On this episode of News World, the United States is now embroiled with a brutal and autocratic communist China in a new Cold War and a second, far more consequential race to the Moon. Whichever country seizes the commanding heights of the Moon will have preferential access to vast lunar resources that will determine the quality of life on Earth and the political and moral character of humans as we advance into the Solar System. The United States should win space Race two point zero and is leading an international and commercial coalition to do so. Yet communist China is giving no ground even as its rockets soar above us. The clear risk, timid, and visionless policymakers in the White House in Congress may well surrender the ultimate high ground to Beijing. Here to discuss his new book, Red Moon Rising, How America will beat China on the final frontier. I'm really pleased to welcome my guests, author doctor Greg Autry. He is the Director of Space Leadership, Policy and Business in the Thunderbird School of Global Management and a professor at Arizona State University. Doctor Artry served on the NASA Agency Review Team and his White House Liaison and NASA. He co authored Red Moon Rising with Peter Navarro. Greg. Welcome and thank you for joining me on News World.

On this episode of News World, the United States is now embroiled with a brutal and autocratic communist China in a new Cold War and a second, far more consequential race to the Moon. Whichever country seizes the commanding heights of the Moon will have preferential access to vast lunar resources that will determine the quality of life on Earth and the political and moral character of humans as we advance into the Solar System. The United States should win space Race two point zero and is leading an international and commercial coalition to do so. Yet communist China is giving no ground even as its rockets soar above us. The clear risk, timid, and visionless policymakers in the White House in Congress may well surrender the ultimate high ground to Beijing. Here to discuss his new book, Red Moon Rising, How America will beat China on the final frontier. I'm really pleased to welcome my guests, author doctor Greg Autry. He is the Director of Space Leadership, Policy and Business in the Thunderbird School of Global Management and a professor at Arizona State University. Doctor Artry served on the NASA Agency Review Team and his White House Liaison and NASA. He co authored Red Moon Rising with Peter Navarro. Greg. Welcome and thank you for joining me on News World.

Thank you, Nat. I can't be more excited than to have an opportunity to spend a good deal of time talking with you, which is always informative.

Thank you, Nat. I can't be more excited than to have an opportunity to spend a good deal of time talking with you, which is always informative.

But why don't you start with why this is so important? Thanks to the average American looking at all the other problems we have. It's kind of like the space race is interesting, but tell us why is it vital to our future?

But why don't you start with why this is so important? Thanks to the average American looking at all the other problems we have. It's kind of like the space race is interesting, but tell us why is it vital to our future?

That's a good question, and frankly the main reason we wrote the book. Peter and I open the introduction saying, why spend money in space when there's problems right here on Earth? Which you constantly hear. I think you know the answer, but I'm going to share with the listeners. It's that no major problem in all of human history has ever been solved from inside the box. It's external resources, thinkings, and opportunities that allow for the growth that lets you get out of the dilemmas that you face, whether those are economic, environmental, social, or political. And many of the problems that we face here in the United States and globally, I believe are because we don't have that frontier. We don't have that economic front heer. We don't have that place to send people who aggressively want to explore and exploit new resources. That is a fundamental human driver. On a more practical level, from the US standpoint, it's a matter of national prestige. We talk quite a bit in the book about how the fall of Soviet Union was probably precipitated in the late nineteen sixties early nineteen seventies when they fell behind in the space race and we took the moon. The credibility of communism globally took a huge hit when they failed to match Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon, and America from that point on was just clearly recognized is the technological capable leader. And then we talk in the book about all the benefits that are going to come to us. There are incredible opportunities for new materials, for new medical treatments, for new clean sources of power that will be returned to Earth and make the Earth a much better place to live, even if you're not going to space.

That's a good question, and frankly the main reason we wrote the book. Peter and I open the introduction saying, why spend money in space when there's problems right here on Earth? Which you constantly hear. I think you know the answer, but I'm going to share with the listeners. It's that no major problem in all of human history has ever been solved from inside the box. It's external resources, thinkings, and opportunities that allow for the growth that lets you get out of the dilemmas that you face, whether those are economic, environmental, social, or political. And many of the problems that we face here in the United States and globally, I believe are because we don't have that frontier. We don't have that economic front heer. We don't have that place to send people who aggressively want to explore and exploit new resources. That is a fundamental human driver. On a more practical level, from the US standpoint, it's a matter of national prestige. We talk quite a bit in the book about how the fall of Soviet Union was probably precipitated in the late nineteen sixties early nineteen seventies when they fell behind in the space race and we took the moon. The credibility of communism globally took a huge hit when they failed to match Kennedy's challenge to get to the moon, and America from that point on was just clearly recognized is the technological capable leader. And then we talk in the book about all the benefits that are going to come to us. There are incredible opportunities for new materials, for new medical treatments, for new clean sources of power that will be returned to Earth and make the Earth a much better place to live, even if you're not going to space.

In that context, with space being that important, how do you analyze and assess the Chinese communist effort in space well.

In that context, with space being that important, how do you analyze and assess the Chinese communist effort in space well.

