August 10, 2025 • 14 mins
Guest host Ryan Wrecker and journalist David W. Brown discuss producing the necessary energy to sustain human life on the moon.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
In recent week or so, there was news about building
nuclear reactors on the Moon in order to I guess,
give us the power to build what they want to
build their vision of expanding onto the Moon. So I
think a lot of people just assumed, oh, you'll just
put big solar panels on the surface and that'll be
(00:26):
enough to power what you need. But I mean, based
on the exploration that they're discussing, it seems like they
need a little something more beefier. So what do you
think about this plan about building these reactors on the
Moon in order to sustain civilization up there.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
So this has been this has been something that's been
in development for many years. I mean, it's probably been
in development since at least the nineteen seventies, but I
dare say it's older than that. But contemporary nuclear reactors
is something that there's been a phenomenal amount of research
going into a building anything. Building a nuclear reactor in
the United States is nearly impossible because of regulations, and
(01:06):
so both NASA and contractors who've who've been working with
nats over the years, we're kind of hamstrung. We stopped
at you know, we really stopped in the seventies, but
it's just been on the drawing board since then.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
But there have been sort of breakthroughs.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
And let me see if I can remember the exact
I won't remember the exact technical phrase, but basically, it's
a it's a lower yield uranium that they can use
for powering these reactors, and it just falls under the
regulation sort of regime so they can actually develop them.
(01:44):
And they've they've had just phenomenal breakthroughs. We've got we've
both in terms of nuclear surface power reactors and also
propulsion systems. In fact, DARPA is going to be launching
a nuclear a nuclear propulsion system in the coming years.
(02:07):
I think it's twenty twenty seven right now. But the
cool thing about reactors on the Moon one solar power
can kind of work, but you start running into serious
issues very quickly. The Apollo missions were fairly short duration
stays on the Moon. With the Artemis program, assuming that
(02:27):
we are serious about it and we really do follow through,
which hasn't really seemed to be the case so far.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
But if indeed we.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Do follow through it, these are long term missions and
remember you know, every two weeks the moon is plunged
into total darkness or are the place where we land,
just by virtue of the phases of the moon. So
solar power won't work in the dark.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
And that's where reactors come in.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
And I would also add that they have a secondary benefit, right,
Reactors generate heat. So if you've got like a little
moon rover that you use to drive around, you park
it right next to your reactor and you can keep it.
You can keep it warm and cryogenic temperatures.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And for the most part, that's a lot of how
these probes get energy.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Right.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
The heat is off of uranium is how it works.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Right, So they have what's called a multimission radio asopto
radio radio astive thermoelectric generators or something to that effect.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
And basically, right.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
As these as plutonium decays very slowly eating it's a
tiny amount of heat and there's a there's a there's
a very famous and very old reaction where the coldness
of space with the heat of the uranium can create
a passive power source. These reactors, though these would be
(03:54):
active you know, active power are literally reac actors, right,
So they're actually doing the job in a way that
goes beyond just hot rocks.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Mm hmmm.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
So what's at stake when it comes to exploration on
the Moon. What's left to learn about the Moon?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I mean, the truth is, we know virtually nothing about
the Moon. So there's an awful lot to learn that
The rocks that we've collected have been great.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But when you look at the Apollo landing sites, which
by the way, the greatest engineering achievement in human history.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
So nothing that I'm going to say should be a diminishment.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
But the whole point of the Apollo program was to
get there, and so we landed at these absolute safest
sites possible, right, especially giving the technology at the time,
The Artless program looks to aim at more strategic landing sites,
sites where you would potentially want a base, So places
(04:56):
around Shackleton Crater where you've got these permanently shadowed regions,
where there's going to be water ice that you could
that you could mine and sustain yourself up there. You know,
these are these are medium term goals, and they are
achievable with current technologies.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
It just really.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We just need a focus at NASA in order to
achieve it.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And I don't know that we've seen that yet.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
But but in terms of the composition of the Moon, geology,
how it works, where it came from, how it affected
the formation of life on Earth. You know, when I
think when the when all is said and done, we
know very little about our celestial companion up there.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, some people have theorized that the Moon could be hollow.
Do you have any take on that?
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Seems unlikely?
