An Ex-NASA Flight Surgeon Ponders Humanity's Long Term Prospects in Space w/ Jim Logan #64

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hello, everyone.

(00:00):
This is David Goldsmith, and welcome to the Age of Infinite.

(00:04):
Throughout history, we've seen humanity undergo transformational shifts that are so important and impactful that they define the entire ages.
Just recently we've lived through the information age, and what an incredible journey it's been.
Now think about this, you could, we could very well be in the midst of a new monumental shift, the transition to the age of infinite.
We're talking about an age that transcends the concepts of scarcity and abundance.

(00:29):
It introduces a lifestyle rich with infinite possibilities, enabled by a new paradigm that links the moon and the earth together, a term we call Mearth.
This synergy will create a new ecosystem and economic model propelling us into the era of infinite possibilities.
Sounds like a plot of an extraordinary sci fi story, but does it?

(00:51):
But this could actually be where you'll see it unfold during your lifetime.
This podcast is brought to you by the Project Moon Hut Foundation.
We look to establish a box to the roof and a door on the moon, a moon hut.
We happen to have been named by NASA Project Moon Hut through the accelerated development of an earth and space based ecosystem.
Then to turn the innovations and the paradigm shifting thinking from the endeavor back on earth to improve where we live on earth for all species.

(01:15):
For more information, you can visit our website at www.projectmoonhot.org, where you can check out our 40 year plan, our work, and so much more.
We are a nonprofit.
So while you're there, consider making a donation to support the cause.
Now let's dive into today's podcast.
The title which is an ex NASA's flight surgeon an ex NASA flight surgeon ponders humanity's long term prospects in space.

(01:42):
And today, we have with us Jim Logan.
How are you, Jim?
I'm doing fine, David.
I'm looking forward to it.
So let me give a little short, brief bio.
We always just give a brief bio on individual.
You'll be able to read the rest online.
Jim is an aerospace medicine physician with a 22 year career at NASA Spaceflight men as NASA Spaceflight Medical Officer.

(02:04):
Inclusive, he's held various positions all over, including the Johnson Space Center, such as chief of flight medicine, chief of medical operations, and chief of medical information and health and care systems.
He is considered a world authority in space medicine, long duration interplan interplanetary spy spaceflight, and permanent human expansion off earth.

(02:28):
I'm having trouble speaking today.
We'll see how that goes.
So before we get started, and this has been brought up because individuals have shared, hey, David.
I mean, you must have really put a lot of prep into all these questions you have, and how did this happen?
And I said, no.
No.
No.
See, this is how we work so that you're aware.
I know nothing about what Jim's gonna talk about today.

(02:50):
Nothing.
Jim and I did have a long conversation.
We always have them with our guests, and we were working on creating a title.
We actually spoke about 2 and a half, 3 hours the first time we got together.
And we work on creating a title so that what happens is then I say to after Jim has been selected, not everybody many people don't become guests.
Jim goes off on his own, and he thinks about the title and how he's going to deliver it to us.

(03:13):
He comes here today.
I don't know what he's going to talk about.
I don't know the direction.
I have a pay piece of paper in front of me.
We have our cameras off.
I do not see him, so I don't even see his biological movements, his head shakes, anything.
He doesn't see mine.
I'm learning for the first time from Jim about this topic alongside of you.
That said, let's get started.

(03:35):
Jim, do you have an outline, a bullet point, series, things that we're gonna cover today that we can start with?
Yeah, David.
Let's start with a couple of things.
The first one would be what I consider the prime questions, in this age that we live in, and that is
Wait.
Wait.
So it's just the type that number 1 is prime questions.
I'll get the we'll get those after unless that's another heading.

(03:59):
Okay.
No.
That's the prime questions.
Common survival imperatives for any intelligent species anywhere.
Yep.
Common survival imperatives for any species intelligent.
Yep.
Species anywhere in the galaxy.

(04:21):
Anywhere in the galaxy.
Next.
I'd like to talk about the lessons I learned in mission control, how I got there, and the lessons I learned.
Lessons learned in mission Control.
Next.

(04:42):
Magical Thinking and the Rise of Space Cadets.
Health Thinking and the Rise of Space Cadets.
Next.
Space realities.
Realities.
Next.

(05:05):
Next one would be the biomedical constraints to long duration or interplanetary space.
Constraints for long duration.
Next?
Next would be the implications of those constraints for permanent human expansion into space.

(05:33):
For permanent expansion into space.
Next.
Next would be the zombie ideas that are still out there for long duration space flight.
There are several.
Idea zombie ideas.

(05:55):
Okay.
Number 9?
The way forward.
Is there a 10 or 11?
No.
Let's, let's leave it at that.
Let's leave it at that.
That's a the interesting list.
Some of them are pretty long.
So why don't we start with number 1, the prime questions.
Well, the prime questions are things like, where are we?

(06:20):
Who are we?
What's our story?
How far along are we?
What are the existential threats to our existence?
And the ultimate question, and that is what happens to creatures like us?
Okay.
So So yeah.
Go ahead.
I I was a evolutionary biologist before going medical school, and I've also been an avid student of history.

(06:46):
So I've I've always tried to bring these two perspectives, plus a lot of, shall we say, operational experience with first principles into any discussion about the prospects for space.
Okay.
So the when you consider humanity's prospects in space, I can categorically state based on more than 15 years of intense study and experience that they are, as you might guess, complicated.

(07:16):
Mhmm.
Challenging and compelling, but by no means straightforward, easy, or even predestined.
But in my opinion, it's absolutely necessary that we as a species expand into space.
We must make this very problematic transition from a terrestrial to a predominantly celestial species, period.

(07:48):
So given the overwhelming numbers of stars and planets, the late great Carl Sagan, who really was kind of a virtual mentor of mine, I met him once toward the end of his life, and it really affected me.
But Sagan believed that the universe is teeming with life and that probably in a certain small percentage of these laboratories of life, if conditions are favorable, intelligent species would arise, persist, and evolve, but would actually do themselves in as soon as they're able.

(08:24):
That is as soon as they develop the technology to make themselves extinct, they would do so, either by intention, which would be war, or by accident, which would be stupidity or negligence.
Sagan believed this so strongly he thought it was the best and simplest answer to the question, why is the universe so eerily, utterly, and profoundly silent despite the fact that it's probably teeming with life.

(08:56):
Oh, that's interesting.
I've never I've never heard that one.
So let's ask let's always start with the universe.
I learned that from another virtual mentor, Lucky Fuller, who I met twice.
At one point in time, I probably read everything the guy had ever written.
So we need to ask some very basic basic questions, moving, of course, from the general to the specific, not the other way around in the hopes of revealing some general truths and maybe even a few first principles.

(09:30):
Okay.
So where are we?
Who are we?
What's our story?
And what are the existential threats?
And most importantly, what the heck happens to creatures like us?
So let's take the first one.
Where are we?
Well, we live in one of the spiral arms called the Orion arm about 2 thirds of the way out from the center of a slightly smaller than average spiral galaxy consisting of probably 400,000,000,000 stars in the Goldilocks zone of an average mostly well behaved, mature, stable, g type main sequence yellow dwarf star that formed about 4,600,000,000 years ago from the gravitational collapse of matter within a region of a large molecular cloud.

(10:24):
Now things have been kinda peaceful in our neck of the woods of late, but that hasn't always been the case and it's sure to change eventually.
But for now, we can feel lucky we evolved over a long period of relative calm.
So in terms of of, who are we, I've actually taken the liberty.

(10:45):
This was kind of an intellectual exercise that I did, and I tried to condense my responses to the remaining questions to a 135 word short summary of 300000 years of human history.
So can I, can I share that?
I'm I'm, actually, I I'm I've never heard the way you presented Orion Arm, the 400,000,000,000 I heard, Goldilocks, the all the way through the stable dwarf.

(11:16):
I had never heard that sequence, so I thought that was just kind of interesting.
So, yeah, let's hear your 135 short word summary.
And I've worked on this for about 20 years.
Oh, okay.
So you didn't do it just for us?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
I'm I'm definitely not that smart, David.
It took me a long time to come up with this, and I've pondered it for a long time.

(11:37):
Okay.
So so let me give it to you.
This is a short summary of 300000 years of human history in a 135 words.
Okay.
K?
Here it is.
In the beginning, we were frail, vulnerable, and afraid, Surrounded by predators with vastly superior physical capabilities, we learned to rely on 2 strengths, our intelligence and each other.

(12:05):
Despite a planet paradoxically been on destroying as well as nourishing us, we became the undisputed alpha species on earth.
But intelligence cuts both ways.
Solving one problem creates a cascade of others.
So far, our species has managed to slip through a series of closing doors, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

(12:33):
But has all our technology merely postponed the inevitable?
Have we painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape?
Are we at the end of ingenuity, victims rather than masters, trapped on a runaway train racing headlong over a cliff into oblivion, or are we just not thinking big enough?

(13:03):
So that's my 135 parts.
Oh, it's, I like the narrative.
The
it's the narrative of humanity.
I had I had thought so, yeah, it answers your question, which you were proposing is who are we?

(13:24):
And I'm just not being argumentative, just tossing this out.
I I was waiting for the rest of the species on the planet.
Well, the questions are who where are we?
I know.
I know.
So that's what I'm saying.
I I had I've you answered your question.
I am What's what's our story?
Yeah.
That's what I said.
I said, who are we?

