might be

50:20

for all this to work commercially.

50:22

Yeah, so I do think we

50:24

need to move... industry off the

50:27

planet as much as possible. I

50:29

don't believe we can move all

50:31

of the heavy industry off the

50:33

planet. You know, we hear Jeff

50:35

Baso say that a lot. The

50:37

problem with moving heavy industry off

50:40

the planet is how do you

50:42

move the products back to the

50:44

earth and entering through the atmosphere

50:46

heats the atmosphere and which drives

50:48

chemistry which creates greenhouse gases, knocks.

50:50

And so I don't, I have

50:52

never really been a big fan

50:55

of bringing a lot back from

50:57

space other than very special things.

50:59

They're not gigantic quantities. I'm more

51:01

into trying to move what we

51:03

can off the planet where the

51:05

product would be data or energy

51:07

so we can beam energy back

51:10

down to the Earth or we

51:12

can move the compute off of

51:14

our planet. and unburdened the planet

51:16

that way. You know, I think,

51:18

I firmly believe by the end

51:20

of the century, most of the

51:23

economy is going to be compute.

51:25

And most of the manufacturing will

51:27

be making compute, making technologies and

51:29

making power systems to support all

51:31

the compute. And so if we

51:33

move that off the planet, that's

51:35

going to unburden our planet by

51:38

like 50% or more of its

51:40

burden. So that's what I think

51:42

the long-term... wind would be for

51:44

space industry in addition to just

51:46

making a more vibrant more exciting

51:48

civilization and opening the horizons to

51:50

to great things so so that's

51:53

what that's what looking forward is

51:55

trying to move enough industry off

51:57

the planet to where we can

51:59

benefit the earth, create a bright

52:01

future. Now how long will it

52:03

take before we can really get

52:06

this supply chain in space to

52:08

be self-sustaining or sufficiently built so

52:10

it can start to scale up

52:12

rapidly? That's a hard question and

52:14

the reason it's hard is because

52:16

it's difficult to find business cases

52:18

in the mid-term. The near term

52:21

is simply support NASA, support JAXA,

52:23

support ESA, and then launch satellites

52:25

that provide data, you know, very

52:27

centered on the planet, but not

52:29

going beyond. The midterm would be

52:31

trying to do things that go

52:33

beyond that start to use space

52:36

resources, start to develop a supply

52:38

chain in space before there is

52:40

a supply chain in space. Now,

52:42

once you finally get a supply

52:44

chain of space and we're in

52:46

the long term, everything becomes easily

52:49

economically viable and it's no problem.

52:51

That mid-term is the hard part.

52:53

Who are the customers? What is

52:55

the product that you're going to

52:57

produce that people on earth are

52:59

going to pay you for that's

53:01

not simply launching comm sets? Well,

53:04

so I got so frustrated with

53:06

this years ago, I started looking

53:08

at alternatives. One alternative is... We

53:10

get enough billionaires to just pour

53:12

their money into it. So Jeff

53:14

Bayes-O-Clon Musk and a whole bunch

53:16

of others, pour their money into

53:19

it, how fast can we get

53:21

over that hump if they do

53:23

it without making revenue in the

53:25

mid-term? And I was thinking, oh,

53:27

that could be something on the

53:29

order of 20-30, 20-40, I forget

53:32

the number. But you could get

53:34

there pretty quickly. It only take

53:36

like 20 or 30 years to

53:38

get to that tipping point if

53:40

you had enough people throwing money

53:42

into it into it. You know

53:44

unfortunately Elon and Jeff don't even

53:47

have enough money to do it

53:49

though. You know what the money

53:51

they have is actually just the

53:53

valuation of their companies. And that

53:55

can't be converted into liquid funds.

53:57

You can't just spend it on

53:59

making space stuff without tearing down

54:02

their existing businesses. So I started

54:04

looking at other alternatives. Another alternative

54:06

is get the governments of the

54:08

world to just pay for it

54:10

and do it quickly. And I

54:12

wrote a paper about that, how

54:15

to bootstrap industry in space very

54:17

rapidly. It would make NASA more

54:19

efficient. It would give us better

54:21

science, better exploration, and it would

54:23

bootstrap the future. And it would

54:25

only cost about a third of

54:27

NASA's budget for something like 20

54:30

to 40 years. So a very

54:32

doable, but somebody named Tom Kalil,

54:34

he was in the Office of

54:36

Science and Technology Policy in the

54:38

White House. He later became the

54:40

CTO for Schmidt, for Eric Schmidt,

54:42

former CEO of Google. Anyways, Tom.