To their credit, it's a very serious efforte One of the things that I have to say impresses me about them is they say what they're going to do and then they do it, and they do it almost on time every time. They haven't been nearly as creative as us, and to be perfectly honest, most of their technology is either stolen from the US or bought directly from the Russians. There's nothing super new going on, but they've been executing admirably and doing things that frankly, we've even had some issues with. So they've got landers on the moon, and as you might have noticed, a lot of countries and several US companies have been attempting that and none have had a perfect success. The Chinese have done a sample return mission from the moon and another one just launched on Friday. This is something that we're trying to do for Mars, but we haven't gotten together. So they're serious. On the military front, they are very serious, and they intend to use the high ground, the ultimate high ground, as a tool against us because they have seen how effective space dominance has been for the United States in the late twentieth and early twenty first century.

To their credit, it's a very serious efforte One of the things that I have to say impresses me about them is they say what they're going to do and then they do it, and they do it almost on time every time. They haven't been nearly as creative as us, and to be perfectly honest, most of their technology is either stolen from the US or bought directly from the Russians. There's nothing super new going on, but they've been executing admirably and doing things that frankly, we've even had some issues with. So they've got landers on the moon, and as you might have noticed, a lot of countries and several US companies have been attempting that and none have had a perfect success. The Chinese have done a sample return mission from the moon and another one just launched on Friday. This is something that we're trying to do for Mars, but we haven't gotten together. So they're serious. On the military front, they are very serious, and they intend to use the high ground, the ultimate high ground, as a tool against us because they have seen how effective space dominance has been for the United States in the late twentieth and early twenty first century.

Just as an aside, you mentioned Russia. I mean, Russia at one point was a major competitor. But I get the sense that they just financially have not been able to sustain beyond near where they have a military focus. But when we think about going beyond that, since that, the Russians have sort of dropped out of the game. Is that your assessment.

Just as an aside, you mentioned Russia. I mean, Russia at one point was a major competitor. But I get the sense that they just financially have not been able to sustain beyond near where they have a military focus. But when we think about going beyond that, since that, the Russians have sort of dropped out of the game. Is that your assessment.

Yeah, absolutely, it's a shame. I mean, again, although I didn't admire the Soviet Union, what they accomplished deserved kudos when you look at what they did in the nineteen fifties and sixties and then putting up the first space stations in the seventies. These were real accomplishments. But then they fell into a maintenance period where essentially the best that they could do is keep flying Soyuz with a lot of American subsidies. Most people don't realize how much an Assets subsidized the Russian space program from the nineties through the two thousands, and then they didn't invest themselves, and they had bad leadership with Dimitri Rogos and Putin's apparatchik who ran ros Cosmos, and it's gone into total decline. There's been a brain drain Russian scientists are trying to get the heck out of there because they don't want to be handed in Ak forty seven and sent to the front in Ukraine. It's a sad situation.

Yeah, absolutely, it's a shame. I mean, again, although I didn't admire the Soviet Union, what they accomplished deserved kudos when you look at what they did in the nineteen fifties and sixties and then putting up the first space stations in the seventies. These were real accomplishments. But then they fell into a maintenance period where essentially the best that they could do is keep flying Soyuz with a lot of American subsidies. Most people don't realize how much an Assets subsidized the Russian space program from the nineties through the two thousands, and then they didn't invest themselves, and they had bad leadership with Dimitri Rogos and Putin's apparatchik who ran ros Cosmos, and it's gone into total decline. There's been a brain drain Russian scientists are trying to get the heck out of there because they don't want to be handed in Ak forty seven and sent to the front in Ukraine. It's a sad situation.

Was it a mistake for us to rely on Sawyers in the nineties, Well.

Was it a mistake for us to rely on Sawyers in the nineties, Well.

You know, when you had the opening up there with Gorbachev, and in the post Gorbachev period where we thought Yeltsin was going to be helpful. You can probably speak to it better than I can. In my opinion, we should have done everything we could engage with them and keep them in the fold of democratic Western thinking and help them progress on the path that they seemed to be on. But the moment we saw backsliding there, we should have been realistic. But at no point should we ever become dependent on any foreign system, even if they are best friends. And so it was a huge mistake not to move commercial launch sooner. But to the credit of both the GW. Bush administration and the Obama administration, they frankly finally got commercial going, and they deserve credit for that too. Trump expanded it enormously. It would have been great if it happened back when you were talking about it ten or twenty years before it did.

You know, when you had the opening up there with Gorbachev, and in the post Gorbachev period where we thought Yeltsin was going to be helpful. You can probably speak to it better than I can. In my opinion, we should have done everything we could engage with them and keep them in the fold of democratic Western thinking and help them progress on the path that they seemed to be on. But the moment we saw backsliding there, we should have been realistic. But at no point should we ever become dependent on any foreign system, even if they are best friends. And so it was a huge mistake not to move commercial launch sooner. But to the credit of both the GW. Bush administration and the Obama administration, they frankly finally got commercial going, and they deserve credit for that too. Trump expanded it enormously. It would have been great if it happened back when you were talking about it ten or twenty years before it did.

It's very ironic. Bob Walker and I Bob was onway showing of the Science and Technology Committee in the late eighties. We actually, as you know, we actually passed an amendment and got four hundred million dollars for NASA to build a reusable rocket, which they promptly hired Lockheed Martin, who promptly failed, and then they gave up. And long comes Elon musk ten fifteen years later, and he has the persistence to recognize that this is just an engineering problem that you can work your way through it. He sort of revolutionized space both in cost. It's the most deflationary single development that we've seen in terms of the collapse of the price of getting a pound indoor. But if he succeeds, as I suspect, he will eventually in building a genuine starship that has thirty three engines. The fact that it's reusable, the effect of that on getting both weight and people into space should be pretty enormous. In your judgment, is there anything comparable being developed in China?