(13:46):
So you actually answered it.
It was funny, though.
In my mind, I was enjoying it, and I was saying, okay.
Give me more of what this means as the interconnectedness of everything.
So that's great.
Okay.
So that answers that question.
Perfect answer.
Alright?
Well, let me We go on to
the next
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let me make a comment on the interconnectedness because that's that's real.
Yeah.
We are interconnected with all the the creatures on the planet and all the forces on the planet, geological forces.

(14:15):
You know, you know, you can answer I remember I took a final exam in college one time and and the the final question was, what is the nature of the universe?
And it was getting late and I had already used up all my time trying to answer other questions.
Parenthesis, I was never a straight a student till I got to graduate school, so I really wasn't among the best and brightest.

(14:42):
So I decided to answer the question with one word, change.
And I made an a on the final exam.
Good job.
Or she or the professor, he or she said, he didn't he missed it.
He just completely skipped this one.
What happened?
But he's No.
He's a good student.
He didn't rest well.

(15:03):
So
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
They thought that was a great answer to the question.
The nature of the universe is change.
Yeah.
Everything is in a state of change.
Always.
And it's actually yeah.
That's actually the nature of of, human beings too.
It's change.
Which is part of the challenge when people are trying to address certain situations.
It's almost as if they're feeling like they're working with a static environment or a slowly evolving environment.

(15:29):
Yet we are I I will we are where we are based upon a an interconnected set of conditions that I've hope happened over 1,000,000,000 of years.
We didn't just get here.
So even our conditions will exist today, you could probably go back to, you know, a 100000 years ago, and there was a a guy looked at a girl, someone got killed, someone was it all cascades down to where we are today.

(15:53):
So it's not as simple as we, we can take certain solutions and use them unless you add in the paradox of change.
So I agree with you a 100%.
Because, really, what we do is in order to survive, we have to leverage change.
You really can't fight it.

(16:16):
You have to leverage it.
It it's almost you have to consider yourself like a surfer.
You know, the surfer goes where the wave wants to go, But within that scenario, the surfer does have some lateral control and some altitude control.
You know, they can be higher on the wave, lower on the wave, wherever.

(16:40):
Basically, you're going where the wave takes you, And the wave is always changing, and all waves are different.
So I've always I've always resonated with the concept of surfing through history because there's a certain there's a certain resonance to history.

(17:01):
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it does kind of recycle or it does echo.
So, there's a I I lost what I was gonna say about it as I was writing.
I I think, yeah, it's the question of if this to you, it is to me very obvious.

(17:28):
What's your thought on why it's not obvious to others?
I I think it's because and this is gonna be, I'm just gonna throw it out there.
Yeah.
And and like I said, you know, I didn't come from a privileged background.
Neither of my parents were college educated.
I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but two things happened when I was a kid that changed my whole life.

(17:55):
And the first one was the launch of Sputnik that the Soviet Union did in 1957.
And I'm I'm getting I'm gonna answer your question, but I may answer it for kind of the long way around.
It's okay.
So and then I had 3 female public school elementary school teachers, the librarian, the science teacher, and my homeroom teacher in the 2nd and third grade.

(18:22):
And for some reason, they observed my newfound passion for space, and they nurtured it, and they completely changed the trajectory of my life.
So to answer your question, I was my imagination was so much on fire as a child that I was curious about everything.

(18:50):
And I think that's the that's the thing that separates the people in which, you know, change is obvious versus the people who are just terrified by it.
So are you equating it to the 3 individual the homeloom teachers, the science and library?
Are you equating it to that you had it, they identified it and nurtured it?

(19:15):
Well Those
are 2 different things.
Was it built into you?
I know.
Or was it the okay.
And I think I think it's built into every child.
So the to answer your question, yeah, it was built into me, but it but I'm not special.
I think it's built into Ultra.
When I when I was young, my my parents would ask a word or something, and I was the one who wanted to go up and look at a get the encyclopedia.

(19:38):
So I'd go up and my mom would come up 20 minutes later.
Where are you?
What are you doing?
And I'd be on the bed.
And bird doesn't start with b a.
So I'd be reading all the things that got me to bird.
I didn't come down.
And so, you know, I wonder societally, the structures that we put in place, whether it's political, education, religion, support groups, and, I mean, support like your extended family and all of those intricacies, they're not always identified as how valuable they are to that young child even though we say it all the time.

(20:19):
I think people say a child is an open book.
It can do anything.
It's possible.
But then at the same time, the things around us close those doors.
That's right.
And I think that every child is kind of born mostly a genius because they're curious.
They're trying to figure out their way in a a in a new environment, at least for them, and, our educational system in large part proceeds to to pound that out of them and it becomes much more of an exercise of memorizing, regurgitate than it does really learning how to think.

(20:58):
And those 3 elementary school teachers and virtual mentors like like Bucky Fuller really taught me how to think, how to contemplate, how to be curious, how to how to get something from your curiosity.
So And I
think that made the difference.

(21:19):
So bringing that to how do you define with your thinking, How I think the next one is how far along are what's the next one on that sequence?
Well, I think that half how far along are we?
I tried to address in my 135 words.
I think we're kinda terrified right now.
I think we're on a roller coaster ride, and we're not really sure what we're doing.

(21:41):
We're not really sure whether we're victims or masters of our own ride.
And so that's the reason why there's so much kind of existential dread.
What what do you think we are?
Oh, I I don't I think we're neither.
I think we're surfing.
I don't think we're victims, and I don't think we're masters.

(22:02):
I think we're trying to figure out how to surf how to surf these webs these waves.
Okay.
And what was the next one?
Was it threats?
Yeah.
What are the threats to our existence?
And, threats to our existence, I'll cover in the 5 cosmic tests.
Okay.
The next
the next step.
What's the next after your question series in terms of the prime questions?

(22:26):
Is there another one?
No.
I'd like to go to I think that's a good lead in to the common survival imperatives for any intelligent species.
Okay.
Go ahead.
And I spent a lot of time thinking about this too.
I I, I basically spent the first half of my career wondering if there was such a thing as common tests that any intelligent species, no matter where they originated, would have to address in order to be a survivor.

(23:01):
And I was fascinated by the prospect that there might be a short list.
So my initial list was pretty long, but eventually, after thinking about it, I distilled it down to just 5 tests, And I considered it kind of the ultimate game of survival.
Okay.
And it's
it's not a pass fail final exam.

(23:24):
It's a single elimination tournament.
You have to get every question right or you die out.
So it's not really survival like the television series.
It's it's one of those, morbid television shows or movies where someone passed the doesn't pass it and they die.
That's right.
And we were talking at the species level.

(23:46):
Yes.
Okay.
But fortunately, it's an open book test.
And that the until the die is cast, leading inexorably to the end, you can change your answer.
Right.
And so metaphorically, the most important part of your final exam pencil is the eraser or the delete key if you decide to take the exam on a computer.

(24:12):
Okay.
Okay.
So here are the 5 species survival imperatives that apply to any intelligent species anywhere in the universe.
The first one, test 1, and we mentioned this before, is to become the alpha species on your own home planet.
It it looks like there just doesn't seem to be room for 2 or more at the top of the species pyramid for biological systems.

(24:41):
You know, we we tend to think of ourselves, homo sapiens, as somehow special, but we aren't.
We weren't the first hominins to evolve.
We weren't even the first to leave Africa, Origin of all hominids.
We aren't even the longest lived yet.
I mean, Neanderthals existed for over 390000 years and, although our origins are still murky, we're just now approaching the 300000 year mark.

(25:13):
At one point in history, on earth, there were at least 5 and perhaps 6 or 7 hominid species alive on earth simultaneously.
But fairly soon after the emergence of homo sapiens, the others, probably for a variety of reasons, simply vanished.

(25:36):
It's interesting.
Just jumping in for a minute.
When you said the alpha species, I went to, okay, dolphins, whales, what other species have intelligence?
I did not at all.
So I'm probably one of those not so smart in one of your lists that you said intelligent.
Yeah.

(25:57):
I don't have the intelligence side.
I didn't go to the species itself of the various forms of, of human history, which is interesting.
My background is I I dual major biology psychology, but I didn't go that way, which is very interesting,
at least for me.
Tell me about which way you went.
I I just went to the diversity of species on the planet.

(26:21):
And I said, okay.
So you're comparing humans, not even Homo sapiens.
And I did biology verberates.
I've taken all this course.
I've seen all the trees, so I have seen them.
But I just went to a current space and time and said, okay.
In in the reasonable past, humans have come to dominate, but you created a subset of humanity to go back to the evolution of homo sapiens, which I just thought was a very interesting twist.

(26:47):
It was kind of, oh, okay.
He's taken it a different way, which I I appreciate.
Well, you know, there's really I mean, I don't think, I don't think there is a good argument for saying that there is more than 1 alpha species on the planet.
It looks like, at least on our planet, there's only 1.

(27:10):
And, unfortunately or unfortunately, we're in.
Mhmm.
I agree.
It was just an interesting twist.
I I had not gone in that way.
So immediately, I can almost see his name was professor Waltz.
He was a terrible teacher and a great teacher simultaneously.
But I remember the chart when I'm I'm seeing it right now, and this was 400,000,000,000 years ago when I took this class.

(27:34):
And I I remember the chart of all of the, ancestral versions.
So, yeah, just interesting you went that way.
Okay.
So the second test is that you cannot annihilate yourself by war.
This is basically the Carl Sagan scenario.

