September 28, 2025 • 30 mins
Newt talks with award-winning Washington Post reporter Christian Davenport, about his new book, “Rocket Dreams: Musk, Bezos, and the Inside Story of the New, Trillion-Dollar Space Race.” They discuss the new space race, focusing on the competition between countries and private companies to return humans to the moon and explore beyond. Davenport highlights the advancements in space technology, particularly SpaceX's Starship, which represents a significant breakthrough with its fully reusable design and potential to revolutionize space travel. Their conversation also touches on the competitive landscape, with China making significant strides in space exploration and the United States' efforts to maintain its leadership. The potential for the moon to serve as a refueling station for deeper space exploration is also discussed, along with the need for a less bureaucratic and more innovative approach to NASA's operations to ensure the U.S. remains competitive in the new space race.
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 (00:04):
On this episode of News World. In the New Space Race,
what will happen when human ambition outpaces government regulation? Which
country will win the race back to the Moon and beyond.
A fleet of powerful new rockets is poised to take
humans into space, and the world's two richest men have
engaged in escalating brinthmanship. Space is under a golden age
(00:28):
and this is just the beginning. In his new book,
Rocket Dreams, Mosque Bezos and the Inside Story of the
New Trillion Dollar Space Race, award winning Washington Post reporter
Christian Davenport details the plans that will shape humanities off
planet future. I'm really pleased to welcome my guest, somebody
that I really admire, Christian Davenport. He's a staff writer
(00:52):
at the Worshton Post covering NASA and the space industry,
and the author of The Space Barons, which is a
terrific book. He's been on reporting teams, there were finalists
for the Pollster Prize three times, and his recipient of
an Emmy Award for his work on the Discovery and
Science channels covering SpaceX's first human space flight mission. Chris,
(01:24):
Welcome and thank you for joining me the News World.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Oh Thanks so much for having me. It's such a treat.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Your book opens with SpaceX launching the Starship on October thirteenth,
twenty twenty four, which you stated was a daring feat
that had never been accomplished or even attempted. Why was
this launched such a breakthrough?
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Well, Starship itself represents a breakthrough. I mean just how
big it is, the amount of mass it could be
capable of taking to orbit just on the first stage alone,
has thirty three engines, and what it represents is a
fully reusable vehicle, both the first and the second stage,
the second stage, of course, being the spacecraft. And this
(02:05):
is the vehicle that NASA is investing several billion dollars
into to return astronauts to the lunar surface. So every
time it launches it's almost a must see TV event.
It's really quite extraordinary.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
I know this is sort of a SpaceX tradition, and
they went through a fair amount of experimentation in getting
to what's now a remarkably reliable workhourse, the Falcon nine.
I've been a little surprised that I think they've now
had ten launches and it's still haven't quite got it
down to a point of kind of reliable usage. Are
(02:40):
you confident that they will presently get there.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
I'm confident they'll get there eventually. The problem is that
you mentioned at the beginning we're in a space race.
We're in a space race with China. They vow to
get astronauts to the surface of the Moon by twenty thirty.
It's a big question whether SpaceX is going to be
ready with starship. This is supposed to be the vehicle
that NASA wants to use to get our astronauts there.
It needs to be refueled in Earth orbit for that
(03:05):
to happen. That means they've got to launch we don't
know how many, but many many starships for that to happen.
This is a technology that's never been accomplished before refueling
a spacecraft in orbit. They've also got to develop all
of the human life support systems for to transport astronauts.
So SpaceX has a lot to do on their to
do lists in order to make this really operational vehicle.
(03:27):
And by that I'm talking about getting astronauts to the
lunar surface. It's entirely possible they'll be using it to
launch starlinks and other things. Well, before then, and they'll
use that experience to build on getting astronauts to the Moon.
But that's the most important task that I see for them,
is to fly astronauts and fly into the Moon.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
I think Trexas has now issued a license to SpaceX
to have I think it's forty six Starship launches in
Texas alone. That'll be extraordinary.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, And not only that, but they're building out their
capability for Starship at Cape Canaveral as well. They're going
to need to be launching, probably from both coasts in
order to meet that mandate. You know, Elon Musk and
Gwen Shotwell, the president of SpaceX, have talked about a
time when they're launching four hundred times per year, just
as frequent as air travel, which is the reason why
(04:18):
they want to catch it and bring it back to
its launch site as opposed to as a Falcon nine.
It is a reusable rocket, but it lands on a
ship at sea or at another launch pad. Elon doesn't
want that. He wants to bring it right back to
the launch pad, refuel it, and then send it up again.
As he said, you know, with Starship, you want to
be looking at your watch, not your calendar.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
If they were to get to four hundred launches a year,
the amount of material they'd be putting into space would
be just astonishing.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, it's interesting because we look at it and think
about NASA, But the Pentagon is also really interested in Starship.
I've talked to generals about having a spacecraft up in
orbit that's just circling the Earth that could have supply
on it for say, tsunami relief, for a hurricane relief,
and then you need those supplies and you just diorbit
the spacecraft to where you need it to go. But
(05:08):
also it's so big. I mean when we launched the
James Web Space Telescope and it went on an Arian rocket,
the telescope itself had to be folded up like a
piece of origami so that it would fit inside the
rocket's nose cone. And then when it was released in orbit,
it had to unfold itself and there were two hundred
or more potential points of failure because of that. Well,
(05:32):
with Starship, you don't have to fold it up. It's
so big. You can put out these huge telescopes without
any of those concerns.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
But you also make the point that the Chinese are
taking this very seriously. How close do you think they
are to heading the equivalent of Starship.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well, they are right now, and Pentagon leaders were talking
about that just recently, working feverishly to get reusable rockets.
