Bill Nye Takeover

Speaker 1 What can 160 years of experience teach you about the future?

Speaker 1 When it comes to protecting what matters, Pacific Life provides life insurance, retirement income, and employee benefits for people and businesses building a more confident tomorrow.

Speaker 1 Strategies rooted in strength and backed by experience. Ask a financial professional how Pacific Life can help you today.

Speaker 1 Pacific Life Insurance Company, Omaha, Nebraska, and in New York, Pacific Life and Annuity, Phoenix, Arizona.

Speaker 2 Howdy, partner. Next time you get chicken at McDonald's, you won't have to choose between the creamy flavors of ranch and the tangy kick of buffalo any longer.

Speaker 2 This time, enjoy all the flavors you love all at once. Try new creamy and tangy buffalo ranch sauce.
I participate in McDonald's for a limited time.

Speaker 2 Coming up on Star Talk, it's about time we talk space policy.

Speaker 4 Well, Neil, Neil, I have some thoughts on that. Bill Nye here.
I will be guest hosting this week.

Speaker 2 Turn it up loud.

Speaker 2 Welcome to Star Talk,

Speaker 2 your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide.

Speaker 2 Star Talk begins right now.

Speaker 2 This is Star Talk.

Speaker 2 I'm Neil deGrasse Tyson, your personal astrophysicist. And on today's show, we have...

Speaker 4 We have me. I'm Bill Nye.

Speaker 4 You're Chuck.

Speaker 2 Nice. Oh, damn.

Speaker 4 Well, it was pretty good, man.

Speaker 2 Yeah, it was compelling. Yeah, it was compelling.

Speaker 4 I won't say you have a future in it, but it was pretty good.

Speaker 2 With an impression like that, Chuck, you have a future in selling women's shoes.

Speaker 4 That could be.

Speaker 4 So with that in mind,

Speaker 4 we now segue seamlessly to talking about how we explore space practically.

Speaker 4 And by this, I mean... Today we're going to talk about funding space exploration.
And right now, we're at a remarkable time in

Speaker 4 the history of NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, where people want to cut the budget for science just about in half.

Speaker 4 And whose problem is that? Everybody's problem. And so today, as you may know, Neil deGrasse Tyson was once on the board of the Planetary Society, as am I even now.
Yes.

Speaker 4 And Neil apparently was responsible for voting so that I would become the CEO, chief executive officer, 15 years ago.

Speaker 4 And since then, the Planetary Society has developed a strong, reliable, remarkable

Speaker 4 policy arm. And we have here today a guy I consider among the world's foremost authorities, if not the world's foremost authority, on NASA budgets and NASA budget policy.

Speaker 4 Ladies and gentlemen, Casey Dreyer.

Speaker 2 And the crowd goes, wow, it's pandemonium.

Speaker 2 My usual welcome. Yes, thank you.
Yeah, well,

Speaker 2 rioting in the streets.

Speaker 4 So, Casey, you have analyzed the NASA budget extensively. I have.

Speaker 4 And what's going on right now?

Speaker 2 It's real bad. I think that's a good thing.
No, you're judging it. You're judging it.
Why do you say it's bad? I think that's actually the most objective and kindest way I can put it.

Speaker 2 I mean, you're looking at NASA being proposed to be cut by 25%. That's the largest single amount of cut ever in NASA's history.

Speaker 4 What about when Apollo ended?

Speaker 2 It was smaller per year than that.

Speaker 2 Now it is? Yeah. No, now is the biggest.
It's bigger than it was

Speaker 2 after Apollo. So we're cutting NASA, the proposal is, by more than we ramped down NASA after we ended the moon program.
So we ended the moon program, we had a contraction. Yes.

Speaker 2 And now what we have is a contraction that is greater than that. It's like falling off a cliff.
Like falling off a cliff. But instead of ending a moon program.
Proposed. Well, proposed.

Speaker 2 But instead of ending a moon program, we're nominally starting one up. That's the opposite.
That's even worse. That seems like a bad idea, right?

Speaker 2 Yeah. And then of that big cut, half it's directed at science.

Speaker 4 Half of the cut is directed at science.

Speaker 4 So we then have to, for the listener who's excited about space policy, who isn't, we have to distinguish between human spaceflight and what would be called scientific exploration. Yeah.

Speaker 4 Is that accurate?

Speaker 2 Yeah, science, NASA science is anything motivated by science that doesn't have humans involved in the process in space, right?

Speaker 2 They obviously do all the science here on Earth, but this is things like space telescopes, like Hubble. These are things like Mars rovers.

Speaker 2 These are things like New Horizons, the probe that's out beyond Pluto right now. All the stuff we love.
Yeah, and Earth observation satellites. Which is even more important.

Speaker 4 So speaking of Earth observation satellites, how much of this, these proposed cuts, has to do with what I would call Earth science?

Speaker 2 It would cut Earth science by more than half. And for me, what is Earth science? Yes.
So yeah, so this is when you put a science mission up in space and you just point it back down.

Speaker 2 And so you're observing things like water distributions, gravity anomalies on Earth, weather, large-scale climate, carbon monitoring, all the things that kind of give us the sense of how our dynamic planet evolves and our system works.

Speaker 2 I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that sounds a little important.

Speaker 4 It's very relevant to most people. Well, the other thing, just from a scientific standpoint, everybody, the big thing, the big questions we ask, where do we come from, but are we alone in the cosmos?

Speaker 4 That's a big question. So when we look at Earth, we're wondering what it takes to have living things.

Speaker 4 We only have one example of a place with living things.

Speaker 4 So the argument, as I will present it, is that by studying Earth, now we have something to compare everything else we find to, with which.

Speaker 4 And so, of course, although we're talking about policy, we would never discuss, we would not discuss politics.

Speaker 2 No, no, of course we wouldn't. No, we wouldn't be seriously.
That would be absurd.

Speaker 4 How much of that has to do with climate change disinterest, uninterest?

Speaker 2 Substantial, I think.

Speaker 2 And there is, I mean, ironically, what was originally called the mission to planet Earth was this expansion of NASA observation of Earth started under the last years of the Reagan administration administration and George H.W.

Speaker 2 Bush under two Republican presidents. Those woke bastards.
You kidding me? Reagan, man. No, I know.
Reagan. God, what a libtard he was.

Speaker 2 Thank you, Chuck.

Speaker 2 That reference.

Speaker 4 But in other words, Casey, you're saying this goes way back.

Speaker 2 Well, it's interesting. It wasn't originally part of NASA's primary focus, right? Even though NASA's original, everyone, of course, knows the 1958 NASA Act, right, passed by Congress.

Speaker 2 Oh, everybody knows that. No, but

Speaker 4 if you are a Star Talk listener, you are aware that NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was created for a reason, and that reason had to do with Sputnik.

Speaker 2 Well, that was, yeah, that was the motivating reason to form a federal agency.

Speaker 2 But when they were creating it, one of its, you know, Congress listed out the statutory responsibilities of the space program. Okay.
One of which is to observe phenomena in the atmosphere and space.

Speaker 2 So that's four. That's like actually, yes.
Yeah. They didn't know about other atmospheres and other planets yet in 1958.
That's remarkable.

Speaker 2 And so this is, I mean, they really expanded this in the late 80s, and Earth science has become this major field.

Speaker 2 Again, and you have these data sets now that they've been tracking various aspects of Earth for over 40 years.

Speaker 2 And that continuity is really important because then you see these long-term cyclical changes. You understand that there's substantial deviations from that.

Speaker 2 You're monitoring temperature and again, carbon, and all these other, you know, key indicators of the health of the planet. You do this by kind of this constant focus on it.

Speaker 2 And that's why they created a specific part of NASA science development.

Speaker 4 Well, the second letter is aeronautics, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. So if you're going to study aeronautics, you presume you would have some interest in the atmosphere.
The air.

Speaker 2 Right. The air.
And so the air is pretty important. We put the air in aeronautics.
Yeah, well, for reals.

Speaker 4 So it took us down a climate change digression.

Speaker 2 And before we get off of that, let me just

Speaker 4 set it aside. Okay, good.

Speaker 2 We're not going to get off of it. But I would say,

Speaker 2 and I'm just conjecturing here, that when when you're looking at 40-year long-term trends and

Speaker 2 things that happen in the atmosphere, one of the things that you're going to discover is that our burning of fossil fuels is a deleterious activity

Speaker 2 to the health of the planet, right?