(27:55):
The largest nuclear explosion on earth was just under 60 megatons, and that was done by the Soviet Union in a nuclear test in 1962.
Now if I had a magic remote that I could detonate all the nuclear weapons currently on earth simultaneously, basically at all out nuclear exchange, it would result in an explosive force of about 20,000 megatons.

(28:24):
Now, David, I want you to remember that number.
20,000 megatons.
I've written it down.
So, yes, I won't forget.
So we've had the capability to eliminate ourselves for about 80 years now.
And it's really to our credit that so far it hadn't happened.
Yet, the so called doomsday clock has hovered anywhere from about 4 to 10 seconds to midnight for decades.

(28:52):
So, you know, we think of Carl Sagan as an astronomer, but he was a very effective anti nuclear weapons advocate.
It was Sagan that did the original calculations that discovered and also popularized the concept of nuclear winter which could occur even after a quote minor nuclear exchange consisting of as few as 10 to 15 total nuclear detonations, you know, like the kind that might be expected in a flash war between, let's say, India and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers.

(29:29):
Now you and I were part of the duck and cover generation.
Nuclear annihilation was an ever present threat, and it hasn't gone away, and it probably never would.
So the 3rd So so in that sense, your the argument and I I don't know if you were gonna end it this way.

(29:54):
Is you're saying that even if would you well, not even if.
Are you making the assumption we'll never do it, or are you saying this is the other one that came to mind?
Even if we did it, humans would still survive.
Yeah.
I as a biologist, if we had a full scale nuclear exchange, I don't I don't think that we would survive.

(30:18):
And if we did, we wouldn't survive very well.
So I'm a little bit of a pessimist on that.
Now I'm an optimist considering the fact that we've gone 80 years without destroying ourselves.
I don't know how that relates to other possible intelligent species, but I still think it's something to feel optimistic about.

(30:40):
But, no, I think if we had a full scale nuclear exchange, we'd be toast.
Okay.
And and the probability in your analysis at this point is the probability of a large enough volume to hit our 20,000 megatons, or whatever number that has to hit, the probability at this point is that we would not we would not have enough to completely annihilate the species even if we had some nuclear activity.

(31:09):
Well, some nuclear activity, even 10 to 15 detonations would initiate a nuclear winter scenario, and that would kill a lot more people than the 10 or 15 detonations.
So so we we don't need much is what you're saying.
Need much to really do ourselves in or to go pretty far down the path of doing ourselves.

(31:35):
It's kinda my mind.
It's almost as if you have a confidence that there are enough and not call it's on a checks and balance.
But there are enough individuals around the individuals who could make this happen, that would stop it from happening.
And you have that confidence in humanity, one way, shape, or form it could be, and I'm going to be crude here, it could be a bullet to the head to somebody, it could be tackling and killing, it could be all sorts of things, but something someone out there is going to prevent this from happening.

(32:09):
Because humans want to survive.
In some ways.
I hope that's the case.
I'm just I'm tossing out a projection.
But the way you're phrasing it, I'm listening to your words.
It's almost as if an underlying current is you believe somehow some way, like all the movies when the key is about to be turned, or something's supposed to happen, somebody says no.

(32:35):
And we we take the next step.
Well, the data point that we have so far is that for the past 80 years, it sounds like somebody has been there to say no.
Okay.
But all it takes is one.
Okay.
Number 3, I think, is what you were gonna get to.
Okay.
Number 3 is you can't pollute yourself into extinction.

(32:58):
I mean, you know, David, if our planet gets any more toxic, we're gonna have to rename it Pluto.
You've used that before.
So this is the revenge of the dinosaurs scenario.
We're essentially burning their remains for fuel and in the process, unleashing vast amounts of c o two and other toxic materials such as mercury from coal combustion that gets into the air and then gets into the ocean and gets into the fish, and that's the reason you can't eat a lot of swordfish anymore.

(33:34):
It's because of the mercury contamination from coal combustion.
So carbon dioxide and other toxic materials get into the atmosphere leading to rampant and unrelenting climate disruption and overall global warming.
So you can't pollute yourself into extinction, and David, that's what a lot of organisms do.

(33:55):
You take bacteria, you put them in a petri dish, and that's what happens.
So let's be clear, for an intelligent species this is a self inflicted predicament.
Not only are we failing to keep global warming to only 2 degrees centigrade, there are enough easily accessible hard hydrocarbon reserves in the ground we already know about to raise average global temperatures a whopping 8 to 12 degrees more.

(34:26):
An outcome that, let's face it, would be truly catastrophic.
So I I'm okay.
I'm this is comes from my wife, and I'm looking at the words you're saying on these.
You cannot avail your you cannot annihilate yourself by war.
You cannot pollute yourself into extinction.
I think you're what and I'm translating just for me to grasp at this.

(34:50):
What you're saying is the test is if or did they or could they or would they pollute themselves into extinction?
So this is each one of these, are not a test in the same word.
The the wording is off for me.
It's they are the are you the alpha species?

(35:13):
Are you, did you annihilate yourself by war?
Did you pollute yourself into extinction?
It's kind of the the sentences don't work, but I think I'm getting what you're saying that each one of these are something that the species could do that would or not if they don't do them, that's how they survive.
Well, I think I'm arguing even something more than that.

(35:35):
Okay.
I think I think the the, default mode is to annihilate yourself from war.
The default mode is to pollute yourself into extinction.
Oh, so That's
that's the default.
So it's it's not you can't.
It's did you.
Do do you or did you pollute yourself into extinction?

(35:56):
Did you or do you avail yourself of, annihilate yourself by war?
Well, if you if you did pollute yourself into extinction, you're no longer taking the test.
The the reason it's challenging for me is because of the the first one, alpha species on the planet.
So did you become the alpha species or did you it's there's no damage there.
You just became it.

(36:18):
So the other 2 and this is just a you remember Sesame Street?
One of these things doesn't is not like the other.
It I understand what you're getting at now, but I got a little bit lost in the way it was framed.
Not bad.
Just I got a little bit lost.
So now I'm following you in that line of thinking.
So thank you.
Yeah.
Because it's it's, I think I think the standard, path is to annihilate yourself.

(36:42):
Mhmm.
The standard path is to pollute yourself into extinction.
So you have to not do that.
But but the first one doesn't apply, and that's my point.
Did you become the alpha species?
Well, stop it, David.
If you did, you pass the test.
If you don't, you don't pass the
test.
Right.
Okay.
So You could you could phrase it that way.

(37:04):
You you could say the first test is to make sure that you don't not become the opposite.
Yes.
Did you become the opposite?
Did you
like the language.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
It was the language part that I I'm a very literal person.
Sometimes it's a pain to people.
But I'm I I listen to the words people say, but not only the word.

(37:27):
I'm adding the the inflection or the the positioning of the word.
And the funny thing is I don't have a huge vocabulary.
But the way in which it was phrased, that's where my mind just kinda said, okay.
Let me clarify this.
So, yes, now I understand what you're saying, the default mode.
So we're so so far, we're we're doing okay, but we're not doing okay.
We're right on the cusp.
Yeah.
We're
not doing okay.

(37:48):
We are right on the cusp.
And you you hit that you hit that perfectly.
And that's and that's one of the points I'm gonna make here.
Okay.
So number 4.
Yeah.
So, you know, let's just finish number 3.
So the decreasing bottom line on number 3 is there are enough remaining hard hydrocarbons to literally do ourselves in.
So we basically can drill, baby drill until we suffocate to death in our own toxic stew.

(38:14):
So that is revenge of the dinosaurs indeed.
Is there is there a movie, Revenge of the Dinosaurs?
Yeah.
Revenge of the Dinosaurs.
Okay.
They did make a they did great movie.
How do you In
fact, in fact, I don't think we need a movie.
I think we're living it.
Well, the hydrocarbons are not the only thing.
One of the challenges, the solid waste runoff for the 30 versions of runoff that go into our oceans.

(38:40):
So when you're using pollute yourself, I think you're also aggregating.
At least I would see it as aggregation of any type of pollution.
It's a total aggregation, but but global warming is the metaphor.
Okay.
Yep.
That works for me.
You you teach by metaphor and you teach by, analogy.

(39:01):
Otherwise, you get into the weeds and you lose every
Yeah.
Just just a clarification for me because there are individuals who are let me phrase it this way.
In Project Moon Hut, we don't place blame of where something came from.
It just exists.
You have to deal with what exists, not the blame.
And you can't go you can't you can't, you can only create tomorrow you can't fix yesterday.

(39:25):
So I often will say to individuals when they talk about some type of dire position, I said, let let me ask you a question.
If the number one person on the world disagreed with you on everything in you despise them for all of their beliefs and structure and anything, but you have a child that needs surgery, and this is the only one in the world that can do that, Would you allow this person to do surgery?

(39:50):
By the way, this is the worst person in the world.
I mean, you would never want to have anything with this person at all, but would you?
Every single person says, absolutely.
Yeah.
I went to I went to medical school with a number of those people.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've, I was I did surgery, which I told you the story about.
So, so the the challenge for individuals is if we have, and I'm gonna use the word if because some people absolutely don't believe, even the friend that you and I have, does not believe that climate change was man made.

(40:19):
The the chat the thing is but these people are often brilliant, and they can help us with the next evolutionary solutions to ideas.
So we don't wanna turn them off.
So The the question I always ask when somebody tells me that, I don't think climate change is man made.
The question I ask them right back is, which climate change are you talking about?