It's very ironic. Bob Walker and I Bob was onway showing of the Science and Technology Committee in the late eighties. We actually, as you know, we actually passed an amendment and got four hundred million dollars for NASA to build a reusable rocket, which they promptly hired Lockheed Martin, who promptly failed, and then they gave up. And long comes Elon musk ten fifteen years later, and he has the persistence to recognize that this is just an engineering problem that you can work your way through it. He sort of revolutionized space both in cost. It's the most deflationary single development that we've seen in terms of the collapse of the price of getting a pound indoor. But if he succeeds, as I suspect, he will eventually in building a genuine starship that has thirty three engines. The fact that it's reusable, the effect of that on getting both weight and people into space should be pretty enormous. In your judgment, is there anything comparable being developed in China?

Well being the Chinese guess what, they promised to copy it all, so they've got CGI demonstrations of vehicles that they claim they're going to be able to look guess what, exactly like Starship, just as they've released pictures of vehicles that look exactly like the Falcon nine. But to your point, a really important thing, you know, I covered that history in the book. There were several attempts in the nineteen eighties and nineties for private launch companies to get going, and unfortunately, besides you and Bob and a few voices in the woods, there wasn't a lot of support, and NASA often was more obstructive to those attempts than embracing. I'm glad to see that change now. On the reusability standpoint, it's also super important to note that SpaceX has never actually yet returned the savings they get from reusability to customer price. Their customer price for a launch hit sixty two million, which was the low point before they started doing reusability, and that was because Elon is also a master at lowing the production cost of things. He's a manufacturing production engineer, really, and what he's done is brought the cost of making rockets down by bringing in automotive people and using off the shelf parts instead of the bespoke super custom method that Rockets used previously, and that lowered the cost war and I think there's still another drop ready to come. And when you have a technology where the basic driver for the technology is increasing in performance and decreasing in price every year, you have a More's law like we did back with computing in the nineteen eighties and nineties. And that promise is an incredible boom because the applications, the things that you can do with that that we don't know yet are about to explode, and I think we're all going to be amazed.

Well being the Chinese guess what, they promised to copy it all, so they've got CGI demonstrations of vehicles that they claim they're going to be able to look guess what, exactly like Starship, just as they've released pictures of vehicles that look exactly like the Falcon nine. But to your point, a really important thing, you know, I covered that history in the book. There were several attempts in the nineteen eighties and nineties for private launch companies to get going, and unfortunately, besides you and Bob and a few voices in the woods, there wasn't a lot of support, and NASA often was more obstructive to those attempts than embracing. I'm glad to see that change now. On the reusability standpoint, it's also super important to note that SpaceX has never actually yet returned the savings they get from reusability to customer price. Their customer price for a launch hit sixty two million, which was the low point before they started doing reusability, and that was because Elon is also a master at lowing the production cost of things. He's a manufacturing production engineer, really, and what he's done is brought the cost of making rockets down by bringing in automotive people and using off the shelf parts instead of the bespoke super custom method that Rockets used previously, and that lowered the cost war and I think there's still another drop ready to come. And when you have a technology where the basic driver for the technology is increasing in performance and decreasing in price every year, you have a More's law like we did back with computing in the nineteen eighties and nineties. And that promise is an incredible boom because the applications, the things that you can do with that that we don't know yet are about to explode, and I think we're all going to be amazed.

What will the impact be on people going into space?

What will the impact be on people going into space?

Well, first of all, there'll be a lot more of them. So up until now, there's been about six hundred people in space, but just in the last couple of years that's begun to change rapidly. SpaceX has flown more people to space in the last four years than China has since they started their human spaceflight program back in two thousand and three. So SpaceX and four years versus the government of China in twenty years, that's incredible. I believe we're going to get to the point, hopefully where you and I are going to have the opportunity to finally go at a reasonable price as an experience, but people are also going to go up there to start working and living and getting the benefits of it. And I think in the next ten to twenty years there'll be more people living in space than have flown in space so far.

Well, first of all, there'll be a lot more of them. So up until now, there's been about six hundred people in space, but just in the last couple of years that's begun to change rapidly. SpaceX has flown more people to space in the last four years than China has since they started their human spaceflight program back in two thousand and three. So SpaceX and four years versus the government of China in twenty years, that's incredible. I believe we're going to get to the point, hopefully where you and I are going to have the opportunity to finally go at a reasonable price as an experience, but people are also going to go up there to start working and living and getting the benefits of it. And I think in the next ten to twenty years there'll be more people living in space than have flown in space so far.

You keep hearing that there are things you can do with zero gravity and it's very low gravity that create all sorts of new openings, but they haven't really materialized as commercial possibilities at this stage.

You keep hearing that there are things you can do with zero gravity and it's very low gravity that create all sorts of new openings, but they haven't really materialized as commercial possibilities at this stage.

Interestingly, I chair the business Case Review Committee for a NASA program called in in Space Production Applications, and we evaluate manufacturing proposals to go to the International Space Station. These are high TURL level experiments where the technology is proven and we're looking to see if there's a business case. And I have to say new, we're finally getting there. A company called Flawless Photonics, who makes a fiber optic cable called z bland at a quality that can only be made in space, has produced five kilometers of usable cable in their last run. Several of the individual pieces were more than one kilometer long. This material sells for hundreds or maybe thousand dollars per meter weighs very very little, So it's actually a practical in space manufacturing application. Why do people want better fiber optic cable Because with less inclusions and perfections inside the cable, you get much more better data transmission and you can maybe get a few micro seconds faster between them in New York and execute a trade worth billions of dollars. So this is actually a real game changer.