They've seen the path that was forged by SpaceX and
they are copying it, and they are moving quickly to
build not just big heavy lift rockets that can lift
a lot of mass to orbit and to the Moon,
but to have rockets that are reusable. That drives down
(06:09):
the cost. And they are harnessing their commercial industry. They
are allowing investment into commercial industry, and they're trying very
hard and moving very fast to compete with the United
States commerce and with the United States government in space.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You make the point that assembling the original International Space
Station took forty two rocket launches and with Starship you
could do it in five. So you're talking about a
revolutionary breakthrough and our ability to get things done.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, it could absolutely be a game changer, and that's
what Elon Musk and SpaceX have been working toward. You know,
a rocket like this has never really even been thought
of before. That said, for it to really reach its potential,
which I believe it will eventually do. Because SpaceX ultimately
ends up pulling off all these near impossible quests. They
(06:59):
still have a lot to do, and the orbital refueling
is a huge hurdle, and it's going to require a
lot of launches and a lot of new technology because,
as you know, to store propellant rocket propellant in space,
it's so cold it automatically boils off, and to be
able to do that is no small feet.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
I'm actually very proud of the affected. Many years ago,
Bob Walker and I actually got four hundred million dollars
for NASA to build a reusable rocket, and they hired
Lockey Martin who couldn't do it. And then about ten
years later, Elon Musk comes along and it had exactly
the fact we thought it would. I think they've taken
ninety percent out of the cost of putting a pound
(07:37):
into space with the first generation of SpaceX. The impact
of the Starship will be even dramatically bigger, both in
terms of costs and in terms of volume.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Yeah, and you see now they're launching Falcon nine once
every two days. The launch rate is remarkable, and when
you talk about reusability, they were hoping I think in
the early days, if they could reuse a booster ten times,
and I remember being in the factor in Cape Canaveral
one of the times I interviewed Elon and there were
three or four boosters, all charred and study that had
(08:10):
been to space and come back just in there being refurbished,
getting ready to fly again. And then they did fifteen launches,
now twenty. I mean they're continue to push the envelope
for reusability, and Starship for a lot of reasons, could
actually top that. Because it's going to use methane as
it's fuel, it burns cleaner. I think there's less wear
and tear on the engines, it should fly more efficiently.
(08:33):
So that whole idea where you launch the space fly
back land on the launchpad refuel seems in theory like
it actually could be achieved.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
I've never quite understood in this particular space race, and
we're clearly at the moment SpaceX is well ahead. What
does Jeff Bezos thinking is and why Blue Origin has
evolved the way it has. How would you explain that? Well?
Speaker 2 (08:58):
I think it's thinking frankly changed over time. I think
early on he wanted to be very slow and steady,
and he founded Blue Origin actually two years before Elon
founded SpaceX. He founded it as a think tank to
sort of think about what are the best ways to
get to space, and they came up with a lot
of different ideas, but ultimately decided on reusable rockets. But
(09:20):
then he sat out some of the early NASA and
Pentagon contract procurements, where SpaceX went all in on those
and SpaceX won the contract to fly cargo and supplies
to the International Space Station. SpaceX won the contract from
NASA to fly NASA's astronauts to the International Space Station.
It now is a huge partner with the Pentagon. And
(09:43):
I think somewhere along the way in about twenty sixteen,
and I document this in the book, Jeff turned around
and said, you know what, we need to be competing
for these things. We've sat it out for too long.
We need to go after everything SpaceX goes on. But
by then it had built this huge lead and it
was so far ahead, and Jeff was working at Blue
Origin one day a week. And in recent years you
(10:04):
see they've had for the first time a CEO and
Bob Smith, and that didn't quite work out, and now
they have a new CEO and Dave Limp, but they're
playing catch up. But I do think that now he's
really dedicated to the proposition of trying to compete with
SpaceX and make Blue Origin a viable force in the industry.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Is there a third competitor?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
There are several other ones not quite on par with this,
and I can tell you that NASA and the Pentagon
are eager to have more people out there. So you've
got rocket Lab, which is developing its medium to heavy
lift rocket Neutron. It's been flying a smaller rocket electron
with great success and with some frequency. I have a
lot of faith, as do a lot of people in
(10:46):
a company called Stoke Space, which is founded by Blue
Origin alums, again focused on reusability and rapid launch cases.
They seem to be coming out relativity. Now you see
that they seem to be headed nowhere. But Eric Schmidt
of Google fame came in and invested with them. And
the interesting thing too is that you're seeing not just
(11:07):
a focus on the rockets, but the commercial space industry
has expanded to rovers, commercial habitats and space stations, space suits,
mining technologies, all sorts of things, not just the transportation
but once we get to space, once we get to
the destination, you're seeing people start to think about that,
what is the infrastructure we're going to need and what
(11:28):
are the technologies we're going to need once we get there.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I know you've reported that some analysts think this could
be like a trillion dollars a year by the middle
of the twenty thirties.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
I mean, that's why I put it in the title.
It's certainly catchy. I think, you know, the Space Foundation
has a report that at six hundred and thirteen billion
dollars today. But you look at SpaceX's valuation alone. You
look at what STARLENGK, their Internet satellite constellation, has done
something more than seven thousand satellites beaming the Internet down
to ground stations. Amazon has vowed to invest ten billion
(11:59):
dollars into its Kuiper network, which is just now getting
off the ground, new rockets coming online. It doesn't seem
like it's beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
We've also made a point that I think is fascinating.
But when we first got into a space race, who
was with the civic union and it was binary. It
was the US and SIVI Union. Now, not only are
we competing with China, but there are all sorts of
countries begin to move into space in a way that
is almost frankly, for people in my generation, it's almost startling.
(12:49):
Can you talk a little bit about just the sheer
number of countries that are now out there working in space.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Yeah, there are two big teams, one led by the
United States, the other team is led by China. And
on that team of countries like Russia and North Korea
otherwise are potential adversaries. We have on our side, the
United States the Artemis Accords have signed up something like
thirty five to forty allied countries that are participating in
our program. And I keep thinking about what Scott Pace
(13:18):
said to me once, and he was the head of
the National Space Council under President Trump's first term. He said,
you know, the Artemis program of returning to the Moon
is a civil program. It is not a military program.
That said, it is very much a national security program.
It is in the interests of the United States to
build those diplomatic ties. If China beats us there, you know,
(13:41):
those countries that maybe are sitting on the fences, a
lot of people fear may go to them. You know,
if we win, then they'll come to us. And there's
some really high stakes in the geopolitical arena for that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
You actually quote me, and I don't often do a
podcast like this, and a memo I sent to the administration
in their first term about really developing a race that
the government would fund but would really rely heavily on
private sector folks. So I'll tell you, in the same
cheerful spirit, I'm presently writing a memo suggesting that we
(14:12):
debureaucratize NASA, that we literally do it in a sense
we're seeing happen at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.