Speaker 3 (05:49):
But I am not a planetary scientist, and there's an
awful lot of well, it would be very difficult for
that to have been the case to form naturally, but
who knows.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Stranger things have happened. Well, that's part of I guess
exploring it.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Do you think the United States is in a position
to still be the leader for space exploration. It seems
like these other countries have really ramped up their programs China, India,
they want to send probes and rovers to the Moon
as quick as possible. It seems like they've kind of
lapsed US in some ways, at least when it comes
to Moon exploration.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
But by far is the United States still the leader? No? No,
I wouldn't say so at all.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
If we're talking about getting back to the Moon technically
gets I mean, obviously, America won the space race in
the nineteen sixties, so let's you know, but if we're
talking about this generation putting human beings on the Moon, China.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Is running circles around us.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
China has a very disciplined, well funded, highly technical lunar
exploration program. They've made no bones about exactly what they
want to do and when they want to do it,
and they're keeping track or keeping pace they're doing it.
The United States has been floundering for decades with respect
to lunar exploration. My personal belief was that back in
(07:24):
twenty twenty earlier than that, really, but we'll just use
twenty twenty as the starting point. Rather than even bother
going to the Moon, we should have just gone straight
to Mars because we did have dominance in terms of
Mars exploration and China had zero experience with it at
the time.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
China has rapidly caught.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Up with us in terms of Mars exploration now, so
even that is sort of called into question. I think
that we still have to lead in terms of putting
humans there, but not the Moon. We just don't know
how to land people on the moon yet.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, So if you were to rank the space explorers
out there, you know, I'll give you three and you
can rank them in terms of advancement. Who's in the
best position to go to let's say Mars. Let's say China,
United States, and Elon Musk so we're privatizing it.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
What order would you put them in? Most likely to
get there first?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
For the Moon is going to be China, and there's
just no China would have to have some sort of
catastrophic setback in order to not beat us back there.
In terms of Mars, that's an interesting question.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
I think SpaceX is.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Going to go to Mars, whether or not the NASA
wants to go there. I think, however, NASA would not
sort of allow that to happen. And I don't mean
we're going to stop you from doing it. I mean
NASA would write the check to have that NASA logo
on the side of the rocket. I so it's hard
(09:08):
to put SpaceX above NASA. I do think that any
impulse that NASA has to go to Mars is completely
driven by SpaceX's desire to go to Mars, and they
are obsessive about it like they I was at SpaceX
headquarters at Hawthorne a couple of years ago, and I
spoke with just about every senior executive there aside from
(09:31):
Elon Musk, and every one of them said the same thing.
They said, whenever we have to make a decision, it
doesn't matter how big or small the decision is. We
ask ourselves one question, will this get us closer to Mars?
Speaker 4 (09:44):
If the answer is yes, we do it. If the
answer is no, we don't.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So I do think that if the United States go,
if NASA goes to Mars, it's because SpaceX pulled them there.
And I think that we are still better positioned to
do it than China simply because we've landed so many
spacecraft on Mars six tesfully.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
But you know, NASA is really good at tripping over.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Its own shoelaces, and a lot of that's not it's
followed a lot of that, as you know, political influence
and just paying for this stuff. So you know, it
remains to be seen. I would love to see humans
on Mars in my lifetime. I there's an old saying,
you know, we we've always been twenty years.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Away from going to Mars.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And if you ask me right now, how long is
it going to take for us to get there. I'd
say about twenty years.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
It's always the same, perpetual twenty years. But we think
about the space race in the nineteen sixties and how
that really reignited people's imaginations. It's funny how you mentioned
SpaceX and their drive to get to Mars and not
so much of a race as it is. The United
States would almost want to stick their branding on that
(10:59):
rocket to take partial credit for the mission, as opposed
to allow China to do that first, which I totally understand.
But a fascinating idea that you've brought up in the past,
and you're saying when you talk to engineers at SpaceX,
their main goal is if this helps us on Mars,
then let's do it. If it doesn't, then it's a
waste of time. What are some of the things that
(11:22):
they've worked on here that would indicate all signs are
pointed towards Mars for that company.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Oh wow, that's a good question, and then there's a
big answer to it. So first of all, I'm going
to say, and this is probably a much bigger conversation,
I'm happy to have that Elon Musk has sort of
proven himself to be I would not want to live
(11:49):
on a colony owned by Elon Musk. I'll just say that,
so I and we can talk a lot about that,
because that there's a lot to unpack there. However, I
will say this, if you look at Elon Musk's portfolio
of companies, what do you have? You have a car
company that are a electric car company. You've got a
(12:09):
solar panel company. You've got the Boring company that drills tunnels.