Interestingly, I chair the business Case Review Committee for a NASA program called in in Space Production Applications, and we evaluate manufacturing proposals to go to the International Space Station. These are high TURL level experiments where the technology is proven and we're looking to see if there's a business case. And I have to say new, we're finally getting there. A company called Flawless Photonics, who makes a fiber optic cable called z bland at a quality that can only be made in space, has produced five kilometers of usable cable in their last run. Several of the individual pieces were more than one kilometer long. This material sells for hundreds or maybe thousand dollars per meter weighs very very little, So it's actually a practical in space manufacturing application. Why do people want better fiber optic cable Because with less inclusions and perfections inside the cable, you get much more better data transmission and you can maybe get a few micro seconds faster between them in New York and execute a trade worth billions of dollars. So this is actually a real game changer.

Wow, that's a great example. When you look at the Chinese side, how big a challenge should we face in terms of if the Chinese do end up dominating in space?

Wow, that's a great example. When you look at the Chinese side, how big a challenge should we face in terms of if the Chinese do end up dominating in space?

Wow, Well, whoever holds the high ground controls the territory underneath it. And frankly, I testified to the House Natural Resources Committee in December and was asked that question, and I said it was an existential threat to the United States and to the values of the Enlightenment and Western civilization. If the Chinese on the Moon and they own low Earth orbit, they can do what they want with the planet, and that is terrifying when you consider who their leadership is at this moment.

Wow, Well, whoever holds the high ground controls the territory underneath it. And frankly, I testified to the House Natural Resources Committee in December and was asked that question, and I said it was an existential threat to the United States and to the values of the Enlightenment and Western civilization. If the Chinese on the Moon and they own low Earth orbit, they can do what they want with the planet, and that is terrifying when you consider who their leadership is at this moment.

One of the things is, you know that I've been very concerned about, testified about, and wrote about, is electromagnetic pulse. It's been very challenging to try to get the system to understand how real this danger is and how plausible it is. Could you talk just for a second about your concerns about the Chinese potential with electromenic pulse to literally wipe out whole layers of communications and intelligence satellites.

One of the things is, you know that I've been very concerned about, testified about, and wrote about, is electromagnetic pulse. It's been very challenging to try to get the system to understand how real this danger is and how plausible it is. Could you talk just for a second about your concerns about the Chinese potential with electromenic pulse to literally wipe out whole layers of communications and intelligence satellites.

Great question, Newton. In fact, Peter and I opened the book with that scenario because we think it's so important people understand. So an electric magnetic pulse is capable of basically disabling and, depending on the strength, completely destroying the technology that drives our everyday lives by sending out a wave of highly ionized atoms that will destroy the chips inside your cell phone, the chips that drive your car you're a refrigerator, and even frankly destroyed the electrical grid itself by overloading the transformers that are critical to the distribution of electricity. So what will happen is nothing will work. But worse than that, new is nothing's going to get fixed for several reasons. One, there's no vahicles capable of driving anymore. Your electric car and your GRADU will probably burst into a ball of flame. The non electric cars all have electronic ignition systems and computer controls. They're all bricks. Every highway will be jammed with dead cars and no vehicles capable of towing them out of there. Plus, guess what, all our electrical transformers are dead, and all of our electronics are dead, and we have become nearly one hundred percent dependent on China to supply us those things. We can't replace them. The Chinese are not going to be loading up boatloads of supplies for us. We are going to be instantly transported into the Stone Agent. As we're kind of sarcastically say in the book, the gen Z folks are going to have to learn how to build a fire and sharpen a sphere without a man splainer on YouTube to show them how that's a terrifying day.

Great question, Newton. In fact, Peter and I opened the book with that scenario because we think it's so important people understand. So an electric magnetic pulse is capable of basically disabling and, depending on the strength, completely destroying the technology that drives our everyday lives by sending out a wave of highly ionized atoms that will destroy the chips inside your cell phone, the chips that drive your car you're a refrigerator, and even frankly destroyed the electrical grid itself by overloading the transformers that are critical to the distribution of electricity. So what will happen is nothing will work. But worse than that, new is nothing's going to get fixed for several reasons. One, there's no vahicles capable of driving anymore. Your electric car and your GRADU will probably burst into a ball of flame. The non electric cars all have electronic ignition systems and computer controls. They're all bricks. Every highway will be jammed with dead cars and no vehicles capable of towing them out of there. Plus, guess what, all our electrical transformers are dead, and all of our electronics are dead, and we have become nearly one hundred percent dependent on China to supply us those things. We can't replace them. The Chinese are not going to be loading up boatloads of supplies for us. We are going to be instantly transported into the Stone Agent. As we're kind of sarcastically say in the book, the gen Z folks are going to have to learn how to build a fire and sharpen a sphere without a man splainer on YouTube to show them how that's a terrifying day.

That kind of world would, in fact face the kind of collapse that people warned about with the population bomb of interview check away all the advantages of high civil The carrying capacity of North America is probably three or four million people.

That kind of world would, in fact face the kind of collapse that people warned about with the population bomb of interview check away all the advantages of high civil The carrying capacity of North America is probably three or four million people.