Looking at the notion that it's been over sixty years
since John F. Kennedy challenged us to go to the Moon,
and in six decades, any bureaucracy develops patterns and regulations
(14:34):
and mistake avoidance devices that become really cumbersome. A leaner,
less bureaucratic, more risk taking NASA would dramatically improve our
likelihood of succeeding against China as a competitor. I don't
know what your thoughts are because you've covered this so decisively,
but since you quoted one of my memos from the
(14:55):
last Trump administration, I'll send you later on a copy
of the new memo on rethinking NASA.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yeah, I like that. And it's one thing too that
Jared Isaacman, who was President Trump's initial pick anyway to
lead NASA in the second term. One of the things
he pointed out was that bureaucracy and the fact that
it's so top heavy, and you've got all these program
managers and each one of them has a deputy, and
each one of them as an aide and a chief
of staff and a public affairs person. And he took
(15:22):
a look at the ORG chart and was like, this
could be trimmed down a lot because there's a lot
of staff and help and support of other staff as
opposed to, as he said, you know, looking at the
problems and solving the engineering issues and focusing on the mission.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I'm curious you do spend some time on China. How
formidable do you think their program is?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Everything they've done, they've accomplished, and what's amazing, they've done
it pretty close to the timeline that they've said they
were going to do it, and you need to look
no further about their ambitions to what they've done. But
when you talk about the moon I mean, one of
the things in the research for this book that startled
me frankly is looking at what they've done in terms
of the symbolism of their goal. So there are two
(16:05):
flags really that are on the Moon right now. All
of the flags planted by the Apollo astronauts have been
bleached white by the sun. Buzz Aldron actually wrote in
his memoir that the flag that he and Neil Armstrong
saluted and planted on the lunar surface was knocked over
by the thrust of their ascent vehicle as they left,
but regardless, it would have been torn to tatters by
(16:26):
the harsh environment of space. China when it went to
the Moon, it then built a flag made of composite
materials designed to last for decades on the surface of
the Moon. And their last lunar mission just this past summer,
when they went to the far side of the Moon
and brought back a sample, which by the way, no
(16:47):
country has ever done, no country beside China has been
to the far side. And then they not only did
that but brought a sample back. On that mission, they
unfurled a flag that was made out of basalt, essentiallyvolcanic rock,
and this was volcanic rock that they got from Earth.
But the symbolism of that is that there's plenty of
bus salts on the surface of the Moon and they
(17:10):
wanted to show that they could use the resources of
the Moon to manufacture things while they're on the Moon.
So it's like when you think of the American settlers
going west. They had game to hunt so they could eat.
There were trees and woods so they could build shelter.
There were streams, they had water to drink. And China's
showing us that they can use the resources of the
(17:30):
Moon to create a presence there. And they took the basalt,
turned it into lava. From the lava, extracted threads one
third the diameter of a human hair, and from that
they wove a Chinese flag that is now on the
lunar surface. And oh, by the way, it's in the
vicinity of the South Pole, which is also where NASA
wants to go. And I see no bigger symbolism of
(17:53):
their intentions than.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
That of all that was done with robotics.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, well, so they did it on Earth and then
brought it up there. But they're showing but it's a
technology demonstration.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Do you think in the long run that we double
or triple down on the Space launch system, or are
hopesually writing on Elon musk efforts with the Starship, I.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Think in the long run, and it's got to be Starship.
I mean the Space Launch System. I think a lot
of people think it's good for the short term, but
the costs are enormous. I think on the order of
two billion dollars a launch. It relies on nineteen seventies technology.
I mean, it literally uses the engines that flew on
the Space Shuttle. They've been upgraded, of course, but you
know we're talking about old technology. It's not reusable at all,
(18:38):
no part of it. It gets fully a dumped into
the Atlantic Ocean. And I think if Elon and SpaceX
can make Starship work, and if Blue Origin can make
New Glen work, that's their big orbital rocket, which is
designed to be reusable, then you've got some real options
there that I think can fly much more frequently and
at much lower cost. I mean also part of the
(18:58):
Space launch System, it's designed to launch like what once
every two years or so. I mean, if you want
to create a lunar economy, a lunar basis is not
frequent enough.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think the space Launch system is sort of the
last stand of the old order and the last stand
of the big lobbyist heavy private sector of bureaucracies that
match the cumbers of missive government bureaucracies. Just remarkably different
models from the SpaceX Blue origins model. Let me ask
for a second about the new Berlind because I really
don't understand this. How does it compare with Starship?
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Well, it's not nearly as big, but it represents for
a first orbital vehicle, I mean, a real step forward.
It's bigger and more powerful than the Falcon nine, for example,
and it was successful in January on its very first launch.
They did attempt to land it. They weren't successful, you know,
with the landing and the reuse, but they're going to
try again, perhaps this year. They said initially after the
(19:52):
first launch they were going to try in the spring,
but you know, these things always take much longer, particularly.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
With a new vehicle.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
But if they were able to do that, it would
be significant. It's not on the order of Starship though,
but it does represent a pretty big step forward.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
One the things you've mentioned it's kind of fascinating is
that the Moon could become kind of a gas station
for deep space exploration. What do you mean by that?
In what way is the Moon usable as a resource base?
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Well, the Moon that we're going to in the Artemis
program is in some ways not the moon we went
to during Apollo. We had thought for years that the
Moon was dry and cold and dead, and we know
it's not dry. It's wet. There's a fair amount of
water in the form of ice in the permanently shadowed
craters at the poles, and that is significant because water
is not only vital to sustain human life, but its
(20:57):
component parts hydrogen and ox is rocket fuel. And there
you have it right there on the Moon, and if
you are able to access it, mine it, extract it,
separate the hydrogen and the oxygen. You've got oxygen to breathe,
by the way, but you've also got rocket fuel. You
are already two hundred and forty thousand miles away from Earth,
(21:18):
and you could be taking off from a surface with
a much smaller gravity. Well, so I think people look
at that and see the Moon as the next logical
step because of exactly those reasons.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
As I understand it, Mosque is sort of addicted to
somehow taking something like starship and going straight to Mars.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yes, he does not believe in needing starship to be
refueled on the Moon, but it does need to be
refueled in lower th orbit, so he is going to
have to stop somewhere. I think a lot of people
think it just makes the next logical step. Right, you
go suborbital, then you get to orbit. You have test
humans living in lower th orbit in the International Space Station.
(21:56):
We've done that. Now you build a permanent presence on
and around the Moon. Something goes wrong, you can get
back in a couple of days, and that helps you
extend on to Mars. I think in that there's a
lot of bits we do the Moon or Mars. I
think the people who are smart about it say, well,
we should do the Moon and Mars and learn from
one as a stepping stone to the other.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Do you see Mars also in a sense becoming a
gas station for being able to come back to Earth.