Speaker 2 So could it be that if I wanted to support the multi, multi-billion dollar industry that pays me a lot of money, could it be that if I wanted to support them, I would get rid of that information?

Speaker 2 information? It's certainly, yeah. How do you, if you can't monitor the status of the planet, then it's harder to track kind of the impacts and changes to it.

Speaker 2 Now, it's this type of stuff, again, it's, I wouldn't necessarily even make it that strong of a one-to-one connection. Okay.
There's a deeper political,

Speaker 2 well, I think it, but it's, it's fair. There's a, there's a deeper aspect of this that's certainly part of that motivation.
Okay.

Speaker 2 And, but ironically, you know, we're talking about these other parts of NASA science. Earth science isn't even the thing that's cut the most.

Speaker 2 I mean, so that's where I was saying there's something kind of going beyond this.

Speaker 4 What is cut the most, Kay?

Speaker 2 Astrophysics.

Speaker 4 Astrophysics.

Speaker 2 Yeah, like the actual, like just looking at it.

Speaker 4 So and then Neil's not here. Coincidence?

Speaker 2 Perhaps not.

Speaker 2 So everybody, just understand if you're just tuning in.

Speaker 4 Chuck is here, per always, but our guest is Casey Dreyer, who works nominally. You work for me.

Speaker 2 Nominally.

Speaker 2 Some disclosure.

Speaker 4 But I just do what he tells me. He has studied the NASA budget in a way that is extraordinary.
You have written software. You've used artificial intelligence.
Tell us about your wonky nerdiness.

Speaker 2 Well, I'll start with my, I'm the chief of space policy for the Planetary Society. And I'm also, I'll just plug host of Space Policy Edition of Planetary Radio, my podcast.

Speaker 4 For those of you, I'm sure it's your primary podcast, and this is your secondary, of course.

Speaker 4 Space Policy Edition is.

Speaker 2 I promise it's way more exciting than it sounds.

Speaker 4 Well, it's very important.

Speaker 4 So look, everybody who listens and watches Star Talk will be ultimately interested in the NASA budget because NASA is the largest space organization, at least on this hemisphere, in this hemisphere.

Speaker 4 And how does it get funded so that we can make these discoveries in astrophysics or whatever else it might be back to you?

Speaker 2 Well, well, funding's part of it. And I think there's also just motivations.
I'm interested in why things happen.

Speaker 2 I always say, you know, all these missions that we just talked about offhandedly, you know, to study the Earth, to look deeper into space, to go to Mars, someone has to make those decisions.

Speaker 2 Someone has to rally and provide resources to build them. They have to design them, think really hard about them.
Those don't just happen, right?

Speaker 4 And I just want to emphasize to everybody, the word mission is not code, but a shorthand for the spacecraft itself and all the things that happen on the ground and all the people employed on the ground to enable the data to come down here.

Speaker 4 Back to you.

Speaker 2 Yeah, well, they don't happen in isolation. Ironically, they don't just happen in a vacuum, right? On space.

Speaker 2 See what he did there?

Speaker 2 The vacuum. Yeah.
Space.

Speaker 4 You got it? You're with us, Chuck?

Speaker 2 You know, it's a little difficult to keep up, but I caught on there. No, it isn't.

Speaker 4 Go ahead, please, Casey.

Speaker 2 So again, I mentioned the why. And so I love the outputs, of course, too.
And I want to get more of those.

Speaker 2 And I think by studying the whys of how they come together, the incentive structures, the reasons why things actually manifest themselves, right? You're talking about in the U.S.

Speaker 4 government.

Speaker 2 Well, yeah, and particularly in the US here, because it's the largest and where we live and spend most of our money on it.

Speaker 2 How does this idea that this forms like some sparking neurons in one scientist's brain end up cascading to build something, multi-billion dollar spacecraft out of metal and silicon and what have you, and then launch to a different planet and return this data and discover something completely new?

Speaker 2 It's that process from neuron to building the spacecraft that I think is so valuable, but also fascinating. It's like physics.
Why do things happen?

Speaker 2 You try to model why that happens to understand it better.

Speaker 5 If you're an adult struggling with obesity, if you've struggled for years and years, you are not alone.

Speaker 5 But Zetbound Terzepatide is changing what's possible when it comes to weight loss, along with diet and exercise.

Speaker 5 Proven to help lose weight and keep it off, Zeppbound is a prescription medicine for adults with obesity or some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems.

Speaker 5 Zeppbound should be used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Speaker 5 Zeppbound injection is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15 milligrams per 0.5 milliliters in single-dose pen or single-dose file.

Speaker 5 Don't use with other trzepratide-containing products or any GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zeppbound can be used in children.

Speaker 3 Don't take Zeppbound if allergic to it or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome, type 2.

Speaker 3 Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop Zeppbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction.

Speaker 3 Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems.

Speaker 3 Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes, depression, or suicidal thoughts before scheduled procedures with anesthesia, if you're nursing, pregnant plantop, or taking birth control pills.

Speaker 3 Taking Zeppbound with a sulfonyl urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems.

Speaker 5 Discover the weight loss you could be bound for. Ask your healthcare provider about Zetbound or call 1-800-545-5979.
Explore savings options regardless of insurance status at saveonzebound.com.

Speaker 5 Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 2 Meet Saw. His fantasy lineup not so great.
A no-name QB and an injured rookie running back. But you know what is great? Getting a single-line unlimited plan for $35 a month and a free Samsung Galaxy

Speaker 2 5G at Cricket Wireless. No injuries, just reliable service.
Cricket may temporarily slow data speeds if the network is busy. Must bring your number to Cricket on Select Unlimited Plan.

Speaker 2 Pay $40 first month, new lines only. First month service charge and tax due at sale.
Cricket 5G is not available everywhere. Fees, terms, and restrictions apply.
See CricketWireless.com for details.

Speaker 6 A question for all you gamers out there. Are you seriously going to miss out on Alienware's biggest gaming sale of the year?

Speaker 6 I mean, these are Black Friday prices we're talking about, so it's not just another sale. This is some pretty big bang for your buck.

Speaker 6 You know, it's Alienware with some of the most advanced engineering out there with systems at the top of reviewers' lists. And what about a gift for yourself?

Speaker 6 Gift yourself a new Alienware 16 Aurora gaming laptop. This thing's got performance at the absolute next level with Intel Core processors.

Speaker 6 And even better, you can get it during Black Friday, starting at $899.99 plus

Speaker 6 you can save on all kinds of displays and accessories like the Alienware 32.4K QD OLED gaming monitor for ultimate visual fidelity.

Speaker 6 These really are incredible deals on PCs with otherworldly performance. So visit alienware.com/slash deal soon and grab what you can before the biggest sale of the year goes dark.

Speaker 2 I'm Brian Futterman and I support Star Talk on Patreon.

Speaker 4 This is Star Talk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Speaker 2 So there are people right now, not in this audience, and I know it's not this audience, but there are people who will hear what you just said and then say, but so what? What's that got to do with me?

Speaker 2 How does that help me?

Speaker 4 Doesn't cutting the budget leave more money for the rest of our important things?

Speaker 2 I mean, why are we, and this is the term,

Speaker 2 wasting money

Speaker 2 on going to another planet or getting to Mars or looking at exoplanets, all this stuff that you guys do.

Speaker 2 You're wasting money. We could be using that money for something else.

Speaker 2 That's the argument that you hear most commonly against.

Speaker 2 spending money for something like NASA. Or that we don't have the money.
We're born. Well, we don't.
So we can't spend it. So it's, I always like to put this in context, right?

Speaker 2 And I know Neil has said this very eloquently before, but, you know, NASA is just this tiny, tiny fraction. So if you want priorities, most of the money the U.S.

Speaker 2 government spends is on healthcare, national defense, and support for, yeah, and social support, right? So Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military, all that stuff.

Speaker 2 It's vast, three quarters of all spending is that. And then NASA is this, your little sliver, less than a half of a percent.
And then of NASA, right? a third of NASA roughly goes to science.

Speaker 2 So you're talking about a third of less than half a percent, like 0.1% of every tax dollar, right? You're talking about fractional pennies at this point. So it's not a lot, right?

Speaker 2 In the scope of when you're spending $6 trillion, right?

Speaker 2 This is akin to, you know, we spend more money on pet food in this country than we do on sending things into space for scientific reasons, right? We can afford this. We can walk and cheat.

Speaker 2 Does that eat, man? Come on.

Speaker 2 So we can afford very fancy pet food places.

Speaker 4 We can afford this, and yet... There is a movement to not even spend this money.