You've got SpaceX, you've got Starlink. These this portfolio, you've
got AI Like. These companies make no sense under a
single portfolio. On planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
You've got you've got hyper Loop, right, the tunnels that are.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Powered by uh, you know, a certain highly pressure eyed system,
and things just kind of dart through it like they
should do with the bank. This portfolio of companies makes
no sense on planet Earth, like there's no commonality between
the Boring Company and SpaceX. However, if you take all
of those companies and you put them on planet Mars,
(12:57):
suddenly things start to make sense. Because if you want
to go Mars, what do you need to do? Well,
you're probably gonna need rockets. Okay, so you got space
that you're going to need power, right, so solar power
is going to be very useful. Okay, well we've got
a battery and solar power, solar panel company. You've got
to deal with cosmic rays and radiation. Well, good thing.
You're gonnaed to be able to build tunnels because subterranean
(13:19):
living is going to be the way that you prevent
everyone dying of cancer. Okay, well he owns up a
company that builds tunnels. You need communications, well, starlink, The
same technology of starlink on Earth is going to work
perfectly around Mars.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
Okay, so you check that box.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
And then you look at something like hyper loop, which
again we've seen no success on Earth. However, you put
that same technology on Mars, and Mars just happens to
be the perfect atmosphere pressure for the thing to run
without without tubes. So suddenly that portfolio makes an awful
lot of sense. So I think in terms of the developed.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
That how far along.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Or sort of elon Musk companies in terms of doing
this stuff, I think there's a lot of serious, serious
effort and thought that's going into what they're going to
take to put people on Mars. Again, I wouldn't want
to live under it, And I much prefer the idea
of the United States itself, or at least some sort
(14:23):
of democratic republic establishing these sorts of colonies and things
like that.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
But when you look at technology.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Development, certainly SpaceX and the broader portfolio of Musk companies
seems to me pretty far along.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
In recent week or so, there was news about building
nuclear reactors on the Moon in order to I guess,
give us the power to build what they want to
build their vision of expanding onto the Moon. So I
think a lot of people just assumed, oh, you'll just
put big solar panels on the surface and that'll be
(00:26):
enough to power what you need. But I mean, based
on the exploration that they're discussing, it seems like they
need a little something more beefier. So what do you
think about this plan about building these reactors on the
Moon in order to sustain civilization up there.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
So this has been this has been something that's been
in development for many years. I mean, it's probably been
in development since at least the nineteen seventies, but I
dare say it's older than that. But contemporary nuclear reactors
is something that there's been a phenomenal amount of research
going into a building anything. Building a nuclear reactor in
the United States is nearly impossible because of regulations, and
(01:06):
so both NASA and contractors who've who've been working with
nats over the years, we're kind of hamstrung. We stopped
at you know, we really stopped in the seventies, but
it's just been on the drawing board since then.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
But there have been sort of breakthroughs.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
And let me see if I can remember the exact
I won't remember the exact technical phrase, but basically, it's
a it's a lower yield uranium that they can use
for powering these reactors, and it just falls under the
regulation sort of regime so they can actually develop them.
(01:44):
And they've they've had just phenomenal breakthroughs. We've got we've
both in terms of nuclear surface power reactors and also
propulsion systems. In fact, DARPA is going to be launching
a nuclear a nuclear propulsion system in the coming years.
(02:07):
I think it's twenty twenty seven right now. But the
cool thing about reactors on the Moon one solar power
can kind of work, but you start running into serious
issues very quickly. The Apollo missions were fairly short duration
stays on the Moon. With the Artemis program, assuming that
(02:27):
we are serious about it and we really do follow through,
which hasn't really seemed to be the case so far.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
But if indeed we.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
Do follow through it, these are long term missions and
remember you know, every two weeks the moon is plunged
into total darkness or are the place where we land,
just by virtue of the phases of the moon. So
solar power won't work in the dark.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
And that's where reactors come in.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
And I would also add that they have a secondary benefit, right,
Reactors generate heat. So if you've got like a little
moon rover that you use to drive around, you park
it right next to your reactor and you can keep it.