Those of you. You get a starship to Mars, you
then have to figure out a way to get.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
It back here, that's right, and then use the methane
from there. Ultimately, if you're talking about Mars and getting there.
The answer I think has to be nuclear propulsion, because
if you're taking nine months to get there just the
way as you well know, you can only go to Mars.
You have that window once every twenty six months when
Earth and Mars are on the same side of the Sun.
(22:49):
By the time you get there, you're going to have
to hang out for a couple of years before you
can even come back. It's a long time Mars is.
If someone once said to me, you have the perfect
Mars mission. Everything goes right entry to send landing, seven
minutes of terror, it's a triumphant moment in the history
of humanity. You're on Mars. Only then are you in
just absolute crisis mode even if it went perfectly. That's
(23:10):
how dangerous Mars is.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Look. I've shifted a lot of my energy towards getting
a nuclear propulsion in space because it strikes me not
only does it get you there much much faster, but
also it eliminates the window you can actually go from
Earth to Mars anytime if you have nuclear propulsion, and
it began show open up asteroid mining as a realistic
(23:34):
thing because you now have such a continuous vehicle that
you don't have to refuel. What am I missing? That's it.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And not only that. One of the other benefits is
just the radiation environment. I mean to be on a
spacecraft for nine months, those astronauts are exposed to a
lot of radiation during that time. And think it's important
that they do it quickly. But you know, we crossed
the Atlantic and the Pacific and fairly rudimentary ships, and
we'll be doing that for a while as well, and
then ultimately we'll look back at a vehicle like starship
(24:04):
and think of how primitive it was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Yeah. I think the time to Mars with a nuclear
propulsion is around seven weeks, so you really dramatically reduce
the radiation problem.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Yeah, if you're going to go to Mars, you've got
to bring a lot of stuff ahead of time. You
have to pre position all kinds of things at a
time so that there's going to be a lot of
ships going.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Look, you're both knowledgeable enough and young enough. Can you
imagine yourself going into orbit?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I would love to.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
In fact, the last book, when I met with Jeff Bezos,
you know, I wanted to try to get a ride
on one of those suborbital trips on his new Shepherd rocket,
And as you may remember, NASA had the Teacher in
Space program for the Space Shuttle because they thought the
Space Shuttle was going to be flying so frequently that
they would open up seats to members of the public.
(24:56):
Decided first for a teacher and next was going to
be a journ Although some people think you should just
send the journalists up and not bring them back. But
I went up to NASA the archives and got a
copy of the Journalists and Space application and slid it
across the table to Jeff Bezos. He made no promises.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Well, when you get to Starship, its potential passenger capacity
is so enormous, we're going to be able to start thinking.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Like that right and sending people up. And that'll be
really interesting to see all of the different reactions to
space and people pupoo the space tourism thing, and there
was just the one with the celebrities and Katy Perry
and all of that. But I see a value in it,
just because I mean, where there been like seven hundred
people have been to space something like that. Imagine if
(25:45):
it's seven thousand or it's seventy thousand. It gets to
the point where you know someone or know someone who
knows someone who's been to space and can talk about that.
I mean, that would be extraordinary, and I think that
really would change people's perspective.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I think we will look back twenty or thirty years
from now and be amazed how primitive it was and
how much progress we're making, not just with rockets. I
was just down at the Area University looking at a
project they're working on where they've lined up all the
major areas of breakthrough robotics, artificial intelligence, new materials, about
(26:19):
nine of biology, and when you think about the synergistic
impact of each of these on each other, we really
could be at the beginning of a golden age of
exploration and development in ways that we've never thought of.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
And that's why I chose to write the book, because
I'm covering this stuff in my day job at the
Washington Post and seeing these larger themes and seeing how
this really transcends what I can cover in my day job,
and wanted to create I mean, they say journalism is
the first rough draft of history, but I wanted to
do something more and put it down in a book
and to take that history because I do think thirty
(26:53):
forty years from now we're going to look back at
this as a really historic moment.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Do you have something in mind now for your next book?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I do. I do have something in mind. And I
was speaking with a friend and I had this idea
for a trilogy. And the first book was The Space
baron sort of early days of commercial space. And now
we're moving forward, but we're still sort of in the
covered wagon stage and we're not yet homesteading. We don't
have a base on the Moon, we don't have commercial
space stations. And I thought, well, that'll be the third book,
(27:21):
you know, the homesteading, you know, from moving from exploration
to expansion, expanding into space. And my friend said, no, no, no,
Before we homestead, you got to get the cavalry. You
got to write about the Space Force and national security.
Space is really significant, and what China's doing up there,
what Russia's doing up there. I just spent a week
in July at the elbow of General Chance Saltzman, the
(27:43):
head of the Space Force, and it's a misunderstood and
often derided branch of the US military. But what's going
on militarily in space right now is frankly scary, and
it's very sobering.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Space dominance will be for the near future what airpower
was for over half a century. If you have it,
you dominate everything. If you don't have it, you're in
desperate trouble. I think just look at GPS.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
You got that little blue dot on your phone. That's
Google Maps, and you're ordering your Uber. But the timing
aspect of that goes to every banking transaction, every trade
on the New York Stock Exchange. There are thirty four
of those satellites. Russia, China and others have demonstrated they
can clearly interfere with that. GPS signals are being interfered
with daily in places like Ukraine, and so widespread attack
(28:34):
on GPS doesn't mean you don't get your Uber, means
the entire US economy could collapse.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
I really enjoy talking with you, and I think the
work you're doing is important for the whole country. Your
new book, Rocket Dreams, Musk Bezos and the Inside Story
of the New Trollion Dollar Space Race. It's available on
Amazon and bookstores everywhere. And I want our listeners to
know that they can follow the reporting you're doing on
NASA and the space industry. For the washt Post, at
(29:02):
Washingtonpost dot com. And I'm so glad Chris that you
would joined me for this.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Oh, thank you for having me. That was a real treat,
so much fun.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Thank you to my guests Christian Davenport. You can get
a link to buy his new book Rocket Dreams, Musk
Bezos and the Inside Story of the New Trillion Dollar
Space Race on our show page at newtsworld dot com.
Newtsworld is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our
executive producers Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The
(29:34):
artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special
thanks to the team at gamestree sixty. If you've been
enjoying Nutsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and
both rate us with five stars and give us a
review so all this can learn what it's all about.