Speaker 2 Correct. There's an overall desire to kind of cut, cut, cut without really consideration of what does that mean more broadly.

Speaker 2 And I'd say to your question, Chuck, it's more of a, there's practical reasons why we do space. And I think we talked about some with climate.

Speaker 2 You know, we want to understand why we can live on this one planet and not others. And by understanding other planets, we've learned how unique and rare our planet is.

Speaker 2 You look at Venus and Mars right next to us. Those are your two kind of worst-case scenarios.

Speaker 2 You either get way too hot with global warming, which and global warming was actually an idea spurred by observations of Venus.

Speaker 4 Yeah, Venus is, you can make an argument that in the modern era, climate change on Earth was discovered on Venus.

Speaker 2 I think. And is that because Venus has runaway greenhouse effect? Boom, boom, boom.

Speaker 2 And it was, our imaginations as humans are so limited that we actually need to go out and look because then we're surprised about what can actually happen.

Speaker 4 Especially my old boss, am I right?

Speaker 4 Limited imagination. No, go ahead.

Speaker 2 He is the problem.

Speaker 4 It's a solid joke.

Speaker 2 But by going out and looking looking at these things, we're like, oh, this can happen. Things like dark energy.
You know, these things about what we don't know surprises us by definition.

Speaker 2 And it's that surprise that pushes us to modify and improve our understanding of the systems in which we inhabit as humans, which is the cosmos.

Speaker 2 And so we are behooved to try to understand them better so we can live better in it.

Speaker 2 And then there's, I'd say, a deeper philosophical thing of do we want to be people who are looking forward to new things or do we kind of hunch over and just swipe on TikTok for the rest rest of our existence as a society?

Speaker 2 I know what my vote is. All right, so hang on, let's talk about something specific.

Speaker 4 Let's talk about something specific that's near and dear to me. Obviously, Chuck? Mars.
Yes. Planet Mars.
I knew you were about to go there.

Speaker 2 I was about to go there. Yeah.

Speaker 4 So right now,

Speaker 4 as we're recording, just last week, a paper that had been published over a year or about a year ago.

Speaker 2 No, the paper just came out. The discovery had been.
The discovery. Yeah, the initial discovery

Speaker 2 Yeah, please. There is a rock on Mars that the Perseverance rover studied.

Speaker 2 This is the, what's called the, what they call it a potential, potential biosignature, but is the most promising potential biosignature system.

Speaker 4 What makes it promising? What are we looking at?

Speaker 4 Leopard spots.

Speaker 2 They're called, yes, the technical term, the casual term, leopard spots, but what they found on this piece of rock is they found biological, you know, kind of organic traces overlaid.

Speaker 4 Carbon, carbon, compounds.

Speaker 2 Carbon, yeah, carbon carbon compounds, which are the building blocks of life, overlaid with various kind of these shapes and patterns in the rock that on Earth are always made by biological systems.

Speaker 2 Biological systems, right?

Speaker 2 Bacteria. Yes, right, exactly.
Yeah, little bacteria.

Speaker 2 And so if we had found this rock on Earth, we'd obviously, bacteria made this. Oh, that's what we'd say.
So

Speaker 2 there'd be no obvious other explanation.

Speaker 2 So they can't fully say that it is because there are some unlikely but possible, what they call abiotic, natural ways to make this, that they can't completely rule out.

Speaker 2 But we have a sample of this thing that if we wanted to, we now have this paper put forward a series of hypotheses that we can test.

Speaker 2 We have to do them here on Earth because we need the big expensive equipment to do it.

Speaker 2 But we have the ability right now, there's a piece of rock on Mars that we could bring back and say, was this life?

Speaker 4 And it's in a tube.

Speaker 2 It's in a tube ready to go.

Speaker 2 Helpfully ready to go.

Speaker 4 There is no plan to return these.

Speaker 2 Yes, so we have this, and the White House budget canceled the effort to bring back those samples.

Speaker 4 What motivated canceling that? Chuck's thing about what are you wasting money on? Who cares about that?

Speaker 2 That, yes, money is a big part of it. This belief that, oh, humans will just pick it up anyway, so I guess why bother having robots?

Speaker 4 So every, if I may digress, Chuck. Yes.
Surveyor 3?

Speaker 2 Surveyor 3.

Speaker 4 Exactly. I'm glad you brought that up.

Speaker 4 So you ever heard of Surveyor 3?

Speaker 2 I have not.

Speaker 4 Before we landed, humans on the moon with Apollo, sent a few spacecraft that weighed the footpad, the cool-looking pancakey foot pads, had the same, about the same weight on them on the moon as was planned for the lunar excursion module, the thing taking the people.

Speaker 4 So it landed Surveyor 1, 2, and 3, and then Apollo 12 astronauts in the cool go-kart.

Speaker 2 No, they didn't have the go-kart yet. They landed next to it.
They didn't have the go-karts.

Speaker 2 Thank you.

Speaker 2 Of course, right? Everyone knows.

Speaker 4 Yeah, well, he does know that. He's the wonk man.

Speaker 4 So they walked over to it. Moon walked over to it.
Oh,

Speaker 4 and brought back a piece of the camera, a camera-related...

Speaker 2 They cut off some pieces of the spacecraft.

Speaker 4 And brought it back to Earth. And I was a kid during this.
Oh, my goodness. Microbes have survived for two years on the moon.

Speaker 2 They found microbes. Yeah, they found some potential microbes on it.

Speaker 4 But then it turned out...

Speaker 2 It was our microbes?

Speaker 4 That we just contaminated it here on Earth, just screwed it up.

Speaker 2 Now, I don't think there's there's any fear of that on Mars, though. Well, there's that's, I think the fear is the right word, or a concern, maybe, is the thing.

Speaker 4 My fear, or anxiety, or taxpayer arms of chemboticness is if you send people, you're going to contaminate it. You're going to make a mess.

Speaker 4 And then will you be able to determine, distinguish between what may have grown the leopard spot patterns or what humans brought by accident? And this is not rocket rocket surgery.

Speaker 4 This is obvious to me.

Speaker 2 Dirty little secret: every astronaut spacesuit leaks. It's constantly leaking little bits.
And, you know, we're just these walking bags of bacteria and viruses, right?

Speaker 2 And so it's just we're walking around on Mars. You're just like shooting off little viruses and bacteria just in this air around you.

Speaker 2 It's functionally impossible to do what's called planetary protection, this idea that you have to not infuse another planet with your own biome.

Speaker 2 And as humans, you know, so when we send robots, we bake them at 500 degrees for three weeks to kind of kill everything or cover them with acid. Sort of kill everything.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 But you can't bake an astronaut at 500 degrees.

Speaker 2 Although there's a few in our external dude, they are delicious.

Speaker 2 They're a lot less effective as an astronaut. Whoa, that's true.
That's getting a little weird. Just a little.

Speaker 4 So anyway, this argument

Speaker 4 is clear to Star Talk audience. I can make this argument that you can't send people.
We'll contaminate. You won't be able to

Speaker 4 distinguish what you were looking for from what you brought by accident.

Speaker 2 Well, there's a number of reasons you can't have people necessarily do it because it's also where you land on Mars. Can humans get to where they sent the robots? Maybe not.

Speaker 2 They landed in this big rocky crater. Humans will have to land in a big, flat, the safest possible space.

Speaker 2 Big runway. Can you get close enough? If you're landing in a big rocket, will you just kick up so much dust and debris that you damage everything? There's a lot of problems with this.

Speaker 2 Plus, more to the point, at no point in history ever has adding humans to a space mission made it cheaper or happen faster. That adds complexity.
Makes sense.

Speaker 2 Because you're bringing bubbles of Earth with you to keep you alive for that amount of time. And also, we require a lot of maintenance.

Speaker 2 We are quintessential high maintenance. I have a toddler right now, so I resonate with that very strongly.

Speaker 4 So, with this in mind, the last budget proposed for bringing back these rock samples, this is an acronym everybody loves, is MSR, Mars Sample Return.

Speaker 2 I think it's

Speaker 2 just the worst name. What would be a better name? You know, that's a great question that I don't know.

Speaker 2 Can I just be the critic on it without having to do that? Mars rock sample.

Speaker 2 Bring back back. Bring them back.
Well, I have my Mars sample return, bring them home t-shirt on right now. But I always think sample makes people think of like the doctor.

Speaker 2 The bring them home is pretty cool. Yeah.
Because that elicits a different type of bring them home.