You can keep it warm and cryogenic temperatures.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And for the most part, that's a lot of how
these probes get energy.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
Right.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
The heat is off of uranium is how it works.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
Right, So they have what's called a multimission radio asopto
radio radio astive thermoelectric generators or something to that effect.
Speaker 4 (03:28):
And basically, right.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
As these as plutonium decays very slowly eating it's a
tiny amount of heat and there's a there's a there's
a very famous and very old reaction where the coldness
of space with the heat of the uranium can create
a passive power source. These reactors, though these would be
(03:54):
active you know, active power are literally reac actors, right,
So they're actually doing the job in a way that
goes beyond just hot rocks.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Mm hmmm.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
So what's at stake when it comes to exploration on
the Moon. What's left to learn about the Moon?
Speaker 4 (04:18):
I mean, the truth is, we know virtually nothing about
the Moon. So there's an awful lot to learn that
The rocks that we've collected have been great.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
But when you look at the Apollo landing sites, which
by the way, the greatest engineering achievement in human history.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
So nothing that I'm going to say should be a diminishment.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
But the whole point of the Apollo program was to
get there, and so we landed at these absolute safest
sites possible, right, especially giving the technology at the time,
The Artless program looks to aim at more strategic landing sites,
sites where you would potentially want a base, So places
(04:56):
around Shackleton Crater where you've got these permanently shadowed regions,
where there's going to be water ice that you could
that you could mine and sustain yourself up there. You know,
these are these are medium term goals, and they are
achievable with current technologies.
Speaker 4 (05:15):
It just really.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We just need a focus at NASA in order to
achieve it.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
And I don't know that we've seen that yet.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
But but in terms of the composition of the Moon, geology,
how it works, where it came from, how it affected
the formation of life on Earth. You know, when I
think when the when all is said and done, we
know very little about our celestial companion up there.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Yeah, some people have theorized that the Moon could be hollow.
Do you have any take on that?
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Seems unlikely?
Speaker 3 (05:49):
But I am not a planetary scientist, and there's an
awful lot of well, it would be very difficult for
that to have been the case to form naturally, but
who knows.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Stranger things have happened. Well, that's part of I guess
exploring it.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Do you think the United States is in a position
to still be the leader for space exploration. It seems
like these other countries have really ramped up their programs China, India,
they want to send probes and rovers to the Moon
as quick as possible. It seems like they've kind of
lapsed US in some ways, at least when it comes
to Moon exploration.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
But by far is the United States still the leader? No? No,
I wouldn't say so at all.
Speaker 3 (06:37):
If we're talking about getting back to the Moon technically
gets I mean, obviously, America won the space race in
the nineteen sixties, so let's you know, but if we're
talking about this generation putting human beings on the Moon, China.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
Is running circles around us.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
China has a very disciplined, well funded, highly technical lunar
exploration program. They've made no bones about exactly what they
want to do and when they want to do it,
and they're keeping track or keeping pace they're doing it.
The United States has been floundering for decades with respect
to lunar exploration. My personal belief was that back in
(07:24):
twenty twenty earlier than that, really, but we'll just use
twenty twenty as the starting point. Rather than even bother
going to the Moon, we should have just gone straight
to Mars because we did have dominance in terms of
Mars exploration and China had zero experience with it at
the time.
Speaker 4 (07:44):
China has rapidly caught.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Up with us in terms of Mars exploration now, so
even that is sort of called into question. I think
that we still have to lead in terms of putting
humans there, but not the Moon. We just don't know
how to land people on the moon yet.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, So if you were to rank the space explorers
out there, you know, I'll give you three and you
can rank them in terms of advancement. Who's in the
best position to go to let's say Mars. Let's say China,
United States, and Elon Musk so we're privatizing it.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
What order would you put them in? Most likely to
get there first?
Speaker 3 (08:28):
For the Moon is going to be China, and there's
just no China would have to have some sort of
catastrophic setback in order to not beat us back there.
In terms of Mars, that's an interesting question.
Speaker 4 (08:46):
I think SpaceX is.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
Going to go to Mars, whether or not the NASA
wants to go there. I think, however, NASA would not
sort of allow that to happen. And I don't mean
we're going to stop you from doing it. I mean
NASA would write the check to have that NASA logo
on the side of the rocket. I so it's hard
(09:08):
to put SpaceX above NASA. I do think that any
impulse that NASA has to go to Mars is completely
driven by SpaceX's desire to go to Mars, and they
are obsessive about it like they I was at SpaceX
headquarters at Hawthorne a couple of years ago, and I
spoke with just about every senior executive there aside from
(09:31):
Elon Musk, and every one of them said the same thing.