Right now, listeners of Newsworld can sign up for my
three free weekly columns at gingrishtree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(29:56):
I'm Nut Gingrich. This is Newtsworld
On this episode of News World. In the New Space Race,
what will happen when human ambition outpaces government regulation? Which
country will win the race back to the Moon and beyond.
A fleet of powerful new rockets is poised to take
humans into space, and the world's two richest men have
engaged in escalating brinthmanship. Space is under a golden age
(00:28):
and this is just the beginning. In his new book,
Rocket Dreams, Mosque Bezos and the Inside Story of the
New Trillion Dollar Space Race, award winning Washington Post reporter
Christian Davenport details the plans that will shape humanities off
planet future. I'm really pleased to welcome my guest, somebody
that I really admire, Christian Davenport. He's a staff writer
(00:52):
at the Worshton Post covering NASA and the space industry,
and the author of The Space Barons, which is a
terrific book. He's been on reporting teams, there were finalists
for the Pollster Prize three times, and his recipient of
an Emmy Award for his work on the Discovery and
Science channels covering SpaceX's first human space flight mission. Chris,
(01:24):
Welcome and thank you for joining me the News World.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
Oh Thanks so much for having me. It's such a treat.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Your book opens with SpaceX launching the Starship on October thirteenth,
twenty twenty four, which you stated was a daring feat
that had never been accomplished or even attempted. Why was
this launched such a breakthrough?
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Well, Starship itself represents a breakthrough. I mean just how
big it is, the amount of mass it could be
capable of taking to orbit just on the first stage alone,
has thirty three engines, and what it represents is a
fully reusable vehicle, both the first and the second stage,
the second stage, of course, being the spacecraft. And this
(02:05):
is the vehicle that NASA is investing several billion dollars
into to return astronauts to the lunar surface. So every
time it launches it's almost a must see TV event.
It's really quite extraordinary.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
I know this is sort of a SpaceX tradition, and
they went through a fair amount of experimentation in getting
to what's now a remarkably reliable workhourse, the Falcon nine.
I've been a little surprised that I think they've now
had ten launches and it's still haven't quite got it
down to a point of kind of reliable usage. Are
(02:40):
you confident that they will presently get there.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
I'm confident they'll get there eventually. The problem is that
you mentioned at the beginning we're in a space race.
We're in a space race with China. They vow to
get astronauts to the surface of the Moon by twenty thirty.
It's a big question whether SpaceX is going to be
ready with starship. This is supposed to be the vehicle
that NASA wants to use to get our astronauts there.
It needs to be refueled in Earth orbit for that
(03:05):
to happen. That means they've got to launch we don't
know how many, but many many starships for that to happen.
This is a technology that's never been accomplished before refueling
a spacecraft in orbit. They've also got to develop all
of the human life support systems for to transport astronauts.
So SpaceX has a lot to do on their to
do lists in order to make this really operational vehicle.
(03:27):
And by that I'm talking about getting astronauts to the
lunar surface. It's entirely possible they'll be using it to
launch starlinks and other things. Well, before then, and they'll
use that experience to build on getting astronauts to the Moon.
But that's the most important task that I see for them,
is to fly astronauts and fly into the Moon.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
I think Trexas has now issued a license to SpaceX
to have I think it's forty six Starship launches in
Texas alone. That'll be extraordinary.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, And not only that, but they're building out their
capability for Starship at Cape Canaveral as well. They're going
to need to be launching, probably from both coasts in
order to meet that mandate. You know, Elon Musk and
Gwen Shotwell, the president of SpaceX, have talked about a
time when they're launching four hundred times per year, just
as frequent as air travel, which is the reason why
(04:18):
they want to catch it and bring it back to
its launch site as opposed to as a Falcon nine.
It is a reusable rocket, but it lands on a
ship at sea or at another launch pad. Elon doesn't
want that. He wants to bring it right back to
the launch pad, refuel it, and then send it up again.
As he said, you know, with Starship, you want to
be looking at your watch, not your calendar.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
If they were to get to four hundred launches a year,
the amount of material they'd be putting into space would
be just astonishing.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Yeah, it's interesting because we look at it and think
about NASA, But the Pentagon is also really interested in Starship.
I've talked to generals about having a spacecraft up in
orbit that's just circling the Earth that could have supply
on it for say, tsunami relief, for a hurricane relief,
and then you need those supplies and you just diorbit
the spacecraft to where you need it to go. But
(05:08):
also it's so big. I mean when we launched the
James Web Space Telescope and it went on an Arian rocket,
the telescope itself had to be folded up like a
piece of origami so that it would fit inside the
rocket's nose cone. And then when it was released in orbit,
it had to unfold itself and there were two hundred
or more potential points of failure because of that. Well,
(05:32):
with Starship, you don't have to fold it up. It's
so big. You can put out these huge telescopes without
any of those concerns.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
But you also make the point that the Chinese are
taking this very seriously. How close do you think they
are to heading the equivalent of Starship.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
Well, they are right now, and Pentagon leaders were talking
about that just recently, working feverishly to get reusable rockets.
They've seen the path that was forged by SpaceX and
they are copying it, and they are moving quickly to
build not just big heavy lift rockets that can lift
a lot of mass to orbit and to the Moon,
but to have rockets that are reusable. That drives down
(06:09):
the cost. And they are harnessing their commercial industry. They
are allowing investment into commercial industry, and they're trying very
hard and moving very fast to compete with the United
States commerce and with the United States government in space.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You make the point that assembling the original International Space
Station took forty two rocket launches and with Starship you
could do it in five. So you're talking about a
revolutionary breakthrough and our ability to get things done.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah, it could absolutely be a game changer, and that's
what Elon Musk and SpaceX have been working toward. You know,
a rocket like this has never really even been thought
of before. That said, for it to really reach its potential,
which I believe it will eventually do. Because SpaceX ultimately
ends up pulling off all these near impossible quests. They
(06:59):
still have a lot to do, and the orbital refueling
is a huge hurdle, and it's going to require a
lot of launches and a lot of new technology because,
as you know, to store propellant rocket propellant in space,
it's so cold it automatically boils off, and to be
able to do that is no small feet.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
I'm actually very proud of the affected. Many years ago,
Bob Walker and I actually got four hundred million dollars
for NASA to build a reusable rocket, and they hired
Lockey Martin who couldn't do it. And then about ten
years later, Elon Musk comes along and it had exactly
the fact we thought it would. I think they've taken
ninety percent out of the cost of putting a pound
(07:37):
into space with the first generation of SpaceX. The impact
of the Starship will be even dramatically bigger, both in
terms of costs and in terms of volume.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Yeah, and you see now they're launching Falcon nine once
every two days. The launch rate is remarkable, and when
you talk about reusability, they were hoping I think in
the early days, if they could reuse a booster ten times,
and I remember being in the factor in Cape Canaveral
one of the times I interviewed Elon and there were
three or four boosters, all charred and study that had
(08:10):
been to space and come back just in there being refurbished,
getting ready to fly again. And then they did fifteen launches,
now twenty. I mean they're continue to push the envelope
for reusability, and Starship for a lot of reasons, could
actually top that. Because it's going to use methane as
it's fuel, it burns cleaner. I think there's less wear
and tear on the engines, it should fly more efficiently.