Speaker 4 And the word home is home.

Speaker 2 It's home evocative. Right, yeah.
I mean, there's

Speaker 2 call it just something cool, like the the athena mission i don't know right there there's just it's sample return just sounds very you know clinical yeah kind of kind of static where this is a really ambitious is it a true fact or a false fact that the last bid was 11 billion dollars right that was one of the reasons that things were there's there's deeper technical reasons to do this because you're not lots of novel technology.

Speaker 2 You have to land, go back to where there's a rover now, land next to it, somehow get the samples onto a rocket that you land on the surface of Mars that can sit there for two years on its own.

Speaker 2 And then why two years? Because it takes two years to get to Mars and come right and to land and come back. You have to launch on these cycles.

Speaker 2 And then it has to launch itself, go into orbit, rendezvous with itself with another spacecraft all autonomously, and then come back to Earth without getting anything dirty with it.

Speaker 4 So it's not seven minutes of terror, it's two and a half minutes.

Speaker 2 It's two and a half. I mean, it's incredibly difficult.
It's all stuff you have to do if you want humans to go to Mars, ultimately, anyway.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I was saying it's a it's a it's a great dry run for when we go, but more importantly,

Speaker 2 and I don't know if you can answer this,

Speaker 2 are there benefits that we would glean from doing this that have nothing to do with the Mars mission, but that would end up spilling over into our everyday life? Yeah.

Speaker 2 This type of stuff, when you set extreme limits for yourself, why do people run triathlons? Why do people run marathons? Why does Mercedes build cars for F1 racing, right?

Speaker 2 These are extreme, they seek out extreme conditions so you can practice and train yourself to be extremely good at something and have high precision, have high capabilities, and figure out how to do really hard things.

Speaker 2 So it makes your manufacturing better, it makes your engineers better, and it motivates and challenges people to pursue these incredibly difficult things that then go out and just make the world better through their own, you know, spin-off businesses and technologies.

Speaker 2 You need a goal like this, right? It just sets this bar. And these types of, again, autonomy, right? Robots know how to do things is is kind of a big deal right now, right?

Speaker 2 We're figuring out how to do that, and there's huge reasons to do it.

Speaker 4 So you threw in the word reason.

Speaker 4 Why does anybody want to bring these rocks back,

Speaker 4 bring these rocks home in the first place?

Speaker 2 Well, the life question, right, is a big one.

Speaker 4 That's it for me.

Speaker 4 I claim if we were to discover life on another world, it would change life on this world. That's my claim.

Speaker 2 Could that be a fear for many people, though? I mean, let's be honest.

Speaker 2 If you find definitive proof, okay, evidence that there is life or was life on Mars, and then you look at the whole, you know, how do we fit in? How do we fit in?

Speaker 2 There's going to be a lot of people who are going to be very upset because their origin story changes. It's like saying Spider-Man didn't become Spider-Man, you know, when Uncle Ben got shot.

Speaker 2 When did he become Spider-Man? Well, that's when he he became Spider-Man.

Speaker 2 I don't know. That's documented.
That's documented.

Speaker 2 All right, so hang on.

Speaker 4 Now, with this said, I went down this road, or I believe took you down this orbital path, presuming that this was worth doing, right?

Speaker 4 But there are people, scientists, engineers in the Mars, or rather, planetary exploration community, if that's a thing. who think this isn't really a worthwhile use of our intellect and treasure.

Speaker 2 Anytime you get a a bunch of scientists in the room, and I'm sure you've heard it on the show, they will never fully agree with each other, right? I mean, they are contrarians by nature.

Speaker 2 And so there's ongoing and vigorous debates about how to prioritize things.

Speaker 2 But I think, you know, it's been through this very long-term and ongoing processes to try to, you know, there's a whole thing, a bunch of scientists every 10 years get together.

Speaker 2 It's making it sound like some papal conclave, right?

Speaker 2 It's almost. It kind of is.
They get together. It's more open than that.
They don't go into a secret room.

Speaker 4 Do they wear the hats? They don't wear the hats.

Speaker 2 You know, they don't let me in, so I can't say. Yeah, you can't say.
There you go. But it's through the National Academy of Sciences, right? And

Speaker 2 they argue for about 18 months about what our priorities are.

Speaker 4 And they argue by email or something?

Speaker 2 They get together.

Speaker 2 They go to conferences. They have formal ways to get together.
And then they argue in person. And they say, these should be the biggest.
Actually, what they do is these are the biggest questions.

Speaker 2 And I think this is what's interesting about separating science from human space, about how we decide what to do.

Speaker 2 Science, because it's measuring real things in the physical world, you have some external set of conditions and realities that constrain what you do, right?

Speaker 4 Even example, you're talking about measuring temperature.

Speaker 2 Well, you have like a bunch of scientists, you know, a bunch of contrarian scientists in a room together. No, you don't.

Speaker 2 And that would just be, how do you resolve?

Speaker 2 I think looking for life on Europa is more important than looking for the history of geologic evolution of the cosmos, you know, in dark matter or dark energy.

Speaker 2 Well, they can get together in a room room and they can say, what are the biggest questions? Because as a field, they generally know what that is.

Speaker 2 These are the biggest unknowns that we've learned in the last 10 years. And because those unknowns exist beyond the opinions of somebody, right?

Speaker 2 Because again, science is measuring some objective reality. you will eventually find some version of consensus to say these are actually the biggest and most important questions, right?

Speaker 4 So what happened with Mars sample return?

Speaker 2 Well, I think it's

Speaker 2 set as the priority. And I think it has been a long-term priority because again, it has all these benefits.

Speaker 2 I think the problem with Mars Sample Return is that there's so many various justifications for it that there isn't a single one that you can just.

Speaker 4 So, do I have to get in charge, Chuck? Is that what it is?

Speaker 2 That's pretty much what the money is.

Speaker 4 We're going to find out if life started on Mars. Mars was hit with an impact, or this fell to Earth, and you and I are descendants from Martians.
That's what we're going to go find out. Right.

Speaker 2 Do you guarantee this as the outcome?

Speaker 4 I guarantee that we will evaluate that. We can evaluate that hypothesis before we send people and contaminate it.

Speaker 4 So, with that said, there's this proposed cuts: cut, cut, cut. Meanwhile, people at the China National Space Administration are going,

Speaker 2 Chuck, I've disturbed him. I'm sorry.
Take it, Chuck.

Speaker 4 Take it. That was a fabulous reaction.
No, I'm just. For those of you listening only, Chuck grabbed his face.

Speaker 2 Yeah.

Speaker 4 And that would, you know, this very troubling image.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I'll put it in the words of a very wise leader who said, we invent all of this and then

Speaker 2 we don't have it.

Speaker 4 It's not here. China.

Speaker 2 China's killing us. They're killing us.
So, I mean, you know.

Speaker 2 Who are you talking about?

Speaker 4 So the China National Space Administration is doing all these missions that are almost one-for-one.

Speaker 2 They actually have a Mars sample return mission going in 2028. Well, I mean, so...
So

Speaker 4 I did an offhanded remark. Expand on that, please, if you would.

Speaker 2 Well, I think so.

Speaker 2 Maybe just to step back and say, even if you don't buy the China competition or don't want to have that kind of geopolitical thing, it is the framing of the administration right now, that there is a, and even beyond that, a new space race with China.

Speaker 2 There's just a hearing in Congress framing it literally that way. So it doesn't make sense that in order to win a space race, they cut our science budget at NASA in half.

Speaker 4 Well, why isn't the argument that getting to the moon is what matters?

Speaker 2 Well, the moon, yeah, the universe is a lot bigger than the moon and Mars, right? Like

Speaker 2 there's a lot more to the universe.

Speaker 2 If you say you want to, you know, become that or retain you know leadership you know over over china or any other country you can't just decide other parts in space don't count right it's like no to start you know that's like no no no no going to mars sample return that doesn't count jupiter doesn't count anything further out that doesn't count only the moon counts that sounds like a again a two-year-old determining the you know making things up on the fly so that so that you can definitely

Speaker 2 i resonate very strongly with

Speaker 2 irrational claims very strongly held how often have you said to your two-year-old?

Speaker 4 You have three kids. How often did you say your claims are irrational, young man?

Speaker 2 I can't count them. I can't count how many times you're going to be able to do that.
So with this in mind,

Speaker 4 the China Space Administration is planning to do this Marshall. And we'll talk about stuff besides Mars, everybody, but just this one thing.