(40:40):
Yeah.
Because if you're talking about this one, it's absolutely man made.
The the challenge is do you is the oh, that goes back to is the discussion worth the argument if you're talking about developing something that would be beneficial for the solution that you see viable.

(41:03):
So let me give you an example.
If I knew that there was a person who absolutely does not believe in climate change, however, they have an ability to create a new technology within the next year or the I've even seen it that could produce unbelievable energy.
They're so close.
They need some funding.
They don't even real think climate it's not for the purposes.

(41:25):
They wanna be wealthy.
I'm not gonna
start a
fight with them just to prove the point.
Let me ask you a technical question.
Sure.
I don't know anybody that doesn't believe in climate change.
I know a lot of people that don't believe in human
Correct.
Well, I'm using that terminology.
Yes.
There are I do know quite a few people who do not believe that climate change is human made, that it and they are unbelievably bright.

(41:55):
Unbelievably bright.
I know a few of those people too.
I do.
And so if they have a value to a project that you're working on, I'm gonna call it Project Moon Hut.
If they have a value to the initiative, and they have different directives that they're following, but it still gets us to the same place together, I'm game with that.
I'm not gonna sit on a call or talk to somebody for a long time about what they don't believe in.

(42:17):
Yeah.
We're we're go we're working together.
Let's just get this solved.
I agree.
We just move on down the road.
We just move on.
That's not the topic we bring up.
It's not something we're gonna agree on, but we care about each other.
We find each other valuable.
Let's do that.
So that's why the the word climate change is we point fingers at people too often.
At this point in the game, we can't be pointing fingers.

(42:39):
We have to look for solutions.
Well, the scenario you just described sounds like every family in the United States.
Yeah.
Especially at Thanksgiving.
I I've been to those dinners too.
It depends on it depends on the strong hand of the, patriarch or matriarch of that family.
Hey, David.
It's always a matriarch.

(43:01):
I look.
I'm trying to be an equal opportunity employer here.
Come on.
No.
No.
Don't kid yourself.
It's always a matriarch, and it should be.
It should be.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because they're smarter than we are.
Yes.
Absolutely.
And it's on recording now.
So we are No.
I'm serious.
Yeah.
I listen.
I'm I'm all in favor.
I think the I think the women ought to be in charge.
The men have had their turn.

(43:23):
They haven't done very well in my opinion.
So what's are we on to 4?
We're on to 4.
The 4th test is the test we're gonna talk about today.
The 4th test is you must get off your own home planet permanently in numbers sufficient to create self sustaining and self replicating communities in space.

(43:45):
Until this condition is met, the earth itself is a single point failure.
If, God forbid, something terrible happens to the earth as has happened at least 10 times in the past, it would be the end of the story, at least for us, not for the planet.
It could be a natural or a man made disaster.

(44:07):
It could be everything from plague to ecological collapse, to war, to to any number of things.
So remember the 20,000 megaton number I asked you to remember for world war 3?
Yep.
Okay.
Now consider this, a 1 kilometer impact asteroid impact to earth would deliver a 1000000 megatons of explosive power, 50 times the maximum possible destructive power of world war 3.

(44:39):
Any impact or greater than 1 kilometer in diameter is considered a civilization engine.
That's not my definition.
That's other people's definition.
And for a while, the search for near Earth asteroids was turning up 1 1 kilometer ride asteroid per day.
At least 6 of the 10 top extinction level events in history is due to an asteroid impact.

(45:04):
So just look at history.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for almost 200000000 years, but all it took was a single very bad afternoon to wipe them off the planet forever and they never came back.
No more than 10 to 12 early mammalian species survived that particular extinction.

(45:27):
Amazingly, we are their direct descendants.
So
How how many do you know how many do you know how many tons of megatons of impact was that?
Of the, 1 kilometer asteroid or the
The the one that took up the dinosaurs.
5000000 years ago.
Well, it was about the size of Mount Everest so we'll have we'll have to look it up.

(45:50):
Okay.
I didn't know
if you knew that.
But it was that it was big enough to wipe the dinosaurs off the face of the earth permanently.
Yeah.
And to kill, I think, up to 60, 65% of all the species on the planet.
And by the way, this has happened several times before.
I mean, obviously, it doesn't happen every day, but in if you're talking about geological time, it happens with relative frequency.

(46:19):
So the alternatives are pretty clear.
Leave the planet or perish.
It's really just that simple.
Every day we delay replacing massive all or nothing bet on the survival of the entire human species.
Someday, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, maybe not a 1000 years from now or a 100000 years from now, someday the odds will go against us.

(46:49):
What's the one?
There's one right now.
I don't know how large it is that's coming near us.
Well, of course, the dinosaurs didn't have a space burger.
No.
They I've seen plenty of dinosaurs with helmets on as if they had space suits.
That's right.
So I wonder why they didn't have the whole kit and caboodle to go up.
But I
know it does make you wonder that.

(47:10):
It does
what you I don't
think they had I don't think they had very good elementary school teacher.
Yes.
That's it.
They didn't get that they didn't get that nourishment as they were growing up.
That's right.
So there is a 5th test, but I'm not gonna talk about that one until the very end.
Okay.
So you mentioned this before, so let's take stock of how we're doing on our cosmic final exam.

(47:33):
So I think you could argue that we're now 1 out of 4 best case and even that one even that one that we apparently have solidly under our belt, that is becoming the alpha species on the planet, at least to me, seems more tentative every day.
So where are we really?

(47:55):
And I think we're our species is on the cusp of the next giant leap of our evolution, and that's the transition from a terrestrial to a celestial civilization.
Now please understand there is nothing preordained about this.
It's not destiny.
It's a choice.

(48:17):
Choices have consequences.
This particular one is significant and if we don't accomplish this transition will go extinct.
That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So let's talk about what intelligent species do in a general sense.
You're a biologist so you'll understand and resonate with this.
Intelligent species expand, adapt, and ultimately transform their habitats.

(48:45):
It's really important not to put a value judgment on that.
That's just what intelligent species do.
Mhmm.
They either do it successfully or unsuccessfully.
If it's the former, they live another day.
If it's the latter, they perish.
And apparently, the universe really doesn't seem to have a stake in the matter either way.

(49:06):
It does not care.
Species can either perish like the proverbial frog in the pot of increasingly warming water or be completely wiped out for by black swan events.
Just ask the dinosaurs.
I can't.
They're not here.
Well, that's the reason.
I know.
I'm joking with you.

(49:27):
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, in a way, I have always looked at history.
I don't think there's really anything new under the sun.
People talk about the expansion of humanity into space as something completely new, different.
I don't see it that way at all.

(49:48):
I think that's what human beings have done since they started walking upright, and they're just basically continuing the journey, and the setting is a little different.
But the theme is the same.
So when you look at the golden age of exploration, you know, sailing ships routinely ply the Mediterranean for several 1000 years before the golden age of exploration began in 15th century.

(50:17):
However, once extended transoceanic voyages were attempted, it didn't take crew captains or their respective patrons long to realize that long duration voyages across a vast expanse of ocean were a whole new ballgame.
Mhmm.
Magellan left Spain about 500 years ago with 5 ships and a crew of 265 men.

(50:44):
3 years later only one stricken ship and 18 men half dead from starvation and disease limped into Seville Harbor after circumnavigating the globe.
Jellon lost fully 80% of his crew to scurvy and known that heretofore rare disease crossing the the Pacific even though he and his voyage changed the course of history.

(51:10):
So fast forward to the 21st century, after being mired in low earth orbit since 1972, that's 52 years ago, Long duration habitation and crude void crude voyages across interplanetary distances are being seriously contemplated.
If that's successful, humanity's course will undoubtedly change again.

(51:37):
So it looks to me like deep space may be the early transoceanic exploration, but low earth orbit is to the Mediterranean Sea.
Yeah.
I would agree.
So I basically grew up with the space program.
Astronomy was my first love, but between you and me, it was the rescue of Apollo 13 that changed the course of my life.

(52:00):
And so I'm sure you've seen the movie.
Almost everybody that I've ever known has seen the movie.
Anybody who was alive in 1970 or or seen the movie knows the story.
Flight director Gene Kranz and his flight control team had to deal with the initial hours of an unfolding catastrophe, which essentially became a race against time to keep the spacecraft and therefore the crew alive.

(52:26):
They set the constraints for the consumption of spacecraft consumables like oxygen, electricity, and water.
They made the decision to use the new module as a lifeboat.

They created a jury rigged mechanism to reverse dangerously increasing levels of CO2 only using available materials (52:38):
cardboard, paper, scissors, and duct tape.
They controlled the 3 course correction burns during the trans earth trajectory and created an in space power procedure for an essentially dead command module, which had never before been done or even simulated.

(53:08):
It allowed the astronauts to jump into it in the last second, jettison the lunar module, and parachute safely back to Earth.
So, you know, David, we've seen this ethos before of keeping your cool, not freaking out, getting a grasp for the situation no matter how desire how dire, then thinking it through and doing the math.

(53:31):
Prioritize sequencing the problems, and then you focus on one problem at a time always mindful that the solution to one problem can inadvertently create otherwise.
That's essentially the same philosophy that was embodied in that Andy Weir character of Mark Watney in the Martian.
Mhmm.
Of course, let's be clear.