Oh absolutely, particularly if you return to small lot organic farming like my crazy liberal friends think that they want to have. You're back in the Middle Ages, And no, you don't have that carrying capacity. You can't have six billion people. Frankly, I think there's a strange group of people who would like to see half of the world or three quarters of us starve to death. But that's where you would go in no time. The other thing from a policy standpoint that worries me about emp's new is both Russians and the Chinese have categorically stated that even though EMPs are usually a nuclear based weapon technology, that they do not consider them to be strategically nuclear weapons, but rather to be cyber weapons and therefore usable on the battlefield. And worst, the fact is, the Chinese are attacking us with cyber attacks every single day in the United States, they hack the United States government in a multitude of ways, and so they consider cyber attacks legitimate. So there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't use one of these to achieve their goals.

Oh absolutely, particularly if you return to small lot organic farming like my crazy liberal friends think that they want to have. You're back in the Middle Ages, And no, you don't have that carrying capacity. You can't have six billion people. Frankly, I think there's a strange group of people who would like to see half of the world or three quarters of us starve to death. But that's where you would go in no time. The other thing from a policy standpoint that worries me about emp's new is both Russians and the Chinese have categorically stated that even though EMPs are usually a nuclear based weapon technology, that they do not consider them to be strategically nuclear weapons, but rather to be cyber weapons and therefore usable on the battlefield. And worst, the fact is, the Chinese are attacking us with cyber attacks every single day in the United States, they hack the United States government in a multitude of ways, and so they consider cyber attacks legitimate. So there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't use one of these to achieve their goals.

I agree, and I think we have to profoundly rethink our whole strategic posture and recognize us as society on society competition. But let me go, I grew up when science fiction was exciting and positive, and people like Asimov and Heinlend and others. I want to go to one of the most fascinating examples, which is a little bit nutty but nonetheless plausible, and that is the asteroid Psyche, which is estimated to have ten quintillion dollars of minerals, which is six hundred thousand times the annual economic activity US. So here's my question. We have identified this source, it is outside our normal concern about mining. If you were designing a strategy to exploit Psyche, did you want to develop more effective barges to go back and forth or would you want to try to figure out a way to actually bring Psyche closer to Earth.

I agree, and I think we have to profoundly rethink our whole strategic posture and recognize us as society on society competition. But let me go, I grew up when science fiction was exciting and positive, and people like Asimov and Heinlend and others. I want to go to one of the most fascinating examples, which is a little bit nutty but nonetheless plausible, and that is the asteroid Psyche, which is estimated to have ten quintillion dollars of minerals, which is six hundred thousand times the annual economic activity US. So here's my question. We have identified this source, it is outside our normal concern about mining. If you were designing a strategy to exploit Psyche, did you want to develop more effective barges to go back and forth or would you want to try to figure out a way to actually bring Psyche closer to Earth.

Well, that is also an excellent question. So Psyche's particularly fairly big. There are a lot of other smaller targets that would probably be more movable, but moving a metallic asteroid closer to the Earth might be the best way to exploit those materials and mine them so that the actual transportation doesn't have to occur over and over and over. One of the things we really need, though to achieve things of that goal, whether it's transporting the loads of ore or transporting the whole asteroid, is nuclear space propulsion, and that's something that we actually worked on in the nineteen sixties and had ready to go. Frankly, we could have been on Mars in the nineteen eighties if we hadn't dropped that. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville is capable of ramping those programs back up, and there's been some interest. So that's the top thing we need to do to make that happen.

Well, that is also an excellent question. So Psyche's particularly fairly big. There are a lot of other smaller targets that would probably be more movable, but moving a metallic asteroid closer to the Earth might be the best way to exploit those materials and mine them so that the actual transportation doesn't have to occur over and over and over. One of the things we really need, though to achieve things of that goal, whether it's transporting the loads of ore or transporting the whole asteroid, is nuclear space propulsion, and that's something that we actually worked on in the nineteen sixties and had ready to go. Frankly, we could have been on Mars in the nineteen eighties if we hadn't dropped that. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville is capable of ramping those programs back up, and there's been some interest. So that's the top thing we need to do to make that happen.

I thought I saw that NASA was actually working now to develop a nuclear rocket force in space, not to get to space, but once you're.

I thought I saw that NASA was actually working now to develop a nuclear rocket force in space, not to get to space, but once you're.

There, exactly to be clear nuclear launch as possible but not necessarily as attractive for a variety of environmental issues, but in space. Yeah, absolutely, and they have reinvestigated that. I have to give credits to Bahavia Lull at NASA who pushed for that program for both nuclear propulsion and nuclear power on the surface of the Moon. But we need to do that, and a lot of that has potential to feedback to benefits here on Earth, because frankly, again, if we continued with nuclear in the seventies, we wouldn't be talking about carbon emissions or climate change or even worry about approximate particulate pollution in our cities. We'd be living clean, free with cheap energy and higher standards of living.

There, exactly to be clear nuclear launch as possible but not necessarily as attractive for a variety of environmental issues, but in space. Yeah, absolutely, and they have reinvestigated that. I have to give credits to Bahavia Lull at NASA who pushed for that program for both nuclear propulsion and nuclear power on the surface of the Moon. But we need to do that, and a lot of that has potential to feedback to benefits here on Earth, because frankly, again, if we continued with nuclear in the seventies, we wouldn't be talking about carbon emissions or climate change or even worry about approximate particulate pollution in our cities. We'd be living clean, free with cheap energy and higher standards of living.