Speaker 4 They're going to do this similar mission. Yep.

Speaker 2 Okay, so how about this? The person, these same people that we spoke of hypothetically in the beginning of the conversation. And they say, so what? They beat us.
Big deal.

Speaker 2 So what we lose our hegemony in space. Big deal.
What's it mean? Yeah. That's actually, frankly, a really good question.

Speaker 2 Because I don't, I mean,

Speaker 2 I tend not to really go in on the

Speaker 2 pure competition aspect of it. I think there's a symbolic aspect of what do we choose to do as a nation that is peaceful and cooperative and ambitious.
And space science is all of those things.

Speaker 2 It, by definition, requires us to work together in groups of people because it's so complicated. It requires us to work with our allies, you know, to very closely.

Speaker 2 And it says it's, it's wildly ambitious and optimistic. It's like, we're going to go, what's on that red dot in the sky over there? Well, let's, you know, roll up our sleeves and

Speaker 4 along this line, you say it's cooperative. Right now, so during the Apollo era, as I like to point out, when I was young, during the Apollo era, it was a government effort.

Speaker 4 Everybody who worked, it was NASA, was considered the best job in the world for a few years. But now we have these commercial companies competing with each other, not working together.

Speaker 4 Address that, man of wonk.

Speaker 2 Well, commercial can do a lot of great things. They can make it cheaper to launch things into space.
They can make satellites that bounce our internet signals back to us.

Speaker 2 They can make things that look at, you know, at Earth. You know, they do things that go up and point back down.
That's what commercial does. And because that's where the market is.

Speaker 2 Because there's money there. There's money there, right?

Speaker 4 Well, why is there money there?

Speaker 2 People like to hear themselves talk. Like, are we not the most insular creatures, right? Like, we are self-absorbed.
So everything is just,

Speaker 2 again, I go back to this TikTok and sorry if people like TikTok, but I'm an old man now. And it's just swiping.
And social media is like the lunchroom in a high school cafeteria, right?

Speaker 2 And it's all this, who's saying this? And who said that? Oh, this person has a beef of this person, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Speaker 2 It is the most kind of internal and closed, kind of self-obsessed driver of human interest.

Speaker 2 Space is literally the opposite. It literally pulls us out and away from ourselves a little bit.
So about the fact that

Speaker 4 it's a very good idea.

Speaker 4 No, no, it's cool, man.

Speaker 2 But so, so commercial stuff. So people will pay for, again, practical things.

Speaker 2 I need to have a communications satellite that can beam, you know, this amount of data to like the Indian subcontinent for this expansion of

Speaker 2 broadcast market that I have. I want to learn about, you know, trends in agricultural development in various places.
Right.

Speaker 2 But go beyond that, there's no market to say, how does Jupiter work? Right. What is the nature of of dark matter? Is there life on Mars?

Speaker 2 And I can say, you know, we've had a lot of private space companies and individuals, they've been happy to send themselves into space and they've been, you know, or small, you know, tourism in various ways and they built rockets and they built a lot of things, but there's no one of them, not a single one of them has ever built a science mission with that money.

Speaker 2 Not a single one of those companies has ever decided to just go and figure something out because it's not even, it's not their fault. That's just the wrong incentives, right?

Speaker 2 Well, they they have investors and they need a return that's exactly right and so along this line case you have talked about guys who built telescopes in the early early days built telescopes space exploration before we had rockets right it's just a little digression there if you would so in the united states we didn't have public funding of science basically but until after world war ii because science turned or technology turned out to be so valuable in winning a war yeah i mean that turns out oh there's actually like a radar fundamental yeah or the nuclear bomb or any number of things and rockets themselves, right?

Speaker 2 Dual-use technology. But before that, it just wasn't seen as a responsibility of public investment to do, it was private sector responsibility to do scientific research.

Speaker 2 And that works up to a point, but when you start doing really complex things like going into space, it's hard for any one person to do that.

Speaker 2 So before we had rockets, you can say space exploration was basically looking through big telescopes. And there was a...

Speaker 4 Which was amazing.

Speaker 2 And people weren't really aware of that. Yeah, I mean, that was revolutionary.
I mean, you could, the bigger, you could, the technology enabled bigger and bigger lenses and mirrors.

Speaker 2 And, you know, there was kind of this prestige race among the equivalents of billionaires at the time, you know, these like Yerks and Keck and some of these other people whose names now grace these telescope, ground-based telescope, Lobel.

Speaker 2 And they used their money to build these big space, you know, telescopes on the ground. to put their name on them.

Speaker 2 And what they would do generally, they'd like, they'd cut the ribbon, they'd say, ha, you know, I'm such a great, you know, person and I've built this thing for the benefit of humanity.

Speaker 2 And then they take off and they never fund anyone to actually look through it. And that's the difference, right?

Speaker 2 So you can get sometimes an individual to build a thing because I think our brains like to focus on a physical thing, but the ongoing activity of something is really hard for a person to take a lot of attention to, which is why we built this into the public sphere, right?

Speaker 2 We have funding. It's not just enough to build a mission to Mars.
You have to pay scientists to figure out and look at the data, right? Without any data, none of those missions mean anything.

Speaker 4 The telescope without making sketches of what you see

Speaker 4 is taking taking pictures of what you see?

Speaker 2 Right, it's like the equivalent of a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it.

Speaker 5 If you're an adult struggling with obesity, if you've struggled for years and years, you are not alone.

Speaker 5 But Zeppbound Terzepatide is changing what's possible when it comes to weight loss, along with diet and exercise.

Speaker 5 Proven to help lose weight and keep it off, Zepfound is a a prescription medicine for adults with obesity or some adults with overweight who also have weight-related medical problems.

Speaker 5 Zeppbound should be used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity.

Speaker 5 Zeppbound injection is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligrams per 0.5 milliliters in single-dose pen or single-dose file.

Speaker 5 Don't use with other trzepratide-containing products or any GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zeppbound can be used in children.

Speaker 3 Don't take Zeppbound if allergic to it, or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrineoplasia syndrome, type 2.

Speaker 3 Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop Zeppbound and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction.

Speaker 3 Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems.

Speaker 3 Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes, depression, or suicidal thoughts before scheduled procedures with anesthesia, if you're nursing, pregnant plantaby, or taking birth control pills.

Speaker 3 Taking Zeppbound with a sulfonyuria or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems.

Speaker 5 Discover the weight loss you could be bound for. Ask your healthcare provider about ZepBound or call 1-800-545-5979.
Explore savings options regardless of insurance status at saveonzebound.com.

Speaker 5 Terms and conditions apply.

Speaker 2 Had a conversation with a friend of mine who told me that they started a business, an online business, and they did it with Shopify and it was super easy and that they're making money. I'm jealous.

Speaker 2 I want to start a business. And you know, you can do the same.

Speaker 2 When you're starting off with something new, it seems like your to-do list keeps growing every day with new tasks and that can easily begin to overrun your life.

Speaker 2 Finding the right tool that not only helps you out but simplifies everything can be such a game changer. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify.
Certainly is from a friend Karen.

Speaker 2 Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names to brands just getting started.

Speaker 2 Get started with your own design studio. With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store to match your brand style.

Speaker 2 And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shopping to processing returns and beyond.

Speaker 2 Turn your big business idea into sales with Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and and start selling today at shopify.com slash Star Talk.
Go to Shopify.com slash Star Talk.

Speaker 2 That's Shopify.com slash Star Talk.

Speaker 2 Cold mornings, holiday plans. This is when you just want your wardrobe to be simple.
Stuff that looks sharp, feels good, and things you can actually wear. That's where Quince comes in.
And the bonus?

Speaker 2 Quince pieces make great gifts too. This season, the lineup is smart but simple and easy with Quince.
$50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like everyday luxury, equal parts stylish and durable.

Speaker 2 I'm so happy that Quince is a sponsor of Star Talk because I've been a customer for quite some time.

Speaker 2 Last year I had a cashmere Christmas and pretty much my whole family is walking around in Quince cashmere right now. This season, give and get timeless holiday staples that last with Quince.

Speaker 2 Go to quince.com slash Star Talk for free shipping on your order and 365 returns. Now available in Canada, too.
That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash Star Talk. Free shipping and 365-day returns.

Speaker 2 Quince.com/slash Star Talk. Tell them Chuck sent you.

Speaker 4 Now, along this line,

Speaker 4 you've referenced Jupiter. You might have said, I think you said Europa for a minute.
So there's different opinions in the science community about which place to explore with how much money.