(53:52):
If Watney hadn't been a life scientist, he wouldn't have a prick.
Yes.
So I'm sure you you have seen that famous picture of the splashdown of the real Apollo 13 taken in the mission control center showed Gene Kranz, a lead flight director who was played by Ed Harris in the movie, standing at his console enjoying the well deserved victory cigar.

(54:16):
On the big board was the live video of the face of commander John Lovell safely aboard the aircraft carrier Iwo Jimi in the Pacific.
That picture was burned into my brain as a 20 year old.
So here's the point.
The Apollo 13 team, including the astronauts, had to deal with truth as it was in all its ugly and complex manifestations, not what they wanted it to be.

(54:46):
For their heroic roles, Krantz's team and the crew subsequently received the presidential medal of freedom.
Now I followed that emerging crisis of Apollo 13 real time with laser like focus.
I was to tell you the truth, I was completely transfixed by the tremendous confidence, tenacity, and creativity of Krantz and his incredible team, and I decided that was one of the things I most wanted to do in my life.

(55:17):
12 years to the day after that famous photo was taken in 1970, through a series of seemingly random events and more than a little luck, After years of college, graduate school, military, medical school, surgical internship, and residency in aerospace medicine, as well as months of intense study covering every aspect of spaceflight operations including guidance, navigation, calm, propulsion, flight dynamics, shuttle systems and subsystems, special training in the environmental control and life support system, as well as the successful completion of scores of intense mission control, ascent, orbit, and entry simulations.

(56:03):
I was granted admission to one of the most exclusive clubs on earth, Gene Francis flight control team.
Wow.
It was and still is one of the proudest accomplishments of my life.
Now in the mission control center, every flight controller is an expert at his or her own his or her his or her own area of expertise.

(56:30):
The physician who sits at the surgeon's console is the only front room controller whose area of expertise is the human.
Every flight controller works directly for the flight director.
The spacecraft commander is in charge of the vehicle, but the flight director is the ultimate authority for the mission.
In that room, the flight director is God.

(56:52):
Not even the president of the United States can override the flight director, and that's built into the flight rules.
So, in mission control, one of my first challenges was to get a p stand alone PC in Mission Control.
Oh, yeah.
This is okay.
Yeah.
And so I had to go against 25 years of precedent protocol in order to get that to happen, but I was the one that had the real valid requirement.

(57:22):
And that was I had medical data that I had to keep private.
So it took me about a year of going up against the powers that be, including Ford Aerospace.
And so in doing so, I was the first one to get a PC into mission control, and I developed a reputation for being a disruptor.

(57:43):
As I got older, my defense against the in the invariable organizational pushback was always the same.
Cite the numbers, reference the studies, and make my case forcefully and and directly.
Now you know what the term going postal means.
Right?
Yes.
I do.
So there was a new term that sprung up kinda toward the end of my tenure.

(58:06):
The way that just just for clarity, just in case someone doesn't going postal, why don't you give your definition of it?
Well, going postal, refers to an event that happened at the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma, where a worker just basically went in circle one day and started injuring people around him.

(58:27):
And so it it, I think he actually killed a few people.
Yeah.
I think he did.
And so that that that whole event was made into kind of a verb, which was going postal.
So at the end of my tenure, a news term kind of sprang up, which was going to Logan.
And when I asked somebody, I asked a stranger, if he didn't know who I was, what it meant, he told me it meant telling an especially brutal version of the truth.

(58:58):
So when we're talking about the prospects for humanity in space, I am going to continue the legacy.
After all, I have a reputation to maintain, and I'm gonna tell an especially brutal version of the truth.
Now here's why.
There's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there.
A lot of things are being said or implied on the Internet, on social media, the mainstream media, and even the people at NASA by those who should know better about humans in space that just simply aren't true or based on a mistaken understanding of human physiology, biology, and adaptation.

(59:39):
This means you Elon Musk.
So Okay.
So that's that's that's the invite.
You gotta listen.
Yeah.
Alright.
So let me but before I start, let me let me start
And and by the way, this is where you and I got connected at this point.
It was, I I again, we you and I had 2 and a half hours or 3 hours of conversation, but the original intention was I had heard some things that were because I'm not a space person, using that loosely word, I get all sorts of information from amazing people that always say that what they're saying is the truth.

(01:00:22):
Everything from budgets, from time frames, from capabilities.
And then every time I turn around, something is counter to that.
Whether a company was supposed to be doing incredibly well, like we just had the the news that's been coming out on Voyager, all the way through down to a technology that was supposed to be revolutionary, evolutionary, dynamic, and then we find out none of it's ever worked.

(01:00:45):
So, and you you've heard these stories of promises that are made.
And in Project Moon Hunter, the work that we're doing, we're trying to be very pragmatic.
So I actually called you because I wanted to hear the raw data from somebody else.
So that I in in my role and the work that I have to do with your organization, I have to hear it even though I don't like it.

(01:01:08):
And that's why our conversation was, as I shared with you before we got on, my wife said, do you really want him on the program?
And I said, yeah.
And she said, yeah.
But you guys were going at it.
I said, well, we weren't going at it.
We were discussing and trying to figure things out.
And I said, by the way, I got an email from him just, you know, the next day, I said I got an email from him.
Great conversation.
I said he and I got along.

(01:01:30):
We just got along by challenging each other.
That's right.
And that's okay.
So the reason that I called you is because people said you have a different interpretation of the biological side and the necessary requirements for the biological side to survive, but you had more.
And that was the reason that I wanted to have you, even though I you know, we had that rough conversation.

(01:01:56):
It was a perfect conversation.
Well, it was a perfect conversation.
Yeah.
It was great.
It was an intense discussion.
Yeah.
And the best the best discussions are the intense discussions.
Yeah.
I I loved it.
So I'm my body kinda reacted when you said the misinformation because I'm sitting here saying and and, Jim, you don't know my journey in terms of information.
But I I I've been told some amazing things that I don't know how people even think them.

(01:02:23):
Yeah.
About the whole ecosystem of capabilities out there and and possibilities and finance and funding and you name it.
And yesterday, I was on a call with one of our teammates.
He he and I had a conversation about finance, and he was just ripping into companies and their the way they're structured and how they're getting there.

(01:02:44):
We started off with Voyager, and I asked about some of the other companies out there.
I won't list them now.
And he was ripping into them.
They don't have a business model at work.
This won't work.
That won't work.
A module like this won't work.
And and he was doing the math for me.
And he comes from a finance background, business development background, and it was brilliant.
So, yeah, I've I love to hear it, but that's why that's one of the reasons I'm I'm wanting to I wanted to do an interview because I wanted to hear these things.

(01:03:13):
Well and so, you know, let me kinda start with a warning and a caveat.
You know, first, the warning.
Some of my remarks may border on Harrison for you.
But, keep an open mind, and please don't shoot the messenger.
Actually, it's not that with you, Jim.
I I know our our personalities bang, but that was a good convert good interest changes because I haven't been involved, I mean, 10 years in in various forms, given being data from NASA to you name it from I knew people from Russia, all different places around the world.

(01:03:50):
And it's so contradictory of one another, that it's very difficult to decipher what is reality from what is not when everybody just wants to go to space.
That's right.
And you can't build a plan.
Hope is not a plan.
Just coming up with a plan that you think will work and then saying, well, the numbers will work.

(01:04:12):
No.
That doesn't it's not how it works.
I I have the we have the saying, I think I went over.
It was at 2 minutes and 19 seconds when SpaceX rocket blew up.
Was it 2016?
And I was at NASA and the guy walks in.
I won't mention his name.
He says, see see, David, space is hard.
And it was a gut reaction.

(01:04:33):
It was not a a cognitive action.
I said, space is not hard.
Earth is hard.
We have a deep gravity well.
We have technology.
We have politics.
We have finance.
We have, temperature variations, you know, inclinations.
We have all of this.
And as a matter of fact, when we get to space, we're pretty good at it overall.

(01:04:56):
Space is harsh.
It's a geography that's harsh.
But the real challenges are solving for telemetry, solving for biology, creating the new materials.
All of those things take years years decades to be able to get to something that might work.
And so the challenges and I'm kind of bringing it back to this misinformation is even with you, I'm saying, so don't worry about the heresy.

(01:05:23):
I'm saying, okay, I'm gonna hear a perspective.
It's gonna be another one.
And then I have to, in my mind, to be able to to plan and work and build.
I have to then go say to somebody else, is Jim full of it?
Does he know what he's talking about?
He sounds good.
He sounds smart.
So I appreciate it.
So let's get on to your caveat of heresy.

(01:05:45):
No.
I'm okay with that.
I just wanna hear it and give it raw.
Well and, you know, I have to, again, point out that the majority of my professional career has been dedicated to human space flight.
As I've said previously, you know, I I think the eventual specie eventual success or failure of our species depends in large part on our ability to get off the planet in numbers that are that are, sufficient to do multiple self sustaining, self replicating, and thriving communities.

(01:06:18):
So, you know, the fact is single planet species don't survive.
So that makes me a believer.
You know?
I'm a believer that we have to do this.
But the bottom line, from my perspective, as an aerospace medicine and, biology expert is that we are woefully unprepared for the interplanetary or deep space phase of human spaceflight.

(01:06:48):
But but that's an assumptiveness that you start a single planetary species don't survive.
You don't know if they might have survived for 1000000 of years on other planets around the universe.
You don't even know if they've been that any of them were making an assumption here.
So it's a huge assumption.
I can live with it because we don't have any evidence otherwise, but we also don't have evidence that it does happen.