54:45

contacted me and said, I read

54:47

your paper, really like it, we

54:49

really want to pursue this, but

54:51

the problem is we're still not

54:53

going to convince Congress to pay

54:55

for it. So we started working

54:58

on other ways to fund it,

55:00

creatively, like making educational and entertaining

55:02

programs that would help fund this

55:04

bootstrapping process. So anyways, if we

55:06

continue the slow path wrong, it

55:08

might be the end of the

55:10

century. We've got enough billionaires to

55:13

pour money into it rapidly. It

55:15

might only be 30 years, but

55:17

I think the most likely scenario

55:19

is a combination of all of

55:21

that happening. And then at some

55:23

point, the governments of the world

55:25

are going to wake up and

55:28

realize it is coming, and it's

55:30

not going to be 2100, it

55:32

might be 2040, might be 2050.

55:34

And once they realize, then they're

55:36

going to suddenly go into reaction

55:38

mode. and start to bootstrap it

55:41

intentionally so that they can get

55:43

there before their competitors do. So

55:45

I think that's most likely going

55:47

to happen. And I think we're

55:49

already seeing signs that the governments

55:51

are starting to wake up. You

55:53

know, it's funny that you... like

55:56

the things about computing, you know,

55:58

getting that, like the bulk of

56:00

that as, you know, off the

56:02

earth and then providing energy because

56:04

we've seen that, I mean, just

56:06

on, just this year with intuitive

56:08

machines landing the first data center

56:11

on the moon, of course it

56:13

tipped over, but it's there, you

56:15

know, on the moon and it's

56:17

not gonna be the last one

56:19

for sure. And, you know, I'm

56:21

curious if you see kind of

56:24

this influx from these commercial landing.

56:26

you know, partners, you know, because

56:28

it sounds like the the the

56:30

TLDR of your message of like

56:32

if the government gets together to

56:34

really push things. That's like a

56:36

teamwork makes the dream work, but

56:39

like on steroids on the moon.

56:41

But I'm curious if there's a

56:43

business case for a stepping stone

56:45

thing that would end up making

56:47

it cost effective to bring industry

56:49

up there and and But what

56:51

I think about is, oh, like

56:54

if someone builds a bunch of

56:56

little rovers like at Disneyland and

56:58

you put the quarter in the

57:00

slot and then you can drive

57:02

the car around for like 10

57:04

minutes, you know, like I could

57:07

see that being a business case

57:09

to get kids driving things on

57:11

the moon, you know, and then

57:13

there's revenue and then you scale

57:15

that up in. science for you

57:17

know teleoperated you know rovers for

57:19

scientists that are looking to do

57:22

x y z that sort of

57:24

thing and then after a while

57:26

you've got enough of those pieces

57:28

that you can industrialize everything there

57:30

I mean is that is that

57:32

kind of yeah that's actually what

57:34

the hockey center is trying to

57:37

do we're we're right now working

57:39

on programs that students can 3d

57:41

print robots like 12 year old

57:43

students are building lunar mining robots

57:45

And in the classroom, the students

57:47

love it, the teachers love it.

57:50

We're trying to promote this in

57:52

locations, including Mexico. I had some

57:54

discussions with people from Lithuania who

57:56

were interested. And so we want

57:58

to push this program. We're also

58:00

then working on the teleoperation. So

58:02

start out by teleoperating robots that

58:05

are in our facility. We have

58:07

a big dirt arena similar to

58:09

the swamp works. We're actually a

58:11

little bigger. We built this in

58:13

the Exeloth lab at University of

58:15

Central Florida. We built this great

58:17

big high fidelity lunar highlands soil

58:20

bin. Oh wow. It's the largest

58:22

indoor bin in the world from

58:24

what I understand. And we're going

58:26

to have students teleoperating them from

58:28

around the world, from the classroom.

58:30

Eventually we'll be putting robots, having

58:33

college students, building robots for competitions,

58:35

doing the competitions on maybe volcanoes

58:37

or in the desert teleoperating them,

58:39

having, you know, the high school

58:41

students or the college students may

58:43

go with their robots. to the

58:45

volcano, but then the elementary school

58:48

students have their day where they

58:50

log in and drive the robot.