Speaker 2 Right. Yeah, I mean, until basically all this money was cut by the White House, right? So that's like, I think that's really pushed a lot.

Speaker 2 Those are internal, you know, it's like, we have a certain amount of steady funding. Let's kind of figure out where to put our efforts.

Speaker 4 And over time, you say that was a good process or good enough.

Speaker 2 I mean, I think that's the best, best, you know, it's an ongoing process, but it's an open and deliberative process. There's always going to be disagreements.

Speaker 2 But the point is that you have these external factors of just the big questions. What big questions are we trying to answer?

Speaker 4 Where did we come from?

Speaker 2 Functionally, that's the thing.

Speaker 2 They're all related to that. How did these things form? Why is the solar system the way it is? How did life arise? What is the, again, the nature of dark matter, dark energy?

Speaker 2 These are all frontier science things. And that's what you bring up in terms of China's space ambitions.
Their scientific program is ramping up to answer the same questions.

Speaker 4 They're like people in many ways.

Speaker 2 Well, I mean, they're driven by the same, you know, and there's all these aspects of national pride. And are you going to be the nation that discovers the future or not? Yeah.

Speaker 2 but they also you have to remember well we all have to remember that their government invests in these technologies that we

Speaker 2 did but that's what i'm saying so bill and i people

Speaker 2 years ago on this show predicted the future that we are living in now where he said that it was going to be imperative that we develop battery technology and i never forgot that like it was i love you man yeah he i never forgot that and now the Chinese they dominate battery technology because where we did not invest they did yeah Casey what about that

Speaker 2 well

Speaker 2 batteries are very useful in spacecraft no right I mean but but seriously China has like mission for mission there's there's a very strong one-to-one correlation between what what China is developing and what we have proposed to cancel in the United States proposed to cancel yeah so it's just like it's it's like a a needless ceding of this kind of competition to other nations, not just China.

Speaker 2 I mean, we would, the U.S. would become

Speaker 2 second to not just China, but Europe and Japan and other places.

Speaker 4 So but the thing is, not just human, we're not talking about human space for

Speaker 2 all the space science stuff. Everything.
And let me ask you both then.

Speaker 2 So if we're ceding these areas to other nations, does that mean that the scientists and the brilliant minds that go along with those projects go to those nations? Yeah, absolutely. And

Speaker 2 the partnerships between nations. So all of the things that the White House has proposed to cancel, more than a dozen are with our closest allies nominally, right? And so we're with

Speaker 2 the European Space Agency, these missions, these joint missions that we've made commitments to, we're just abrogating those commitments.

Speaker 2 And we're saying, sorry, folks, we are no longer going to fulfill our commitments.

Speaker 4 There is no one within the administration pushing back against the way you describe it. It sounds extraordinarily short-sighted.

Speaker 2 It is extraordinarily short-sighted. So yeah, strangely enough, Congress itself has actually been doing the right thing on this.
Tell us about this.

Speaker 2 Which is not a phrase I say often, but they've actually been doing

Speaker 2 both House and Senate, which are both Republican-run, same party as the President, have put forward their own kind of funding bills for NASA next year as part of this whole ongoing annual process.

Speaker 4 So can you wonk it for us? Sure. There's something called the President's Budget Request.

Speaker 2 President's budget request. The PBR.

Speaker 2 So then what happens? So

Speaker 2 the President requests, here's what I want to spend next year for NASA. That sets the baseline of argument.

Speaker 2 And then the House will put out what's called an appropriations appropriations bill and say, well, here's how we would appropriate money in response to your request.

Speaker 2 Then the Senate would do the same. They vote on theirs.
They reconcile. They kind of iron out the differences.

Speaker 4 They have a meeting in some smoke-filled room.

Speaker 2 Yeah, the proverbial kind of

Speaker 2 agreement.

Speaker 2 And then you ideally pass it by the Congress, and then the president would have to sign it into law, right? So that's like the ideal process. This is your spherical cow of legislation.

Speaker 4 So do you get the spherical cow?

Speaker 2 I don't know the spherical cow.

Speaker 4 It's hilarious.

Speaker 2 Casey, like all physics major, tell us about

Speaker 2 this joke. What is it? A farmer comes up and goes to a university and says, my cow isn't producing enough milk.
How can I get my cow to produce more milk?

Speaker 2 So he goes to the biology professor, and the biology professor goes through this long process of understanding that, you know, he explains to him, you know, you give these types of foods and things, and we understand these kind of process works, and he does that.

Speaker 2 And that'll help your cow get more milk. So the farmer goes, okay, okay, that's a lot.
And then he goes to, what's the other one? An astrophysicist. An astrophysicist.

Speaker 2 I'll just do it in two instead of three.

Speaker 2 And

Speaker 2 he goes to a physicist and says, my cow's not producing enough milk. What do I do? So the physicist thinks for a while.

Speaker 4 Let's go a year.

Speaker 2 He goes to a fifth year. A year finally, he draws up a bunch of stuff, comes back.
Okay, and the physicist goes, all right, I figured it out. Here's how we get your cow to produce more milk.

Speaker 2 He said, step one, assume a spherical cow.

Speaker 2 First, we assume a cow is a sphere. Cow is a sphere.

Speaker 2 Which is hilarious. For any physics major, yes.

Speaker 4 So the reason planets are round, you guys, is because of gravity. And the reason asteroids are not quite round, they don't quite have enough gravity.

Speaker 4 So with all this in mind, Casey, so the president's budget request this year was extraordinarily low.

Speaker 2 Destructive, yeah.

Speaker 4 So destructive.

Speaker 2 Draconian, unstrategic, wasteful.

Speaker 2 Wow, tell us how you really feel. These are the polite terms.

Speaker 4 So along this line, is it, as an observer, is it a bargaining technique just to go into the meeting saying we're going to give you half what you asked for and so that they would reach three quarters of what you asked for when they split the division?

Speaker 2 No, because this predates this whole process.

Speaker 2 The person who runs the budget office in the White House called a shot three years ago when he published a report saying he wanted himself to cut NASA science by 50%.

Speaker 2 This is deeper.

Speaker 4 You're talking about the Voughtster, Russ.

Speaker 2 Russ Voughter. Yeah, the director of the Office of Management Budget, who we don't have to go into this level of detail, but

Speaker 2 that's what the Space Policy Edition is for.

Speaker 2 But the point is, is that Star Talk listeners are interested in

Speaker 2 how we got here.

Speaker 2 There's a deeper level of animosity clearly being expressed towards federal investment in science that I think is profoundly short-sighted and ignores the wild benefits that have come from, again, this very brief, in one person's lifetime.

Speaker 2 The United States went from not funding science barely at all to having, you know, winning most Nobel Prizes in science, right? That all started, again, it started in the late 1940s.

Speaker 2 It was 1950 when the National Science Foundation was created.

Speaker 2 It all came from this report by this guy, Vannevar Bush, the president of MIT, to Franklin Roosevelt, saying, We won World War II because of science. He called science the endless frontier.
Science.

Speaker 2 And through science, public health, national interest, national defense, industry,

Speaker 2 everything. But we need to do this fundamental stuff that markets and private individuals cannot do.

Speaker 4 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, Congress is to promote the progress of science and useful arts since 1787. Wow.

Speaker 2 In case you make a single thing. It's kind of a clem on other arts, isn't it?

Speaker 2 Well, useful arts.

Speaker 2 What are the non-useful arts?

Speaker 4 Is making stuff.

Speaker 4 Bridges. What did they do? Church steeple.

Speaker 2 Engineering and architects.

Speaker 4 So now, Casey, you threw out a word, which I dig.

Speaker 4 Can you describe why these cuts you view as unstrategic?

Speaker 2 Well, again, so you're destroying the fundamental research base of the entire country, right?

Speaker 2 And this goes all the way down to whether students can be trained to become scientists and good thinkers or engineers it breaks again all these alliances with our allies it pushes them to work with other countries who are more reliable so we're actually pushing allies away we're becoming more insular we're destroying our own ability to do this research and you know through this broader attack i'd say on universities and academia we are undermining like the very this kind of like powerful engine of insight discovery and economic growth that we've created in the world.

Speaker 4 So specifically, I wanted to ask you about sending humans back to the moon.

Speaker 2 So in that sense, too, by well, and also, and so there's a pivotal sending humans to Mars.

Speaker 4 If your strategy is to send people to the moon, this is unstrategic.