Now, beyond moving asteroids closer to Earth, we actually have a huge satellite called the Moon, and the head of China's lunar program said that the Moon is so rich in helium three that it could solve humanity's energy problems for at least ten thousand years. Can you walk us through that? I will confess most of us are not very knowledgeable about helium three.

Now, beyond moving asteroids closer to Earth, we actually have a huge satellite called the Moon, and the head of China's lunar program said that the Moon is so rich in helium three that it could solve humanity's energy problems for at least ten thousand years. Can you walk us through that? I will confess most of us are not very knowledgeable about helium three.

Yeah, So what can you get on the Moon? First of all, every time you look up there, you see a crater, and many of those craters are metallic asteroids, and the cores of those craters may still be there, or the material that was delivered in the core is mixed into the regulith, so you can mind that. But there's an isotope of helium. Normally a helium atom has two protons and two neutrons, but if it only has two protons and one neutron, which is extremely rare, it is attractive for use in nuclear usion reactors, which give us, again a fairly unlimited, clean, free energy without any of the waste products or attendant secondary radiation that you get from a fission reactor. So that's kind of the ultimate dream for clean energy. We don't know whether it works or not because there's not enough helium three on the Earth. It's almost non existent. It's like four parts per billion or something extracted from natural gas. But on the Moon we believe it existed fairly a bonded quantities relatively because the solar wind has been pushing helium into the Moon's regulith for a long long time, so we believe we can find it there. In fact, the Chinese insists that they have with their last lander, and that we can bring it back to Earth and basically the equivalent of one Space Shuttle payload could power the United States for months.

Yeah, So what can you get on the Moon? First of all, every time you look up there, you see a crater, and many of those craters are metallic asteroids, and the cores of those craters may still be there, or the material that was delivered in the core is mixed into the regulith, so you can mind that. But there's an isotope of helium. Normally a helium atom has two protons and two neutrons, but if it only has two protons and one neutron, which is extremely rare, it is attractive for use in nuclear usion reactors, which give us, again a fairly unlimited, clean, free energy without any of the waste products or attendant secondary radiation that you get from a fission reactor. So that's kind of the ultimate dream for clean energy. We don't know whether it works or not because there's not enough helium three on the Earth. It's almost non existent. It's like four parts per billion or something extracted from natural gas. But on the Moon we believe it existed fairly a bonded quantities relatively because the solar wind has been pushing helium into the Moon's regulith for a long long time, so we believe we can find it there. In fact, the Chinese insists that they have with their last lander, and that we can bring it back to Earth and basically the equivalent of one Space Shuttle payload could power the United States for months.

You charge what energy? You also talked, I think in a very interesting way about the opportunities in biology, both in pharmaceuticals but also in cell growth and organ DeVoe and being in a virtually zero gravity environment. Can you expand on what the advantages of developing these kind of approaches pharmaceutical and biological and a zero gravity environment.

You charge what energy? You also talked, I think in a very interesting way about the opportunities in biology, both in pharmaceuticals but also in cell growth and organ DeVoe and being in a virtually zero gravity environment. Can you expand on what the advantages of developing these kind of approaches pharmaceutical and biological and a zero gravity environment.

Sure. Again, in the INSPUT program, I've had the opportunity to watch a number of projects get funded by NASA, and there are a number of private companies that are now looking at creating microgravity environments in space where you can do manufacturing. A company called Varda and I think SpaceX Starship will do that. But in space you can make molecules that you can't make in gravity because gravity basically doesn't allow some of these structures to exist. And then you can make compounds metallic alloys and other materials that again can't be made Earth because on Earth, the heavier elements all sync to the bottom of the container as the material solidifies, and they create convection basically currents inside the material that produces imperfections in the structure. In space, you make perfect crystals that are much larger they could be made on Earth. This is important for optics, but it also has incredible medical applications. Crystallizing pharmaceuticals extends their shelf life for non refrigerated applications, particularly in areas like sub Saharan Africa or Latin America where it's hard to get them, and you can crystallize really complex molecules in space you can't do on Earth. You can also grow stem cells at rates many many times faster than you can on Earth. So for instance, if you needed a new liver, we could send up some of your stem cells taken from your blood, differentiate them in deliver cells and grow potentially a organ in space, bring it back to you, and re implant it. When we tried to do that on Earth, the growth rates are really slow and the liver turns into deliver pancake because of gravity in the Patriot dish basically, so we then can give you a liver that doesn't require immunosuppressant drugs, which are expensive and introduce risk to you as a recipient by reducing your immune system, and save frankly the government millions and millions of dollars because people who are organ transplant recipients cost a lot of money to maintain. Now, and we can do it all without having the Chinese kill a fallen Gong member to provide a liver or wait for some poor person to die in a car accident.