(01:07:12):
So I'm taking this for yes.
In your in your vantage point, single species don't survive.
Therefore, these paradigms, these these pieces of information that prevent us from getting there, part of your 5 tests need to be overcome to get there.
We could theoretically, Jim, be the first species on any planet anywhere in the billions of galaxies around the universe that actually does this.

(01:07:41):
That's a possibility.
It's a possibility.
And we and we're probably in our lifetime, at least in, yeah, in the next 40 years, we I'm I'm not sure we're gonna see Vulcan's landing on Earth.
Yeah.
I don't think that's the way it's gonna happen.
So, basically, I I really think we're woefully unprepared as I can get it from my perspective, and if present trends continue, I think we'll find ourselves dangerously unprepared.

(01:08:12):
So instead of boldly going where no one has gone before, we'll usher in what I metaphorically call the scurvy phase of space exploration.
Okay.
So even the term space is a misnomer.
It implies the cosmos is some kind of empty, bland, unthreatening, benign nothingness.

(01:08:37):
And therefore, once you get there, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
That is magical thinking.
Magical thinking is epidemic in the entire space arena, including unfortunately the halls of NASA as well as the head offices of so called new space corporations.

(01:09:00):
And you and I know exactly who I'm talking about.
Yeah.
Magical thinkers And
I and I'm gonna say on a global scale because we're global.
We have had individuals from around the world, and we do have teams in all four corners of the world of the globe.
They have this is a huge challenge, and it's a very, very, very, very, very difficult thing to engage with a person whose assumptions are so counter dimensional to reality.

(01:09:28):
How do you how do you I don't sometimes it's, like, okay.
I've gotta move on because I can't fight this battle of perception.
Well, you took the words pretty much right out of my mouth.
I mean, magical thinkers love truthiness, and that's a term that was coined by Stephen Colbert, meaning the quality of seeming or being felt to be true even if not necessarily true.

(01:09:52):
So one of the things I've learned over the years, David, is that is that in a very real sense, space is a projective psychological test, just like the famous Rorschach.
I've even come up with a formula for magical thinking.
Magical thinking is equal to ignorance to the power of arrogance.

(01:10:19):
I say it again because I I laughed and I stopped for the it's ignorance.
It's,
Ignorance to the power of arrogance.
Magical thinking is ignorance to the power of arrogance.
I have to think about that.
Yeah.
When you combine magical thinking with a media culture that values clicks over credibility, the result is pretty predictable.

(01:10:48):
So the ascension of magical thinking in space circles parallels the rise of what I and many others euphemistically refer to as space cadets.
So let me describe the type, and I apologize beforehand if I offend anybody.
No.
No.
But wait.
Wait.
Wait.
Wait.

(01:11:09):
So, I'm going to guarantee you if people were listening to, you and I having a private conversation, and we were saying we're let's say we're having lunch like we right now, you and I are just sitting across the table talking, and someone's listening in.
I can guarantee you out of the beyond Earth ecosystem, and I I you heard last time, space is not an industry.

(01:11:32):
It's a geography.
You know, there's no water.
There's no land.
There's no air.
The space is not an industry.
It there's a life support industry.
There's the rocket to the logistics industry.
Those are industries.
And but I can guarantee you, the people who listen to this are saying, I'm not in that group.
I have done the math.
I have done the orbital dynamics.
I have figured this out.

(01:11:53):
So he's talking about somebody else.
Well, you you and I, and we all know these people.
So let's just let's talk about
them a
little bit.
Space cadets are driven by ideology rather than evidence.
They're more zealot than visionary.
They're frustrated with a lack of real progress in space exploration and enraged, in many cases understandably, at what they perceive as timidity and risk aversion by people and organizations making the decisions and setting the priorities.

(01:12:29):
You and I both know people like that.
Yep.
As we've said before, they see space as a blank screen upon which they psychologically project their greatest hopes, deepest fears, strangest quirks, and favorite philosophies.
Most of the time, they're neither reason nor seasoned.

(01:12:53):
What knowledge they have is broad but rarely deep.
They're the epitome of the statement of little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Usually, but not always, they have no operational or any real scientific or engineering credentials and are disdainful or even outright hostile to those who do.

(01:13:16):
They tend to be deniers and if you dig deep enough there's almost always a hint of paranoia or even conspiracy theory.
In my experience they have not learned that any perception or truth that is isolated and removed from its larger context ceases to be true.

(01:13:42):
In many ways they're mainstream Americans.
As my German friends at ESA frequently observed, well, Jim, only in America do we find people who think the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.
Well, I I'm gonna be
a little bit more, global again in perspective.

(01:14:03):
It's not just in America.
No.
I know.
It's but yeah.
It's it's
But in many ways, they are mainstream America.
Yeah.
They can be mainstream Americans.
I didn't say they were just Americans.
I know that.
I know that.
I'm just I'm just you said it.
I'm just tagging on to remember words are I I pick up on words very quickly.
And when I hear it, I I have been in my journey through this ordeal is I've met an incredible amount of people from all over the world who have unbelievable talents.

(01:14:34):
The the going back to that interconnectedness, that intersectionality, if all of these people actually got together and were able to discount the ideas that are not going to work or they're not feasible or they don't make the math or, you know, space earth is hard in figuring out the politics or if they all got together, we could get there.
The challenge is they're all dispersed with their own ideologies, their own perceptions, and they they kind of counter they're counterproductive because not enough synergy is created in one environment to move certain needles forward fast enough.

(01:15:11):
Well and also and I've I've lived overseas.
I agree with I agree with my German friends.
Only in America you live?
I lived in Strasbourg, France.
Okay.
I was I was the first provost of International Space University.
Oh, so we've we've had on we've had on Juan de la Motte.
We've had on Pascal Unfront.

(01:15:33):
Yeah.
We've had, 2, I think, from the International Space University.
Mhmm.
Yeah.
I was the I was the first provin, so I was the one that took the beach and have the scars to prove it.
And, but my German friends are accurate when they observe that only in America do we find people who think the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.

(01:15:58):
David, you have to admit that's true.
Yeah.
It is.
I, yes.
And I
lived in Hong Kong for a decade.
I lived in Luxembourg.
I know.
Yes.
So, yes, I it's a very different world when you look at from the outside in.
And even though, you know, you you've lived there, it's a challenging or a challenging situation that those type of perceptions have have, I'm gonna say germinated to the point of their full bone full blown belief systems.

(01:16:33):
Yes.
They are.
They are.
And, you know, as let me go back to being the 1st provost in International Space University.
We had about 30 graduate students from maybe 15 or 16 countries, including Russia and the People's Republic of China.

(01:16:56):
That summer was the first summer after Tiananmen Square that the Chinese authority permitted their students to go attend foreign seminars, basically.
And I had to juggle many different cultures, And the one culture and I can say this categorically.

(01:17:17):
The culture that I have the most problem with were the Americans.
Mhmm.
And, and second were the Canadians.
Because Why?
Because not not just not what you just said, the Germans, but what else?
Too busy trying to pretend like they were Americans.
Yeah.

(01:17:40):
The Japanese were a joy to work with.
The Europeans were great.
The Russians were superb.
The Chinese were very cooperative.
It was the Americans that gave me a prop.
So I I would and I'm gonna caveat that for the sake of I I know you've at least somewhat that there are plenty of individuals who don't fall into the categories that you're articulating, and it's not all Americans.

(01:18:07):
And, culturally, this kind of and I'm using a broad brush, and I'm not trying to be too broad, but I I'm gonna use it for the sake of argument just to get the point out.
Is that the same tenacity, the same argumentative, the same stubbornness, all of these things that one might look at from an out external perspective and say, see, look at that, is the same reason that certain things have been accomplished in this country that other countries have not achieved.

(01:18:38):
That's true.
So there is a again, there's a I I wanna I'm protecting you on this one.
Hey.
What you mean is one thing, but you also I've gotta believe you understand that.
Those are sometimes the things that get someone to say, excuse me, fuck it all.
And I don't swear that often on the on a program.
We're gonna do this anyway.

(01:18:59):
And they're the ones who push through and made it to where other people are not.
So I'm gonna say that there's a a negative to that, but there's also a positive.
Well, like I've said in my 135 words summary of 300000 years of of, human history, it cuts both ways.
Yep.
Intelligence cuts both ways.

(01:19:22):
Okay.
So these let's go back to the space cadence.
You can recognize these people by these signs.
Number 1, they react very negatively to any inconvenient truth that doesn't jive with their belief system.
2, and I know you've heard this, David, they spout a one sentence solution to any problem no matter how complex.

(01:19:47):
I call this I I call this the magic wand phenomenon.
Basically, what they say is quote, well, you could just and then you fill in the blank, end quote, period, end of discussion.
I will go even further when you say, well, where's the plan?
They said, I just told you the plan.
And I said, no.

(01:20:08):
That's not a plan.
That's an idea.
Where's the backup plan to make this happen?
David, do you not get it?
I just told you.
That's true.
That's that that that there's no there's nothing there.
I can't do anything.
Oh, come on, David.
You always do this to me.
Like, what did I do to you?
I just asked you for a plan and you gave me an idea.

(01:20:29):
So, yes, I've I've heard that so often.
And so these people have real difficulty with detachment, which is the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind.
That's the definition of detachment.
Now when I was at NASA, they were the people who believed subconsciously perhaps that they could literally change the laws of nature by a PowerPoint slide.