Speaker 2 It also, again, tried to disrupt a ton of the other political investment and the political consensus behind going to the moon. So that's the other thing.
You know, nothing happens.

Speaker 2 Space at NASA, it is inherently, it's a product of politics, right?

Speaker 2 We are in a democratic, nominally still democratic society, and we have the ability and the right of every representative to have some kind of valid reason to support.

Speaker 2 You need a coalition of people to support you. Why are we going to go back to the moon?

Speaker 4 Society can't just be one person.

Speaker 2 It cannot, it should not be one person, right? And it cannot just be one person. And so you need to have something that builds a coalition of people who agree with you.
Right.

Speaker 2 And you have all sorts of reasons. People have all their reasons for wanting something.
And you have to accept that. That's just a product of our system.

Speaker 2 And so Our current effort to the moon, it's not the most efficient. It's not the cheapest.
It's not the fastest, but it is politically stable. And that's like your, that's your zero.

Speaker 4 What do you mean? It's because it's been going on for decades.

Speaker 2 It's survived, it's the first effort to return humans to the moon that has survived a presidential transition since basically since the start.

Speaker 2 It started under the first Trump administration. He actually had really, the first administration had really good space policy.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 And he was about, he was all about it with Space Force and the whole deal.

Speaker 2 Well, there's, yes, Space Fork got a lot of it, which is arguably actually not the worst policy, but then creating Artemis, Project Artemis. Right.

Speaker 2 And the Biden administration carried that on unchanged. What else did Biden and Trump agree on? And so like the fact that it because, well, because, you know, nothing.

Speaker 2 I mean, as we, as your listeners know, right, the motions of the planets do not follow convenient political cycles, right? They don't go on two and four year cycles of politics.

Speaker 2 You need to have someone to pass this baton off on.

Speaker 4 Because you can't do it in four years.

Speaker 2 You cannot do it in four years. You can't do it in two or four years.
And so you need to build some consensus of someone to carry on that progress.

Speaker 2 And if you want to send people back to the moon and then go to Mars, which is also in this proposal, despite cutting NASA's budget so much, while destroying such a popular part of the agency and this broader, not even making an effort to build a coalition around it,

Speaker 2 it will fail. And so it is

Speaker 2 an anti-strategy. Who will carry this forward? Right.
Because why would they bother to do it?

Speaker 2 There's no groundwork established that anyone else agrees with this, right?

Speaker 2 And so by destroying the coalition we do have and then not making one for this new idea, you end up wasting money in the media term, destroying this huge thing that we have built support for, and then undermining their own goal in the long term.

Speaker 2 That's an anti-strategy.

Speaker 4 Specifically, certain listeners, viewers, may remember the Aries program and the Constellation program. So I went to Cape Canaveral.

Speaker 4 They built a giant gantry tower, steel, welded things, rivets, spray paint, giant thing to hold up a giant rocket.

Speaker 4 And the rocket was going to be all solid motor, a solid rocket motor

Speaker 2 fueled.

Speaker 2 Wow.

Speaker 4 And then people realized the thing was going to be a wobbly mess.

Speaker 2 Is that accurate? Yeah, I mean,

Speaker 2 yes, it was the last gasp of George W. Bush's Return to the Moon program was this.
Right.

Speaker 2 So, hang on a second.

Speaker 4 Is the current Artemis program not derived from Return to the Moon?

Speaker 2 One piece of it is. The Orion capsule, which is going to launch with astronauts in in it next year.
But the space launch system, big rocket, no, that's not derived from that.

Speaker 2 That's all different stuff.

Speaker 4 All right, so let's talk about the space launch system.

Speaker 2 Sure. So the other

Speaker 4 organizations, everybody, this has to do with cosmology and exploring space. SpaceX, Blue Origin,

Speaker 4 European Ariane rocket,

Speaker 2 Rocket Lab, Firefly, all these new rockets.

Speaker 4 Are working

Speaker 4 largely. Largely, by and large.
Space launch system.

Speaker 2 It's fun. Go ahead.
It's fun. I mean, it's just, it's the big government moon rocket.

Speaker 2 So this is why Congress mandated, this is the first rocket to be mandated, written into law. It's illegal for the U.S.
not to make this rocket.

Speaker 4 2010 or something?

Speaker 2 Yeah, 2010, it was written into law that NASA had to make this rocket using existing shuttle components.

Speaker 2 It's a way to basically, you know, when they retired the shuttle, they wanted to keep their workers in their states working on space stuff, so they built this rocket out of the same shuttle.

Speaker 4 And this is part of what you say, the inefficiency

Speaker 4 of NASA, but is inefficiency necessarily bad?

Speaker 2 It is. It's depending what you're optimizing for.
Do you optimize for political stability? Then yes, you like inefficiency because then you spread your money around the country. You build that NASA.

Speaker 2 There are NASA centers for a reason. There's 10 NASA centers, big contractors and contractors.

Speaker 2 Like Utah is really invested in the space launch system because they build the solid rocket boosters there.

Speaker 4 Because it's Morton Saul.

Speaker 2 That's just like where they happen to, yeah, create that,

Speaker 2 you know, that's where that company happened to be established.

Speaker 2 And people don't like that I mean I understand the frustration and then they say oh well we should have SpaceX which does the things a lot cheaper which they do and a lot faster which they do but they're because there's an irony when in because they're so much more efficient they have a much much smaller footprint around the country so their political invested political coalition is a lot smaller so they're actually at cross purposes efficiency and political stability in terms of you know kind of does my district benefit from this moon program

Speaker 2 and so these are the types of inputs that i think are really fascinating fascinating. Why do we have this rocket that costs roughly $4 billion per launch, right?

Speaker 2 $4 billion

Speaker 2 to launch the full stack with the Orion. Expensive.
It launches once a year, which is crazy low at most, right?

Speaker 4 You know, SpaceX has over 100 launches this year.

Speaker 2 Yeah, and it's all worked. It's only September.
Well, you have, then, yeah, then you have Starship, right?

Speaker 2 Which is the whole space, like, which is like everything will be made obsolete by Starship, which it might be.

Speaker 2 But the reason why it persists, and so the Trump administration tried to cancel this rocket this year.

Speaker 2 But you know what happened is that Ted Cruz, no critic, no real critic of Trump, completely wrote into a separate bill, nope, you're actually going to fund this.

Speaker 2 He's going to spend a billion dollars on this every year. See, that sounds like it's more like a jobs program than advancement.

Speaker 2 It is, but I like to say, space is the only industry that is a shame that it makes jobs. Like, great, I love jobs.
Like, doesn't that

Speaker 2 exist? That is nothing but a jobs program to it. There's a lot of jobs.

Speaker 4 Yeah, no, defense, they make stuff to defend.

Speaker 2 Well, this is true, but I'm i'm saying there's there's a lot of defense when you look at almost when you look at 800 billion dollars there's a lot almost a trillion now almost a trillion almost a trillion now yeah there's a lot of ways there's what i'm saying i mean this is my contrarian self right and this is i i'm frustrated by it too and this is like i don't necessarily defend this way of doing things but it's the incentive structure selects for these types of programs right

Speaker 2 based on this this distributed representative democratic system we have and if that's if that's the tax in a sense of getting a moon program to survive for the first time, the fact that we will be launching astronauts around the moon next year, fine.

Speaker 2 So let me let me just make a public service announcement, if I might, because what you're saying right now seems to be that if you can incentivize your representative

Speaker 2 to fund NASA, NASA will be funded. And believe it or not, when you reach out to the people that you vote for and tell them, hey man, you better do this.

Speaker 2 They actually do take note because quiet as it's kept, we're the boss. Okay.
I know nobody wants to actually believe that. They work for us.
They work for us.

Speaker 2 So if you reach out to them, and I'm talking about our Star Talk audience, and say, I do not want to see NASA decimated. I want to see as much money as possible that can go to NASA.

Speaker 2 Right. And to studying the Earth.
I want money there. Yeah.
They, believe me,

Speaker 2 along that line. It means so.
Yeah. Well, so I'll just plug planetary.org.
So, I mean, one of the things we do is try to, this is a nonpartisan grassroots effort that we try to do.

Speaker 2 For the most part, you know what? Congress has agreed with us on all the things I've just said. Congress has largely agreed with.

Speaker 2 And it really speaks to the, this is not something to completely despair over, right?

Speaker 2 And because it's generally still, with exceptions of things like Earth science, unfortunately, but generally still non-partisan, it's political but nonpartisan.

Speaker 2 Political, but not partisan. Yeah.
And so if you just participate in that process, and we've done this for years and we've had a very good response.