58:52

But then eventually it'll be on

58:54

the moon. We'll be putting robots

58:56

on the moon and students can

58:58

upload their software into the robots

59:00

and operate them and have competitions

59:03

for who can write the best

59:05

software to operate the robots. So

59:07

it's just a step by step,

59:09

piece by piece. trying to find

59:11

a way to self-fund the development

59:13

of the infrastructure that will contribute

59:16

to getting that supply chain off

59:18

the planet. So, and we've got

59:20

ideas of how to monetize it

59:22

that we've been working on. But

59:24

yeah, I think ultimately we're going

59:26

to get there. It's going to

59:28

be a combination of these commercial

59:31

companies. There are a lot of

59:33

companies. They do have a lot

59:35

of business models. And I hope

59:37

they're successful. Like you mentioned, Intuitive

59:39

Machines launched a data server. That

59:41

was from Lone Star Lunar. Chris

59:43

Dot, the CEO of Lone Star

59:46

Lunar, is a friend. And his

59:48

wife, Nicole, by the way, lived

59:50

in the space station for a

59:52

year. So there are. a super

59:54

cool couple, but their vision includes

59:56

putting data servers on the moon.

59:59

I don't know how soon they're

1:00:01

gonna start to have positive revenue

1:00:03

from that business model. I don't

1:00:05

know, but I've worked on lunar

1:00:07

mining to make rocket fuel. That

1:00:09

one will definitely become profitable, but

1:00:11

it'll take some time. You know,

1:00:14

it might take, let's say, it

1:00:16

takes five to 10 years to

1:00:18

build your hardware and launch it

1:00:20

to the moon. It's going to

1:00:22

after you start operating on the

1:00:24

moon, I think it'll take another

1:00:26

10 or 12 years before it's

1:00:29

actually making a profit out competing

1:00:31

and launching from the earth. So

1:00:33

it's going to take a couple

1:00:35

of decades and that's the fundamental

1:00:37

problem. There are business models that

1:00:39

you can do to make a

1:00:42

profit in space. The problem with

1:00:44

all of them that I've seen

1:00:46

so far is they take like

1:00:48

20 years. and that's a little

1:00:50

bit too long for investors. Unless

1:00:52

you get some really visionary investors

1:00:54

and have a series B that

1:00:57

buys out your series A at

1:00:59

a profit and then series C,

1:01:01

you know, if you can keep

1:01:03

the optimism growing for 20 years,

1:01:05

then you're good. That's the fundamental

1:01:07

problem right now, getting over that

1:01:09

two decades of operation that it's

1:01:12

going to take to become profitable.

1:01:14

So I've got, we don't have

1:01:16

a lot of time left, but

1:01:18

I've got a couple of, two

1:01:20

questions of what I get through.

1:01:22

We've heard for years Helium 3,

1:01:25

Helium 3, Helium 3, and as

1:01:27

far as I know we still

1:01:29

don't actually have something to do

1:01:31

with it when to get here.

1:01:33

But assuming, and up until recently,

1:01:35

my understanding was that it was

1:01:37

very thinly distributed around the moon,

1:01:40

at least according to Pascal Lee,

1:01:42

you'd have to dig up, I

1:01:44

don't know, something a size of

1:01:46

size of size of a clavious

1:01:48

crater clavious crater to get enough

1:01:50

to make it worth shipping at

1:01:52

home. But now, according to our

1:01:55

friend Tarak here, and something he

1:01:57

spotted yesterday, there's been a much

1:01:59

bigger deposit of it noted. So

1:02:01

what are your feelings on the

1:02:03

value of he... 3 and how

1:02:05

realistic that is. Not on the

1:02:08

moon, it's coming in a stream

1:02:10

off the sun. So that's a

1:02:12

little bit different. Oh, I thought

1:02:14

you said it was off the

1:02:16

moon. No, no. OK, well, that

1:02:18

didn't make any sense. All right,

1:02:20

I mistook you. A question stands,

1:02:23

though. OK, well, you know, if

1:02:25

these streams come off the sun,

1:02:27

then over geologic times, some of

1:02:29

them hit the moon, right? And

1:02:31

absorbs into the soil. But yeah,

1:02:33

so I just signed paperwork to

1:02:35

become paperwork to become an advisor

1:02:38

to become an advisor to one

1:02:40

of these helium mining companies, Magna

1:02:42

Petra. And so I have to

1:02:44

be careful not to say anything

1:02:46

that I'm not allowed to say,

1:02:48

but I'll tell you this, Interloon,

1:02:51

another one of these companies, has

1:02:53

put out publicly that they believe

1:02:55

the business case is going to

1:02:57

be quantum computing because it's going

1:02:59

to increase the demand for helium.

1:03:01

And because helium is used for

1:03:03

getting to the super cold temperatures

1:03:06

that you need for maintaining quantum

1:03:08

entanglement. So they think there's going

1:03:10

to be a growing demand, a

1:03:12

gigantic growing demand for helium, which

1:03:14

will drive the price up. And

1:03:16

so that changes the economic estimation,

1:03:18

like is it concentrated enough to

1:03:21

bring it back from the moon?