(08:33):
So that whole idea where you launch the space fly
back land on the launchpad refuel seems in theory like
it actually could be achieved.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
I've never quite understood in this particular space race, and
we're clearly at the moment SpaceX is well ahead. What
does Jeff Bezos thinking is and why Blue Origin has
evolved the way it has. How would you explain that? Well?
Speaker 2 (08:58):
I think it's thinking frankly changed over time. I think
early on he wanted to be very slow and steady,
and he founded Blue Origin actually two years before Elon
founded SpaceX. He founded it as a think tank to
sort of think about what are the best ways to
get to space, and they came up with a lot
of different ideas, but ultimately decided on reusable rockets. But
(09:20):
then he sat out some of the early NASA and
Pentagon contract procurements, where SpaceX went all in on those
and SpaceX won the contract to fly cargo and supplies
to the International Space Station. SpaceX won the contract from
NASA to fly NASA's astronauts to the International Space Station.
It now is a huge partner with the Pentagon. And
(09:43):
I think somewhere along the way in about twenty sixteen,
and I document this in the book, Jeff turned around
and said, you know what, we need to be competing
for these things. We've sat it out for too long.
We need to go after everything SpaceX goes on. But
by then it had built this huge lead and it
was so far ahead, and Jeff was working at Blue
Origin one day a week. And in recent years you
(10:04):
see they've had for the first time a CEO and
Bob Smith, and that didn't quite work out, and now
they have a new CEO and Dave Limp, but they're
playing catch up. But I do think that now he's
really dedicated to the proposition of trying to compete with
SpaceX and make Blue Origin a viable force in the industry.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Is there a third competitor?
Speaker 2 (10:25):
There are several other ones not quite on par with this,
and I can tell you that NASA and the Pentagon
are eager to have more people out there. So you've
got rocket Lab, which is developing its medium to heavy
lift rocket Neutron. It's been flying a smaller rocket electron
with great success and with some frequency. I have a
lot of faith, as do a lot of people in
(10:46):
a company called Stoke Space, which is founded by Blue
Origin alums, again focused on reusability and rapid launch cases.
They seem to be coming out relativity. Now you see
that they seem to be headed nowhere. But Eric Schmidt
of Google fame came in and invested with them. And
the interesting thing too is that you're seeing not just
(11:07):
a focus on the rockets, but the commercial space industry
has expanded to rovers, commercial habitats and space stations, space suits,
mining technologies, all sorts of things, not just the transportation
but once we get to space, once we get to
the destination, you're seeing people start to think about that,
what is the infrastructure we're going to need and what
(11:28):
are the technologies we're going to need once we get there.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I know you've reported that some analysts think this could
be like a trillion dollars a year by the middle
of the twenty thirties.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
I mean, that's why I put it in the title.
It's certainly catchy. I think, you know, the Space Foundation
has a report that at six hundred and thirteen billion
dollars today. But you look at SpaceX's valuation alone. You
look at what STARLENGK, their Internet satellite constellation, has done
something more than seven thousand satellites beaming the Internet down
to ground stations. Amazon has vowed to invest ten billion
(11:59):
dollars into its Kuiper network, which is just now getting
off the ground, new rockets coming online. It doesn't seem
like it's beyond the pale.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
We've also made a point that I think is fascinating.
But when we first got into a space race, who
was with the civic union and it was binary. It
was the US and SIVI Union. Now, not only are
we competing with China, but there are all sorts of
countries begin to move into space in a way that
is almost frankly, for people in my generation, it's almost startling.
(12:49):
Can you talk a little bit about just the sheer
number of countries that are now out there working in space.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Yeah, there are two big teams, one led by the
United States, the other team is led by China. And
on that team of countries like Russia and North Korea
otherwise are potential adversaries. We have on our side, the
United States the Artemis Accords have signed up something like
thirty five to forty allied countries that are participating in
our program. And I keep thinking about what Scott Pace
(13:18):
said to me once, and he was the head of
the National Space Council under President Trump's first term. He said,
you know, the Artemis program of returning to the Moon
is a civil program. It is not a military program.
That said, it is very much a national security program.
It is in the interests of the United States to
build those diplomatic ties. If China beats us there, you know,
(13:41):
those countries that maybe are sitting on the fences, a
lot of people fear may go to them. You know,
if we win, then they'll come to us. And there's
some really high stakes in the geopolitical arena for that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
You actually quote me, and I don't often do a
podcast like this, and a memo I sent to the administration
in their first term about really developing a race that
the government would fund but would really rely heavily on
private sector folks. So I'll tell you, in the same
cheerful spirit, I'm presently writing a memo suggesting that we
(14:12):
debureaucratize NASA, that we literally do it in a sense
we're seeing happen at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.
Looking at the notion that it's been over sixty years
since John F. Kennedy challenged us to go to the Moon,
and in six decades, any bureaucracy develops patterns and regulations
(14:34):
and mistake avoidance devices that become really cumbersome. A leaner,
less bureaucratic, more risk taking NASA would dramatically improve our
likelihood of succeeding against China as a competitor. I don't
know what your thoughts are because you've covered this so decisively,
but since you quoted one of my memos from the
(14:55):
last Trump administration, I'll send you later on a copy
of the new memo on rethinking NASA.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Yeah, I like that. And it's one thing too that
Jared Isaacman, who was President Trump's initial pick anyway to
lead NASA in the second term. One of the things
he pointed out was that bureaucracy and the fact that
it's so top heavy, and you've got all these program
managers and each one of them has a deputy, and
each one of them as an aide and a chief
of staff and a public affairs person. And he took
(15:22):
a look at the ORG chart and was like, this
could be trimmed down a lot because there's a lot
of staff and help and support of other staff as
opposed to, as he said, you know, looking at the
problems and solving the engineering issues and focusing on the mission.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
I'm curious you do spend some time on China. How
formidable do you think their program is?