They said, whenever we have to make a decision, it
doesn't matter how big or small the decision is. We
ask ourselves one question, will this get us closer to Mars?
Speaker 4 (09:44):
If the answer is yes, we do it. If the
answer is no, we don't.
Speaker 3 (09:46):
So I do think that if the United States go,
if NASA goes to Mars, it's because SpaceX pulled them there.
And I think that we are still better positioned to
do it than China simply because we've landed so many
spacecraft on Mars six tesfully.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
But you know, NASA is really good at tripping over.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Its own shoelaces, and a lot of that's not it's
followed a lot of that, as you know, political influence
and just paying for this stuff. So you know, it
remains to be seen. I would love to see humans
on Mars in my lifetime. I there's an old saying,
you know, we we've always been twenty years.
Speaker 4 (10:28):
Away from going to Mars.
Speaker 3 (10:30):
And if you ask me right now, how long is
it going to take for us to get there. I'd
say about twenty years.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
It's always the same, perpetual twenty years. But we think
about the space race in the nineteen sixties and how
that really reignited people's imaginations. It's funny how you mentioned
SpaceX and their drive to get to Mars and not
so much of a race as it is. The United
States would almost want to stick their branding on that
(10:59):
rocket to take partial credit for the mission, as opposed
to allow China to do that first, which I totally understand.
But a fascinating idea that you've brought up in the past,
and you're saying when you talk to engineers at SpaceX,
their main goal is if this helps us on Mars,
then let's do it. If it doesn't, then it's a
waste of time. What are some of the things that
(11:22):
they've worked on here that would indicate all signs are
pointed towards Mars for that company.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Oh wow, that's a good question, and then there's a
big answer to it. So first of all, I'm going
to say, and this is probably a much bigger conversation,
I'm happy to have that Elon Musk has sort of
proven himself to be I would not want to live
(11:49):
on a colony owned by Elon Musk. I'll just say that,
so I and we can talk a lot about that,
because that there's a lot to unpack there. However, I
will say this, if you look at Elon Musk's portfolio
of companies, what do you have? You have a car
company that are a electric car company. You've got a
(12:09):
solar panel company. You've got the Boring company that drills tunnels.
You've got SpaceX, you've got Starlink. These this portfolio, you've
got AI Like. These companies make no sense under a
single portfolio. On planet Earth.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
You've got you've got hyper Loop, right, the tunnels that are.
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Powered by uh, you know, a certain highly pressure eyed system,
and things just kind of dart through it like they
should do with the bank. This portfolio of companies makes
no sense on planet Earth, like there's no commonality between
the Boring Company and SpaceX. However, if you take all
of those companies and you put them on planet Mars,
(12:57):
suddenly things start to make sense. Because if you want
to go Mars, what do you need to do? Well,
you're probably gonna need rockets. Okay, so you got space
that you're going to need power, right, so solar power
is going to be very useful. Okay, well we've got
a battery and solar power, solar panel company. You've got
to deal with cosmic rays and radiation. Well, good thing.
You're gonnaed to be able to build tunnels because subterranean
(13:19):
living is going to be the way that you prevent
everyone dying of cancer. Okay, well he owns up a
company that builds tunnels. You need communications, well, starlink, The
same technology of starlink on Earth is going to work
perfectly around Mars.
Speaker 4 (13:36):
Okay, so you check that box.
Speaker 3 (13:38):
And then you look at something like hyper loop, which
again we've seen no success on Earth. However, you put
that same technology on Mars, and Mars just happens to
be the perfect atmosphere pressure for the thing to run
without without tubes. So suddenly that portfolio makes an awful
lot of sense. So I think in terms of the developed.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
That how far along.
Speaker 3 (14:02):
Or sort of elon Musk companies in terms of doing
this stuff, I think there's a lot of serious, serious
effort and thought that's going into what they're going to
take to put people on Mars. Again, I wouldn't want
to live under it, And I much prefer the idea
of the United States itself, or at least some sort
(14:23):
of democratic republic establishing these sorts of colonies and things
like that.
Speaker 4 (14:29):
But when you look at technology.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Development, certainly SpaceX and the broader portfolio of Musk companies
seems to me pretty far along.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!