Sure. Again, in the INSPUT program, I've had the opportunity to watch a number of projects get funded by NASA, and there are a number of private companies that are now looking at creating microgravity environments in space where you can do manufacturing. A company called Varda and I think SpaceX Starship will do that. But in space you can make molecules that you can't make in gravity because gravity basically doesn't allow some of these structures to exist. And then you can make compounds metallic alloys and other materials that again can't be made Earth because on Earth, the heavier elements all sync to the bottom of the container as the material solidifies, and they create convection basically currents inside the material that produces imperfections in the structure. In space, you make perfect crystals that are much larger they could be made on Earth. This is important for optics, but it also has incredible medical applications. Crystallizing pharmaceuticals extends their shelf life for non refrigerated applications, particularly in areas like sub Saharan Africa or Latin America where it's hard to get them, and you can crystallize really complex molecules in space you can't do on Earth. You can also grow stem cells at rates many many times faster than you can on Earth. So for instance, if you needed a new liver, we could send up some of your stem cells taken from your blood, differentiate them in deliver cells and grow potentially a organ in space, bring it back to you, and re implant it. When we tried to do that on Earth, the growth rates are really slow and the liver turns into deliver pancake because of gravity in the Patriot dish basically, so we then can give you a liver that doesn't require immunosuppressant drugs, which are expensive and introduce risk to you as a recipient by reducing your immune system, and save frankly the government millions and millions of dollars because people who are organ transplant recipients cost a lot of money to maintain. Now, and we can do it all without having the Chinese kill a fallen Gong member to provide a liver or wait for some poor person to die in a car accident.

So you're really talking about a potential revolution in both pharmaceuticals and in the development of biology by moving it into a zero gravity kind of environment.

So you're really talking about a potential revolution in both pharmaceuticals and in the development of biology by moving it into a zero gravity kind of environment.

If you go to a pharmaceutical plant, and what do you see. You see these big mixing vats And why are we mixing? Because the chemicals will not interact efficiently because the mass of the chemicals varies that they stratify in the solution. So in space, no problem.

If you go to a pharmaceutical plant, and what do you see. You see these big mixing vats And why are we mixing? Because the chemicals will not interact efficiently because the mass of the chemicals varies that they stratify in the solution. So in space, no problem.

Things mix properly, isn't one of the challenges that the International Space Station is growing old?

Things mix properly, isn't one of the challenges that the International Space Station is growing old?

Yes, and it's not frankly perfectly designed for anything. It's kind of a jack of all trades of space stations, right, So, actually having a lot of people in your manufacturing space station isn't the best idea because they create vibrations, and they admit chemicals, and they require a lot of energy and maintenance, and of course having a manufacturing environment going on when you're trying to do space tourism isn't necessarily the best thing. So I think we're going to see a shift, hopefully to commercial leodestinations, which NASA is supporting, that will have specialized capabilities, and some of them will eventually be manufacturing stations, because yeah, the space station is going to have to go. Right now, the target data is twenty thirty We believe that we could probably push it to twenty thirty five is problematic though working with the Russians and the Russian equipment in particular is getting kind of scarily unreliable.

Yes, and it's not frankly perfectly designed for anything. It's kind of a jack of all trades of space stations, right, So, actually having a lot of people in your manufacturing space station isn't the best idea because they create vibrations, and they admit chemicals, and they require a lot of energy and maintenance, and of course having a manufacturing environment going on when you're trying to do space tourism isn't necessarily the best thing. So I think we're going to see a shift, hopefully to commercial leodestinations, which NASA is supporting, that will have specialized capabilities, and some of them will eventually be manufacturing stations, because yeah, the space station is going to have to go. Right now, the target data is twenty thirty We believe that we could probably push it to twenty thirty five is problematic though working with the Russians and the Russian equipment in particular is getting kind of scarily unreliable.

The notion of being able to move as the starship will, to be able to have large numbers of people in large amounts of weight into space. It seems to me could be a liberating moment, almost a turning point. And how we operate in space. Do you think enough young people realize what kind of careers we may be on the verge of inventing Because it's a little bit like Silicon Valley around nineteen seventy. I mean, space could be right at the edge of takeoff.

The notion of being able to move as the starship will, to be able to have large numbers of people in large amounts of weight into space. It seems to me could be a liberating moment, almost a turning point. And how we operate in space. Do you think enough young people realize what kind of careers we may be on the verge of inventing Because it's a little bit like Silicon Valley around nineteen seventy. I mean, space could be right at the edge of takeoff.

It is, and I think they are beginning to see it. When I speak to my colleagues, either here at Arizona State University or at Purdue or at Imperial College London, where I'm a visiting professor, the space classes are filling up, and the professors have told me, you know, back in the nineties or early two thousand's, you know, I couldn't get twelve students into my aerospace engineering class, and now I have five sections with two hundred students in each of them. They've gotten that message in space is the hot new place to go. For my own program, I teach executives, So these are pretty senior professional folks farther along in their career path. But a lot of them want to move into space from other industries, particularly from the tech industry, because they know that it's the hot new ticket. So yeah, that boom is here.

It is, and I think they are beginning to see it. When I speak to my colleagues, either here at Arizona State University or at Purdue or at Imperial College London, where I'm a visiting professor, the space classes are filling up, and the professors have told me, you know, back in the nineties or early two thousand's, you know, I couldn't get twelve students into my aerospace engineering class, and now I have five sections with two hundred students in each of them. They've gotten that message in space is the hot new place to go. For my own program, I teach executives, So these are pretty senior professional folks farther along in their career path. But a lot of them want to move into space from other industries, particularly from the tech industry, because they know that it's the hot new ticket. So yeah, that boom is here.

So things are moving in the right direction. Do you think that we're likely to beat the Chinese to the moon?

So things are moving in the right direction. Do you think that we're likely to beat the Chinese to the moon?