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Everything they've done, they've accomplished, and what's amazing, they've done
it pretty close to the timeline that they've said they
were going to do it, and you need to look
no further about their ambitions to what they've done. But
when you talk about the moon I mean, one of
the things in the research for this book that startled
me frankly is looking at what they've done in terms
of the symbolism of their goal. So there are two
(16:05):
flags really that are on the Moon right now. All
of the flags planted by the Apollo astronauts have been
bleached white by the sun. Buzz Aldron actually wrote in
his memoir that the flag that he and Neil Armstrong
saluted and planted on the lunar surface was knocked over
by the thrust of their ascent vehicle as they left,
but regardless, it would have been torn to tatters by
(16:26):
the harsh environment of space. China when it went to
the Moon, it then built a flag made of composite
materials designed to last for decades on the surface of
the Moon. And their last lunar mission just this past summer,
when they went to the far side of the Moon
and brought back a sample, which by the way, no
(16:47):
country has ever done, no country beside China has been
to the far side. And then they not only did
that but brought a sample back. On that mission, they
unfurled a flag that was made out of basalt, essentiallyvolcanic rock,
and this was volcanic rock that they got from Earth.
But the symbolism of that is that there's plenty of
bus salts on the surface of the Moon and they
(17:10):
wanted to show that they could use the resources of
the Moon to manufacture things while they're on the Moon.
So it's like when you think of the American settlers
going west. They had game to hunt so they could eat.
There were trees and woods so they could build shelter.
There were streams, they had water to drink. And China's
showing us that they can use the resources of the
(17:30):
Moon to create a presence there. And they took the basalt,
turned it into lava. From the lava, extracted threads one
third the diameter of a human hair, and from that
they wove a Chinese flag that is now on the
lunar surface. And oh, by the way, it's in the
vicinity of the South Pole, which is also where NASA
wants to go. And I see no bigger symbolism of
(17:53):
their intentions than.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
That of all that was done with robotics.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Yeah, well, so they did it on Earth and then
brought it up there. But they're showing but it's a
technology demonstration.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
Do you think in the long run that we double
or triple down on the Space launch system, or are
hopesually writing on Elon musk efforts with the Starship, I.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Think in the long run, and it's got to be Starship.
I mean the Space Launch System. I think a lot
of people think it's good for the short term, but
the costs are enormous. I think on the order of
two billion dollars a launch. It relies on nineteen seventies technology.
I mean, it literally uses the engines that flew on
the Space Shuttle. They've been upgraded, of course, but you
know we're talking about old technology. It's not reusable at all,
(18:38):
no part of it. It gets fully a dumped into
the Atlantic Ocean. And I think if Elon and SpaceX
can make Starship work, and if Blue Origin can make
New Glen work, that's their big orbital rocket, which is
designed to be reusable, then you've got some real options
there that I think can fly much more frequently and
at much lower cost. I mean also part of the
(18:58):
Space launch System, it's designed to launch like what once
every two years or so. I mean, if you want
to create a lunar economy, a lunar basis is not
frequent enough.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
I think the space Launch system is sort of the
last stand of the old order and the last stand
of the big lobbyist heavy private sector of bureaucracies that
match the cumbers of missive government bureaucracies. Just remarkably different
models from the SpaceX Blue origins model. Let me ask
for a second about the new Berlind because I really
don't understand this. How does it compare with Starship?
Speaker 2 (19:30):
Well, it's not nearly as big, but it represents for
a first orbital vehicle, I mean, a real step forward.
It's bigger and more powerful than the Falcon nine, for example,
and it was successful in January on its very first launch.
They did attempt to land it. They weren't successful, you know,
with the landing and the reuse, but they're going to
try again, perhaps this year. They said initially after the
(19:52):
first launch they were going to try in the spring,
but you know, these things always take much longer, particularly.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
With a new vehicle.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
But if they were able to do that, it would
be significant. It's not on the order of Starship though,
but it does represent a pretty big step forward.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
One the things you've mentioned it's kind of fascinating is
that the Moon could become kind of a gas station
for deep space exploration. What do you mean by that?
In what way is the Moon usable as a resource base?
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Well, the Moon that we're going to in the Artemis
program is in some ways not the moon we went
to during Apollo. We had thought for years that the
Moon was dry and cold and dead, and we know
it's not dry. It's wet. There's a fair amount of
water in the form of ice in the permanently shadowed
craters at the poles, and that is significant because water
is not only vital to sustain human life, but its
(20:57):
component parts hydrogen and ox is rocket fuel. And there
you have it right there on the Moon, and if
you are able to access it, mine it, extract it,
separate the hydrogen and the oxygen. You've got oxygen to breathe,
by the way, but you've also got rocket fuel. You
are already two hundred and forty thousand miles away from Earth,
(21:18):
and you could be taking off from a surface with
a much smaller gravity. Well, so I think people look
at that and see the Moon as the next logical
step because of exactly those reasons.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
As I understand it, Mosque is sort of addicted to
somehow taking something like starship and going straight to Mars.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Yes, he does not believe in needing starship to be
refueled on the Moon, but it does need to be
refueled in lower th orbit, so he is going to
have to stop somewhere. I think a lot of people
think it just makes the next logical step. Right, you
go suborbital, then you get to orbit. You have test
humans living in lower th orbit in the International Space Station.
(21:56):
We've done that. Now you build a permanent presence on
and around the Moon. Something goes wrong, you can get
back in a couple of days, and that helps you
extend on to Mars. I think in that there's a
lot of bits we do the Moon or Mars. I
think the people who are smart about it say, well,
we should do the Moon and Mars and learn from
one as a stepping stone to the other.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Do you see Mars also in a sense becoming a
gas station for being able to come back to Earth.
Those of you. You get a starship to Mars, you
then have to figure out a way to get.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
It back here, that's right, and then use the methane
from there. Ultimately, if you're talking about Mars and getting there.
The answer I think has to be nuclear propulsion, because
if you're taking nine months to get there just the
way as you well know, you can only go to Mars.