1:03:23

Now beyond that, I probably shouldn't

1:03:25

really say anything else. I'll just

1:03:27

say this. I know the people

1:03:29

that I know at Magnopetra are

1:03:31

super smart. And I know that

1:03:34

Rob. It's last name slipping my

1:03:36

mind at the moment. Anyways, CEO

1:03:38

of Interloon, goodness gracious, I can't

1:03:40

believe I suddenly forgot his name.

1:03:42

Anyway, he's really smart too. You

1:03:44

know, these are super smart people

1:03:46

and they know how to do

1:03:49

a business plan. They knew how

1:03:51

to do the analysis. So I

1:03:53

understand the skepticism. You know, I've

1:03:55

been there myself. But there are,

1:03:57

you know, business landscape is costly

1:03:59

changing and so just, I would

1:04:01

just leave it at that. It

1:04:04

is the. of Moon starring Sam

1:04:06

Rockwell is all right. That's all

1:04:08

they're doing. And I think you

1:04:10

were referring to Rob Myerson, right?

1:04:12

There you go. Rob Myers. I

1:04:14

was going to say Rob Manning.

1:04:17

I think you mentioned Rob Manning

1:04:19

earlier. So I guess my last

1:04:21

question is we just saw an

1:04:23

article out from Eric Berger that

1:04:25

appears to confirm what was previously

1:04:27

said to be rumored cuts to

1:04:29

the NASA science budget. And if

1:04:32

Eric's sources are correct, here we

1:04:34

are, the cuts are coming 50%

1:04:36

across various areas in unequal measure,

1:04:38

but it's certainly severe and it

1:04:40

appears to be inordinately weighted on

1:04:42

Earth science, which is no surprise.

1:04:44

Thoughts? Well, I think that's unfortunate.

1:04:47

I mean, I understand that we

1:04:49

have a financial crisis in the

1:04:51

United States. I really believe that

1:04:53

what people are saying, we only

1:04:55

have to 2025, 2026, 2027, somewhere

1:04:57

in there to solve this problem

1:05:00

because the accelerating interest that we're

1:05:02

paying on our debt is a

1:05:04

real issue. But is cutting science

1:05:06

the solution to it? I don't

1:05:08

really think it is. I understand

1:05:10

there's a political aspect to this

1:05:12

as well. A lot of people

1:05:15

are angry at various groups in

1:05:17

the US because of the political

1:05:19

anger that's gone both ways. And

1:05:21

so there's this wanting to take

1:05:23

it out on the other side,

1:05:25

you know, punish the other side,

1:05:27

and you guys brought it on

1:05:30

yourself, that kind of an attitude.

1:05:32

I totally understand that, I get

1:05:34

it, you know, but ultimately science

1:05:36

has been the thing that's made

1:05:38

America unique in the world for...

1:05:40

for a long, since World War

1:05:43

II at least. We've drawn the

1:05:45

best scientists from all over the

1:05:47

world to come to the US

1:05:49

and to stay here. And this

1:05:51

has been the source of our,

1:05:53

one of the main sources of

1:05:55

our success over the past half.

1:05:58

a century. And so I think

1:06:00

it's a real danger to mess

1:06:02

with that. They were talking about

1:06:04

cutting the overhead. The NIH was

1:06:06

cutting it to 10% which is

1:06:08

ridiculous. The real overhead rate is

1:06:10

literally about 100% and that's not

1:06:13

too high because that covers real

1:06:15

expenses like the cost of managing

1:06:17

radioactive material. You know, there's a

1:06:19

lot of cost involved in that.

1:06:21

And so all of those costs

1:06:23

are put into this bucket that

1:06:26

they call indirect. It's not just

1:06:28

overhead, it's indirect. And so there's

1:06:30

no way that universities can operate

1:06:32

with 10% indirect costs and still

1:06:34

be in compliance with the law.