Speaker 4 How would a visitor to planetary.org participate in the process, Casey?

Speaker 2 Funny you mentioned that, Bill. And what was that website?

Speaker 4 Planetary.org.

Speaker 2 Well, we have a link, Save NASA Science is our big campaign to do this. And it's been a huge, we've had hundreds of thousands of people respond.

Speaker 2 And we've had dozens of other organizations, thousands of scientists.

Speaker 4 Our members and people who visit the website send emails, they write paper letters, and they go to Washington, D.C.

Speaker 2 with us. Over 200 people will be joining us in Washington, D.C.
So 200 people

Speaker 4 who take the time, they take a day or two off from a job, often fly on a plane to Washington, sometimes drive, take a train.

Speaker 4 And we organize it so that they can visit their congressional representative, their senator, and make just the case that you're describing.

Speaker 2 Excellent.

Speaker 4 So check us out, you guys. It is also very rewarding.
I think everybody who participates gets a lot out of it. You really walk the halls of Congress.
You really meet with your representative.

Speaker 4 You meet their staffers, some of whom are old enough to drive. And you, oh, in New York, that's a reference.
People operate motor vehicles.

Speaker 2 Many of you don't.

Speaker 4 And so it is really a cool thing that With Casey's leadership, with our other guy in D.C., Jack Corali, we have been able to build this very well-organized effort.

Speaker 4 And furthermore, when members go to congressional offices, Casey, you have created what we're trying to call tools.

Speaker 2 Tools. To help people take it.
Well, we want to empower people.

Speaker 2 Empower.

Speaker 2 Yeah, I mean, well, you want to walk in and to say, you can say it. You can go in and say, I want this.
And that's totally legitimate.

Speaker 4 You're not a

Speaker 4 expert.

Speaker 2 But if you can make the case saying, you walk in and say, oh, here's actually NASA's real economic impact in your district. Here's NASA's science impact specifically.

Speaker 4 So you have written software.

Speaker 2 We have pre-generated. We've done all the analysis for people, all this stuff to show that there's an impact here, right?

Speaker 4 So if I'm from a congressional district, I go to planetary.org and I find...

Speaker 2 You can go to dashboards.planetary.org.

Speaker 2 And you can find or save our NASA science at planetary.org and you can find your state and district and you can find out how it impacts your locale because that immediately establishes relevance.

Speaker 2 Something happens here because of this. And if we don't do it, it goes away.

Speaker 4 How many congressional districts are there?

Speaker 2 Well, 435 congressional districts and 50 states.

Speaker 4 And 50 states. So that's 100 senators.

Speaker 4 So you can go in either with the ideas or the numbers in your head, or you can print out the numbers and you can present them to your representative and senator and say, this is the effect in our district.

Speaker 4 We want to fund NASA science. We want to explore planets.
And China National Space Administration will kick our empanage if if we don't do something.

Speaker 2 So we give you, yeah, I mean, it's whatever works best for you and what's best for your representative and what resonates.

Speaker 2 And the point is that there's a lot of ways to argue for this and that it's also in so doing, it's anti-cynicism. It's like a good antidote to cynicism, frankly.

Speaker 2 Like most people come out of this and this is, because you don't run into these partisan walls, you are there really just trying to express your passion.

Speaker 2 And that's at the end of the day, what we all have and what's so unique about this is that this isn't just, and you know, as Bill, you said, we're independent.

Speaker 2 I don't get any bonuses if we go to Europa or Jupiter, unfortunately, right?

Speaker 2 We are, we don't have anything to gain but seeing the incredible pictures or sharing in the knowledge that we find and that enrichment, that that is an access, I think, to the sublime that we do not get from pretty much anything else in a secular world today.

Speaker 2 And that's why I say it's the antidote to like scrolling on TikTok or whatever endlessly is that there's something bigger and grander and just waiting, literally sitting on the surface of Mars, waiting to be known.

Speaker 4 Surface Mars is one example.

Speaker 2 Europa,

Speaker 2 Just whatever, right? And we have the ability to do it. We're all for all of you.
You're not just there talking about a specific thing. You're saying,

Speaker 2 in doing this action, we ourselves become better. So

Speaker 4 let me just add this, you guys. Planetary Society was founded by the famous Carl Sagan.

Speaker 4 The guy who gave Neil a copy of his book, gave him a ride to the bus station, but Neil chose not to take his course. I can't, you'll have to take that up with him.

Speaker 4 Carl Sagan, Lou Friedman, who was an orbital mechanics guy at Jet Propulsion Lab at the time, and Bruce Murray.

Speaker 4 And Bruce Murray was the head of the Jet Propulsion Lab during these famous, famous missions, Viking, landing on the surface of Mars, and Voyager, the famous Voyager spacecraft

Speaker 4 that did the grand tour of the solar system, the golden record, which is still flying out beyond the heliopause into the cosmos.

Speaker 2 Still active now, yeah.

Speaker 4 He was the head guy during all that. And he famously was asked, why are you building these spacecraft? What are you going to find? We don't know what we're going to find.

Speaker 4 That's what we're building them. And to that point, all four of my grandparents were born in the 19th century.
They were born in the 1800s. I'm of a certain age.

Speaker 2 All four of them.

Speaker 4 They did not know there were neutrons. They did not know there was relativity.

Speaker 4 They did not know that one day we would have mobile phones that depend on both special relativity, the speed of the spacecraft, and general relativity, the Earth's gravity affecting the speed of clocks.

Speaker 4 They did not know any of that. And all of that is derived from space exploration.
And in the case of relativity, and largely from just the telescopes, just the beginning before rockets.

Speaker 2 They didn't know about Pluto.

Speaker 4 They didn't know there was a Pluto.

Speaker 2 And there still isn't a Pluto.

Speaker 2 There's a Pluto. There's a Pluto.
There's a planet.

Speaker 2 Sad enough.

Speaker 2 So, anyways,

Speaker 2 you guys. Pluto's mind.
Let me start my own movie.

Speaker 4 So to take it back to Casey's point, with all this talk, all this concern about NASA budget and funding international competition, what could a person do about it, Casey?

Speaker 2 Well, again, planetary.org, there's links right on the homepage for our Save NASA science campaign. It'll catch you up on the news.
It'll give you ways to write your member of Congress.

Speaker 2 You can call them if you want. It catches you up on talking points.
And then whenever you want, you can join us. We go to Congress every year.

Speaker 4 Sometimes twice a year.

Speaker 2 Sometimes twice a year. And so you can sign up.

Speaker 2 I have a space advocate newsletter and then also a subscribe to the space policy edition of Planetary Radio to keep going into all the depths and nuance and reasons for why we do these things.

Speaker 2 And then the more you know, you know, the better you're going to be. That's why I saw a star go across the line.

Speaker 2 How appropriate for where we are.

Speaker 4 So really, you guys, a lot of times on Star Talk, we talk about cosmology and astrophysics and so on and the discoveries that have been made about anthropomorphic star ripping the guts out of the star cluster or the planetary nebula or something.

Speaker 4 But this is the practical information about what it takes to support NASA science so that we can make these discoveries and work toward answering the two deep questions: where did we come from and are we alone?

Speaker 4 The search for life. Keep looking up.
Thanks for listening.

Speaker 6 Go from skeptic to electric in the new Toyota BZ.

Speaker 6 Hesitant about going all-electric? One drive can change your mind.

Speaker 6 With up to an EPA estimated 314 mile range rating for front-wheel drive models and available all-wheel drive models with 338 horsepower, the Toyota BZ is built for confidence.

Speaker 6 Conveniently charge at home or on the go with access to a wide range of compatible public charging networks including Tesla superchargers.

Speaker 6 Inside, enjoy a 14-inch touchscreen with an available panoramic view moonroof. Learn more at toyota.com slash BZ.

Speaker 6 The new all-electric BZ. Toyota.
Let's go places.

Speaker 2 The Who's Down and Who Newville were making their list, but some didn't know. Walmart has the best brands for their gifts.
What about toys? Do they have brands kids have been wanting all year?

Speaker 5 Yep, Barbie, Tony's, and Lego. Gifts that will make them all cheer.

Speaker 2 Do you mean they have all the brands I adore? They have Nintendo, Nespresso, Apple, and more. What about? So the WHO answered questions from friends till they were blue.

Speaker 2 Each one listened and shouted, from Walmart? Who knew? Shop kids from top brands for everyone on your list in the Walmart app.