(01:20:58):
I've seen it many times.
Okay.
Now, David, I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, why is this guy Logan so hard on space cadence?
Because I've been pretty hard on him.
So here's my confession.
I was a teenage space cadet.
Just like every other addiction, even if you stay clean for years, you're still a recovering addict.

(01:21:26):
So let me give you my story.
Okay.
Do you remember the do you remember the famous publicity poster from the movie 2,001 A Space Odyssey?
I I remember some.
I'm, I don't have a good memory of movies.
So if you but my my my definition of a movie is the girl who was with the, like, the blonde hair who was talking to that person who's very famous, who you've seen, you know, you've seen them on the

(01:21:50):
red carpet.
This poster you've seen.
Is this the one who was kinda curved?
No.
This poster was showed a huge lunar base on the floor of Clavius Crater, 2 transports departing at the same time from the perspective of several EVA astronauts space suits taking readings on the lunar soil from handheld instruments.

(01:22:12):
Remember that poster?
Yes.
I do.
It was a beautiful artistic depiction of a vision of the future.
And by the way, I I I pulled it up just to make sure.
Yes.
Yeah.
That's it.
You're looking at
it probably.
Right?
Yes.
I'm looking at it right now.
Okay.
Now the movie was draw dropping because it was made in widescreen 70 millimeter super panavision 3 d emulating cinerama.

(01:22:39):
I was almost 18 when it came out.
I must have seen it a dozen times.
I couldn't get enough.
Everything about it called to me and resonated with me.
I just knew deep in my heart and soul this is the way it's going to be.
I basically fell in love with the truthiness of it all, and it was one of the main reasons I was inspired to get to NASA and to help as, Star Trek's Captain Picard might say, to make it so.

(01:23:07):
Mhmm.
Every generation has its special touchstones that electrify the imagination.
For me personally and many in my generation, it was the magic of cinema, the vision of Stanley Kubrick, the narrative of Arthur c Clark, and the shoe audacious boldness of the Apollo program.

(01:23:29):
Okay.
Now let me give you the punch line.
Yeah.
Now a full 56 years later with the hindsight of a 40 year career in space medicine and direct mission support, I must unfortunately report to you there is nothing depicted in that 2,001 vision that has withstood the test of time.

(01:23:54):
Nothing.
Virtually everything about what it shows, what it depicts, what it implies, and what it promises is no longer compatible with what we know about the space environment.
So if you think our future looks something like astronauts waking up on the moon, drinking their tang, going outside in spacesuits with their picks and shovels or scientific instruments in spacesuits, doing routine lunar surface EVAs, or exploring the surface of the moon in small pressurized rovers like a fancy RV, or living in pretty metallic dome shaped habitats on the moon or Mars with a personal rover in the driveway, tending crops into a plexiglass bubble sprawled out across the surface.

(01:24:43):
And admit it, David, we've all seen those kinds of depictions many times.
Oh, no.
Not not only I I've I've bought I've actually spent the money on buying some of these books because I I hold them up to people and I say to them, do you actually think this is real?
Like, playing having a space large enough to have a basketball court with trees growing and palm trees and windows that are 40 feet wide so people could look out.

(01:25:12):
And they're the only person standing in it.
And I where?
Who?
How?
So Yeah.
Yes.
So so if you're the kind of person that that thinks that, I have bad news for you.
You're not gonna like the first 2 thirds of this podcast.
Hang on hang on to the bitter end for an honest and evidence based bit of optimism.

(01:25:37):
Okay.
So the truth may indeed set you free, but not before it's likely to royally hack you off.
So reality is not the enemy.
Denial is the enemy.
If you listen, really listen to what reality is telling you regardless of your preconceived notions, reality becomes a kind of a compass heading kind of a compass heading to show you the way forward.

(01:26:07):
That's the overriding theme of the rest of my podcast here.
Okay.
But but first
I'm good.
So we're we're so, we're now on magical thinking arise of space cadets.
But you when you're saying and it's interesting because I didn't expect it in this category.
You were talking about these, you're going to be extremely harsh.

(01:26:30):
I don't think you're extremely harsh, but the the misinformation.
So you're not really giving misinformation.
You're giving misperpectives because I I
I'm not giving misperspectives.
I'm giving reality.
No.
No.
That's what I mean is it's not when I see misinformation, I think of information as data.

(01:26:51):
You know, how long someone could survive, what has to cover someone on the moon, how does, radiation how it's gonna really impact us.
But what you transit you actually went to was the misinformation of the human mind to accept the realities of the condition of planning, thinking something through.

(01:27:13):
And if you don't accept those realities of misthinking, then you can't create plans and create opportunities that work.
Yeah.
You can create fear.
Correct.
So that
that's my point.
But you can't but you can't create success.
And I took the misinformation in a different context.
So, yes, now I understand where it meant it was that you were really setting the framework for and I sent you a copy paid to think.

(01:27:38):
One of the things is if you if you don't if you don't start from the beginning well with plans, you can keep on evolving to them.
But the better you start, the longer you have or the the better data, better better direction, better, theories that you work with, the more chance you have of getting there.
It doesn't mean it'll happen, but you have a better chance.
And point a laser beam to the moon, move at a left a centimeter, move it to the right to centimeter, you'll miss the moon.

(01:28:02):
So if we're going to get there, you have to at least start with a solid foundation.
So That's right.
Now I've got the misinformation.
It's more of a mental misinformation than it has a
Exactly.
It's it's it's the psychological construct.
That's it.
Yes.
Okay.
Perfect.
Now I got it.
Okay.
So let me give you a couple of realities.
So so we're we're into numbers, 5, still space realities.

(01:28:27):
Let's see.
Where are we?
It's 5 is space realities.
Yeah.
5 is space realities.
So here we are.
Here's reality 1, and this is through the eyes of an expert that spent most of his adult life in the operational human space arena.
K?
So here's reality 1.
Space is always trying to kill you either slowly or rapidly.

(01:28:53):
I mean, folks, look.
We're biological systems, which means human beings are extremely fragile and vulnerable.
We aren't supermen and superwomen.
We exist and have our being within a very, very thin range of environmental parameters.

(01:29:16):
That's a huge constraint.
So the mantra that I subscribe to is one I learned from Gene Kranz and mission control which I assure you I assure you Gene Kranz was completely reality based.
And the mission control mantra was in God we trust all else bring numbers.

(01:29:40):
You can debate numbers.
That is you can deconstruct the assumptions, interpretations, and pedigrees of the numbers, but you can't debate ideology.
Mhmm.
Now I I have to admit I become particularly crotcheted as I approach elder status.
I pretty much exit the conversation when I sense it's degraded to the equivalent of debating religion.

(01:30:07):
Every time I hear magical thinking rhetoric in terms of space I get a sinking feeling of deja mu.
That's the nauseating feeling I've heard all this bull before.
So debating with a space cadet is like fighting with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig loves it.

(01:30:30):
So I was hard on the space cadets, but we remind everybody that's because I used to be 1.
Uh-huh.
I I got it.
I got it.
Makes sense.
So let's do the numbers.
We now have a considerable body of evidence.
2024 is year 63 of human space flight.
We've flown almost 580 men and women in over 278 space missions and have a cumulative experience of about a 150 person years more or less of spaceflight experience.

(01:31:04):
What does the evidence tell us about what should we be doing and why?
And perhaps even just as important is what we should not be doing, where we should go, how we should do it, and what goals could successfully justify the entire endeavor even if that attitude threatens our long cherished yet perhaps ultimately unsustainable truthy belief systems.

(01:31:34):
Okay.
Here's reality 2.
I hear people all the time discussing going to the moon or Mars like it was old hat, but the reality is we are almost complete neophytes when it comes to experience on other celestial bodies.

(01:31:55):
So let's talk about the numbers for just a second.
6 Apollo missions logged 300 hours on the moon, including 81 hours of EVA.
There were 2 person crews that went to the surface, so you got 600 surface hours and a 162 hours of EVA.
How many how many surface hours?

(01:32:16):
600 surface hours, a 162 of which was EVA.
Okay.
Okay.
The average surface time per Apollo astronaut in the entire Apollo program let me say that again.
The average surface time, talking about lunar surface time Mhmm.
Per Apollo lunar astronaut was are you ready for it?

(01:32:40):
Drum roll.
Mhmm.
2.08 days.
The average surface EVA time per astronaut was 13.5 hours.
That's it, folks.
That's the summation of our experience.

(01:33:04):
No human being has been any further from the home planet than Silicon Valley is from Los Angeles in 52 friggin years.
That is until 10 days ago, September 10th.
Polaris Dawn, the second all civilian commercial mission, meaning it had absolutely nothing to do with NASA, went to Earth orbit.

(01:33:27):
It was collaboration between the mission commander, a billionaire, Jerry Eisenman, and Elon Musk's SpaceX.
They flew to a high point in their orbit of about 870 miles above the earth's surface and that beat the record for astronauts not on a mission headed to the moon which the Gemini 11 mission set in 1966 at 853 miles and made 2 female members of this 4 person crew, Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon, both SpaceX employees, the first women to fly so far from Earth.

(01:34:07):
8 days ago, Isaacson and Sarah Gillis became the 1st private astronauts in history to successfully complete a space war.
During their 5 day mission, the 4 astronauts conducted about 40 experiments mostly about weightlessness and radiation and how radiation affects the human body.
They also tested laser communications between the crew crew Dragon and SpaceX's constellation of Starlink Internet satellites.