1:06:36

But now if they're cutting not

1:06:38

just the overhead, but the overall

1:06:41

science as well, I think that's

1:06:43

a real mistake. I think it's

1:06:45

going to hurt us in the

1:06:47

long run. Well, that sounds very

1:06:49

prescient, and I hope that it

1:06:51

doesn't. I want to thank everybody

1:06:53

for joining us today for episode

1:06:56

156 that we like to call

1:06:58

Rocket Blast. Phil, where can we

1:07:00

track our exploits online? And do

1:07:02

you have any books or other

1:07:04

projects you'd like to tell us

1:07:06

about? Well, you can find me

1:07:09

on Twitter or X. Dr. PhilTill,

1:07:11

D.R. P-H-I-L-T-I-L-L. You can also look

1:07:13

for the Stephen Hawking Center at

1:07:15

UCF, just find our website. We're

1:07:17

trying to start posting materials of

1:07:19

the projects that we're doing online

1:07:21

there. And if you haven't started

1:07:24

on a book yet, I think

1:07:26

you should because you're a wonderful

1:07:28

communicator. Thank you. Park? Where can

1:07:30

we find you checking your exhaust

1:07:32

plumes these days? Well, that's between

1:07:34

me and my doctor Rod and

1:07:36

you said you weren't going to

1:07:39

bring it up. Sorry. You can

1:07:41

you can find me at space.com

1:07:43

as always also on X and

1:07:45

elsewhere at Tarik J. Malik. If

1:07:47

you like video games, I met

1:07:49

Space Tron plays on YouTube. We

1:07:52

got a new season of Marvel

1:07:54

rivals out plus a lot of

1:07:56

fun things. Space guitar! It's a

1:07:58

lot of fun, a lot of

1:08:00

fun. But why are you yawning?

1:08:02

You asked, you asked. I'm sorry.

1:08:04

It's just like listening to somebody

1:08:07

my son's age. Okay, and of

1:08:09

course you can find me at

1:08:11

pilebooks.com or at Astra Magazine.com, which

1:08:13

I had it, and various other

1:08:15

places like the liquor store down

1:08:17

the street. I did want to

1:08:19

mention, Phil, you're coming to the

1:08:21

International Space Development Conference in June.

1:08:24

which is going to be in

1:08:26

Orlando Florida. I think Tarak has

1:08:28

saddled you with me on a

1:08:30

panel or two. So there will

1:08:32

be a great intellectual disparity there,

1:08:34

but hopefully I can keep up.

1:08:36

And if anybody's interested, you can go

1:08:38

to the International Space Development Conference

1:08:40

website, just Google ISDC. We're the

1:08:42

first hit. And it's a great

1:08:44

event where you can hang out

1:08:46

with your tribe and learn an

1:08:48

awful lot and have a good

1:08:50

time and throw rocks at Tark

1:08:52

when he receives his spaced Pioneer

1:08:54

Award on stage, which I'll be

1:08:57

tossing to him from the other

1:08:59

side of the stage. And remember,

1:09:01

of course, you can drop us

1:09:03

a line at TWST at TW.

1:09:05

TV, that's TWIS at TW.TV. We

1:09:07

welcome your comments, suggestions, and ideas, and

1:09:09

we answer all our emails. New episodes

1:09:11

of this podcast published every Friday on

1:09:13

your favorite pod catcher so make sure

1:09:16

to subscribe tell your friends and give

1:09:18

us reviews. I usually say here give us

1:09:20

five stars or thumbs up or whatever but

1:09:22

you know what to do just tell us

1:09:24

you love us and don't forget we're counting

1:09:26

on you to at least consider joining Club

1:09:29

Twit which will give you more fun for

1:09:31

your seven dollars a month than being locked

1:09:33

in a fortnight tournament with Tarak which

1:09:35

Sounds like a dreadful thing to me,

1:09:37

but no, I need the carry. There's

1:09:39

some people out there. I need the

1:09:42

carry. So come on. Okay, okay. Fair

1:09:44

enough. So join Club Twit and then

1:09:46

go see Tarak on Fortnight, which will

1:09:48

cost you a nice thing. Finally, you

1:09:51

can follow the Twitter podcast network at

1:09:53

Twitter and on Facebook and Twitter TV

1:09:55

on Instagram. Thank you very much.

1:09:58

Thank you, very much. Thank you, Happy

1:10:00

to come back. come back. All righty, we'll see

1:10:02

everybody soon. soon, So take care and

1:10:04

see you next week. week. No matter how much

1:10:06

matter how much spare time you

1:10:08

have, has the has the perfect tech

1:10:10

news format for your schedule. to date

1:10:13

Stay up to date with everything

1:10:15

happening tech and get tech news your way Twitter

1:10:17

.tv. your Start your week with this

1:10:19

in tech for an in -depth, comprehensive

1:10:21

dive into the top stories every

1:10:23

week. And for a midweek boost,

1:10:26

boost, Tech weekly brings you concise, quick

1:10:28

updates updates with the the news. Whether

1:10:30

you need just the nuts

1:10:32

and bolts the want the full

1:10:34

analysis, or stay informed with twit .tv's

1:10:36

perfect pairing of tech news

1:10:38

programs. pairing of Tech News programs.