Wow. When I was on the president's transition team in twenty sixteen, we had a diverse group of highly qualified space professionals. Some of them, I would say, were what you call traditional space folks, more aligned with the military industrial complex sort of organizations, and a couple of us, myself and Charles Miller, were the commercial space guys. And sometimes we didn't agree on all policy things, which I think is healthy for a presidential team, but we did agree on returning to the Moon. We understood how important that was and we really believed nobody could beat us. Now Here we are almost eight years later, and frankly newt I am very concerned. The Chinese again say what they're going to do, and they do it, and they do it on schedule, and they've said they're going to be there in twenty thirty. We should have absolutely had boots on the moon this year. That was the plan back in twenty sixteen, and it was only eight years Guess what. Kennedy announced the Apollo program in nineteen sixty one, and the roots were on the moon eight years later. If we can't do today what we did fifty years ago, something's wrong to our credit. Though. Our goal is to return sustainably and permanently this time, not just plant a flag, bring back some rocks and declare victory. I think it's a real race new and right now. I'd have to say, if there isn't a change in administrations, I'd have to probably put my dollars on the Chinese. And that's not to disparage the hardworking people at NASSING, including the appointees there who are doing I think a pretty good job considering. But there just isn't top level support for the program. There was when you had Trump and Pence there, who were both very focused on delivering America's space goods.

Wow. When I was on the president's transition team in twenty sixteen, we had a diverse group of highly qualified space professionals. Some of them, I would say, were what you call traditional space folks, more aligned with the military industrial complex sort of organizations, and a couple of us, myself and Charles Miller, were the commercial space guys. And sometimes we didn't agree on all policy things, which I think is healthy for a presidential team, but we did agree on returning to the Moon. We understood how important that was and we really believed nobody could beat us. Now Here we are almost eight years later, and frankly newt I am very concerned. The Chinese again say what they're going to do, and they do it, and they do it on schedule, and they've said they're going to be there in twenty thirty. We should have absolutely had boots on the moon this year. That was the plan back in twenty sixteen, and it was only eight years Guess what. Kennedy announced the Apollo program in nineteen sixty one, and the roots were on the moon eight years later. If we can't do today what we did fifty years ago, something's wrong to our credit. Though. Our goal is to return sustainably and permanently this time, not just plant a flag, bring back some rocks and declare victory. I think it's a real race new and right now. I'd have to say, if there isn't a change in administrations, I'd have to probably put my dollars on the Chinese. And that's not to disparage the hardworking people at NASSING, including the appointees there who are doing I think a pretty good job considering. But there just isn't top level support for the program. There was when you had Trump and Pence there, who were both very focused on delivering America's space goods.

I worked with Vice President Pence in relaunching the Space Council, and I really did think that he and the President really they got the rhythm. They understood the importance of this, and they really wanted it to happen.

I worked with Vice President Pence in relaunching the Space Council, and I really did think that he and the President really they got the rhythm. They understood the importance of this, and they really wanted it to happen.

Yeah, he cared enough about it that he showed up as a speaker at the Space Emposium. I had the honor of being the speaker to go on stage after him, which was kind of intimidating. But now you need that level of top cover. I was at Space and Posium this year and Vice President Harris sent in a video, and it's nice that she had time to do that, but it is not the same level of commitment. The Secretary of Commerce, wilbah Ross, was at Space Symposium and he understood space. There were several people in the cabinet level who actually understood space, and that we don't have that right now.

Yeah, he cared enough about it that he showed up as a speaker at the Space Emposium. I had the honor of being the speaker to go on stage after him, which was kind of intimidating. But now you need that level of top cover. I was at Space and Posium this year and Vice President Harris sent in a video, and it's nice that she had time to do that, but it is not the same level of commitment. The Secretary of Commerce, wilbah Ross, was at Space Symposium and he understood space. There were several people in the cabinet level who actually understood space, and that we don't have that right now.

I want to thank you. I think you're one of the pioneers who has had the vision and the consistency and the policy orientation. And if we do end up with freedom in space and with three people doing things, you will be one of the figures in history who helped make this happen. I think, really you are a major force in the direction we're going in, and I want to thank you for joining me. Remind people that your new book, Red Moon Rising, will be China in the final frontier, is available on Amazon and in bookstores everywhere. I encourage everyone interested in the new Space race with China to get a copy and then to call their house and set up members and get them to do the right thing.

I want to thank you. I think you're one of the pioneers who has had the vision and the consistency and the policy orientation. And if we do end up with freedom in space and with three people doing things, you will be one of the figures in history who helped make this happen. I think, really you are a major force in the direction we're going in, and I want to thank you for joining me. Remind people that your new book, Red Moon Rising, will be China in the final frontier, is available on Amazon and in bookstores everywhere. I encourage everyone interested in the new Space race with China to get a copy and then to call their house and set up members and get them to do the right thing.

Thank you, n It's been a real honor to be here, and there's nothing I care about more than making sure that America and frankly, humanity get to the stars.

Thank you, n It's been a real honor to be here, and there's nothing I care about more than making sure that America and frankly, humanity get to the stars.

Thank you to my guest doctor Greg Audrey. You can get a link to buy his new book, Red Moon Rising on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Ginglish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Ginglish three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts World consigner for my three free weekly columns at Gingrich three sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Nut Gingrich. This is Nutsworld

Thank you to my guest doctor Greg Audrey. You can get a link to buy his new book, Red Moon Rising on our show page at newtsworld dot com. Newtsworld is produced by Ginglish three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guarnsey Sloan and our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Ginglish three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts World consigner for my three free weekly columns at Gingrich three sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Nut Gingrich. This is Nutsworld