You have that window once every twenty six months when
Earth and Mars are on the same side of the Sun.
(22:49):
By the time you get there, you're going to have
to hang out for a couple of years before you
can even come back. It's a long time Mars is.
If someone once said to me, you have the perfect
Mars mission. Everything goes right entry to send landing, seven
minutes of terror, it's a triumphant moment in the history
of humanity. You're on Mars. Only then are you in
just absolute crisis mode even if it went perfectly. That's
(23:10):
how dangerous Mars is.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Look. I've shifted a lot of my energy towards getting
a nuclear propulsion in space because it strikes me not
only does it get you there much much faster, but
also it eliminates the window you can actually go from
Earth to Mars anytime if you have nuclear propulsion, and
it began show open up asteroid mining as a realistic
(23:34):
thing because you now have such a continuous vehicle that
you don't have to refuel. What am I missing? That's it.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And not only that. One of the other benefits is
just the radiation environment. I mean to be on a
spacecraft for nine months, those astronauts are exposed to a
lot of radiation during that time. And think it's important
that they do it quickly. But you know, we crossed
the Atlantic and the Pacific and fairly rudimentary ships, and
we'll be doing that for a while as well, and
then ultimately we'll look back at a vehicle like starship
(24:04):
and think of how primitive it was.
Speaker 1 (24:06):
Yeah. I think the time to Mars with a nuclear
propulsion is around seven weeks, so you really dramatically reduce
the radiation problem.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
Yeah, if you're going to go to Mars, you've got
to bring a lot of stuff ahead of time. You
have to pre position all kinds of things at a
time so that there's going to be a lot of
ships going.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Look, you're both knowledgeable enough and young enough. Can you
imagine yourself going into orbit?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
I would love to.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
In fact, the last book, when I met with Jeff Bezos,
you know, I wanted to try to get a ride
on one of those suborbital trips on his new Shepherd rocket,
And as you may remember, NASA had the Teacher in
Space program for the Space Shuttle because they thought the
Space Shuttle was going to be flying so frequently that
they would open up seats to members of the public.
(24:56):
Decided first for a teacher and next was going to
be a journ Although some people think you should just
send the journalists up and not bring them back. But
I went up to NASA the archives and got a
copy of the Journalists and Space application and slid it
across the table to Jeff Bezos. He made no promises.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Well, when you get to Starship, its potential passenger capacity
is so enormous, we're going to be able to start thinking.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Like that right and sending people up. And that'll be
really interesting to see all of the different reactions to
space and people pupoo the space tourism thing, and there
was just the one with the celebrities and Katy Perry
and all of that. But I see a value in it,
just because I mean, where there been like seven hundred
people have been to space something like that. Imagine if
(25:45):
it's seven thousand or it's seventy thousand. It gets to
the point where you know someone or know someone who
knows someone who's been to space and can talk about that.
I mean, that would be extraordinary, and I think that
really would change people's perspective.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
I think we will look back twenty or thirty years
from now and be amazed how primitive it was and
how much progress we're making, not just with rockets. I
was just down at the Area University looking at a
project they're working on where they've lined up all the
major areas of breakthrough robotics, artificial intelligence, new materials, about
(26:19):
nine of biology, and when you think about the synergistic
impact of each of these on each other, we really
could be at the beginning of a golden age of
exploration and development in ways that we've never thought of.
Speaker 2 (26:32):
And that's why I chose to write the book, because
I'm covering this stuff in my day job at the
Washington Post and seeing these larger themes and seeing how
this really transcends what I can cover in my day job,
and wanted to create I mean, they say journalism is
the first rough draft of history, but I wanted to
do something more and put it down in a book
and to take that history because I do think thirty
(26:53):
forty years from now we're going to look back at
this as a really historic moment.
Speaker 1 (26:57):
Do you have something in mind now for your next book?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I do. I do have something in mind. And I
was speaking with a friend and I had this idea
for a trilogy. And the first book was The Space
baron sort of early days of commercial space. And now
we're moving forward, but we're still sort of in the
covered wagon stage and we're not yet homesteading. We don't
have a base on the Moon, we don't have commercial
space stations. And I thought, well, that'll be the third book,
(27:21):
you know, the homesteading, you know, from moving from exploration
to expansion, expanding into space. And my friend said, no, no, no,
Before we homestead, you got to get the cavalry. You
got to write about the Space Force and national security.
Space is really significant, and what China's doing up there,
what Russia's doing up there. I just spent a week
in July at the elbow of General Chance Saltzman, the
(27:43):
head of the Space Force, and it's a misunderstood and
often derided branch of the US military. But what's going
on militarily in space right now is frankly scary, and
it's very sobering.
Speaker 1 (27:56):
Space dominance will be for the near future what airpower
was for over half a century. If you have it,
you dominate everything. If you don't have it, you're in
desperate trouble. I think just look at GPS.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
You got that little blue dot on your phone. That's
Google Maps, and you're ordering your Uber. But the timing
aspect of that goes to every banking transaction, every trade
on the New York Stock Exchange. There are thirty four
of those satellites. Russia, China and others have demonstrated they
can clearly interfere with that. GPS signals are being interfered
with daily in places like Ukraine, and so widespread attack
(28:34):
on GPS doesn't mean you don't get your Uber, means
the entire US economy could collapse.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
I really enjoy talking with you, and I think the
work you're doing is important for the whole country. Your
new book, Rocket Dreams, Musk Bezos and the Inside Story
of the New Trollion Dollar Space Race. It's available on
Amazon and bookstores everywhere. And I want our listeners to
know that they can follow the reporting you're doing on
NASA and the space industry. For the washt Post, at
(29:02):
Washingtonpost dot com. And I'm so glad Chris that you
would joined me for this.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Oh, thank you for having me. That was a real treat,
so much fun.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Thank you to my guests Christian Davenport. You can get
a link to buy his new book Rocket Dreams, Musk
Bezos and the Inside Story of the New Trillion Dollar
Space Race on our show page at newtsworld dot com.
Newtsworld is produced by Gingers three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our
executive producers Guarnsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The
(29:34):
artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special
thanks to the team at gamestree sixty. If you've been
enjoying Nutsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcasts and
both rate us with five stars and give us a
review so all this can learn what it's all about.
Right now, listeners of Newsworld can sign up for my
three free weekly columns at gingrishtree sixty dot com slash newsletter.
(29:56):
I'm Nut Gingrich. This is Newtsworld
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.