(01:34:35):
Now in my in my personal mind, Polaris Dawn is a very big deal because it showed conclusively space travel and space walks are no longer the exclusive domain of professional astronauts working at government agencies like NASA and will never be so again.

(01:34:56):
Perhaps we can come back to that concept a little later.
It has a lot of implications.
However, just to make sure we don't get too cocky, here are a couple of more relevant statistics.
870 miles above the earth is less than 4 tenths of 1% the distance to the moon.

(01:35:19):
Furthermore, less than 8 tenths of 1% of all the cumulative human experience in space in history has been in deep space.
That is beyond the protective magnetosphere of the earth fully 99.2 percent of the total human experience in space today has occurred in Leo, lower earth orbit.

(01:35:43):
So far we're only neophytes in deep space and we've only taken baby steps.
Okay.
You ready for reality 3?
I'm I'm following you.
Okay.
Reality 3 is the biggest challenges to interplanetary human space flight is flight dynamics, which is always constrained by the cold, hard physics of the rocket equation.

(01:36:15):
I am amazed how many space people I run into that have never even heard of the rocket equation, much less what it says.
So related to celestial and I'm talking about people at NASA too.
I and it's funny you bring it up.
We just were working we've been working with, doing orbital dynamics with, c space exploration.

(01:36:41):
The company and our team has been working with them, but one of our teammates, he's been spending the past 6, I don't know, 3 months just going through all of the equations to figure out how to be able to make this happen.
And it's it's, it's just unbelievably complicated.
That's right.
And that's the reason I've listed flight dynamics as the biggest challenge interplanetary human space.

(01:37:05):
It's huge.
It's everything from how much fuel you need, what type of fuel you need, what weight can you carry?
How far can you go?
How long can you sustain it?
How do you how do you, re refuel?
I mean, it it determines everything.
And I'll go back to Earth is hard, because you're doing this all on Earth.
You're also figuring out capital cost.

(01:37:28):
You're figuring out if the country that you're trying to launch out of will allow that type of fuel to be used.
You've got health and safety issues of whether they'll permit that type of rocket in that size and that shape, and it's gotta be reviewed by people who don't even know the orbital dynamics or how these things work.
And and all of those decisions are being made continuously.
And and the people don't know it.

(01:37:52):
I mean, it's just unbelievably surprising to me.
Well and so what we've established is you and I you and I agree.
Yeah.
A 100%.
And I I'm I'm in I'm not even a new I'm I'm below a nothingness here.
I mean, serious seriously.
That's
not true.
I I well, you haven't spoken to my wife, have you?
So I you know, I'm I'm in the less than I get a 0 point a 0 something.

(01:38:17):
I got a point before it.
Now the it's a a it is a surprising thing that and and I'm gonna give you a data point because I'm I've not been an Apollo.
I've not been a follower.
I mean, when I was young, I I was able to see the landing on the moon.
I was able to I had the newspapers, but I kept in my closet.

(01:38:38):
I really do spend most of my time, biologists.
I like Earth.
I like looking outside, and people have heard of the podcast that has been my focus.
And then this whole journey started in a series of events, which we have a video online, the 3rd video in the series on our website.
And it has just come to Hans Kugmersman came in, started talking to us.

(01:39:01):
He did our last pod, podcast 1 or 2 before he did a podcast with us.
We were introduced to, Mike Lukes, and we started talking about, you know, Mike.
Yeah.
We started talking to Mike and Chris Djanek, on the call.
Mike Mike refers to himself as a free range, fighter.

(01:39:22):
Yeah.
Flight dynamics officer.
And and he does he does the math, and he even admitted that he wasn't the person to create that next gen of what that rocket or how would manage that somebody else comes to him and makes that case.
And then we had Andreas Bergwiler out of Germany, and we're really wrestling with this.
But the surprises with everything we've shown people, and you haven't even seen the majority of work we've done you, you and I had conversations, but you haven't seen our designs, you haven't seen the 4 phases, you haven't seen the development, you haven't seen all of that.

(01:39:54):
Nobody.
Nobody brought up orbital dynamics or orbital mechanics, in all the time we've been designing everything not and I'm going to be if this is a fundamental, literally, it's a fundamental need in order to make anything happen beyond earth.
Yes.

(01:40:15):
Why wasn't it?
The first question, you're looking to do this, have you at least addressed the orbital dynamics or the capacity or the something?
And and the answer
is the answer is an assumptiveness that well, like, Elon will solve it.
Well, Elon doesn't change orbital dynamics.
He doesn't.
He doesn't.
He he doesn't have any say in it.

(01:40:37):
And or they'll and they'll or they'll or they'll say, well, when we get it's kind of like, when the something will arrive, it'll happen.
Like, there's an it's going to happen.
Someone's gonna find a way.
It's not happening.
Well, that's because they're coming from a position of ideology and not data.

(01:40:58):
So I I'm so with you that it is frustrating to get to this point.
I can't even think of an analogy.
You're building a home.
You've got the framework.
You've got everything done.
And someone walks up to you and says, well, did you add the ax?
And you say, what do you mean what ax?
Well, like, when you were putting it down in the ground and you you had to put that underneath the foundation to do that?

(01:41:22):
Did did you do that?
What are you talking about?
We had it approved.
The architects designed it.
They looked at it.
We have multiple reviews of it.
It had to be submitted to the board.
We had to talk to our engineers.
We had to make sure they the contractor agreed with it.
We started building it.
We got it financed.
Are you telling me that we needed an x?
Oh, yeah.
To build in this territory, you have to have an x.
There's just just no doubt about it.

(01:41:44):
And it's it's like that little it's like that cowboy that walks up to you chewing and spinning tobacco who's, you know, just kinda standing next to you and says, yeah.
Never gonna work.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
Never gonna work.
Seen it before a 1000 times.
Did anybody tell you about that?
Nope.
So that's kind of why I'm feeling and it's funny that you do bring it up.

(01:42:05):
So apologize for the ranting.
Oh, no.
You're But it but it's so freaking important.
And the reason is people don't understand that everything in the solar system is part of an intricate, multi body gravity ballet.
So I I yeah.
People don't understand that, and the space cadets really don't get that.

(01:42:29):
And I I tip my hat to Andreas Bergwiler.
He has he has been frustrated as can be trying to figure some of these things out.
And I think the food that he eats, he actually puts on his food the formulas so he doesn't forget them.
That it's really it's really scary how complicated this is.

(01:42:51):
Well, it you know, and so, you know, people talk about delta v, which is short for change in velocity.
Yep.
And, of course, you know, as you know, that's the oomph that it takes in terms of kilometers per second to get from one place to another in the solar system.
The oomph.
The higher
I'd love that.
Yeah.
That's the tech that's
the technical term.
Term.
Yeah.
I was just I

(01:43:12):
I thought you'd say it's the the, the the expulsion out the end of a rocket or something more a little bit more technical, but it's the oomph.
So I've got that as technical term for now on.
Yes.
I'm I'm a doctor, David.
Yeah.
I'm injured.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, the higher the delta v, the more propellant is required to make the trip.
Yeah.

(01:43:33):
Mission planners strive to keep the delta v and therefore the propellant mass, which is the biggest component of vehicle mass, as we shall see, as low as possible.
Delta v times transit time is probably the closest thing we have to the concept of distance in human terms in the space environment.

(01:43:55):
Flight dynamics determines what space travel is feasible given whatever the current state of the art of technology happens to be.
Okay?
Yeah.
So the next one, the first one was flight dynamics.
The next, big challenge is bioastronautics and bioneering.

(01:44:17):
Bioastronautics
I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna add something.
You're you're calling it dynamics.
Oh, I I was also
That's because that's what they call themselves.
Oh, because, they're I I heard, mechanics and then dynamic.
Yeah.
Celestial mechanics
Or dynamics.

(01:44:38):
And I I asked somebody, and they said they're kind of an interchangeable terminology for the same group of people.
So that's just making sure.
Okay.
So we got bioastronomics.
Bioastronautics.
Nautics.
Sorry.
And bio nearing.
Bioastronautics refers to the psychophysiological realities of human adaptation or the lack thereof to the deep space environment.

(01:45:08):
Pioneering is a little different.
That's the ability to support yourself and your tribe or your family or your crew or your community physiologically and emotionally.
They were 2 different things, but they're related.
We've only been doing bioastronautics since 1961.

(01:45:29):
We've been doing bio nearing since Hominids first stood up upright.
Mhmm.
Yes.
Okay.
The third is resources, which includes power.
This just kills me, and I can't say it's strong enough, especially for the space cadence.

(01:45:50):
You cannot violate the laws of chemistry, physics, and biology.
You can't make something from nothing.
That's magical thinking and we have enough of that already.
You must have resources for sustenance, which is survival, and economic viability.
One of the many reasons antarctica is not a settlement is there's nothing of real value down there other than science.

(01:46:17):
If there were oil, minerals, rare rare earth metals perhaps, resource outpost would spring up overnight followed by permanent settlements almost immediate.
Now that's apart from the legal paradigm, which is another issue that I'm not gonna get into because I'm not a lawyer.
So here's the deal.

(01:46:38):
Nothing happens in human space flight without power.
That's a resource.
And and underline this three times, solar power won't cut it.
Yes.
We're gonna need nuclear fission, which is the technology with the highest power density in history, and we're gonna need a lot of it.

(01:47:02):
So here's an evidence based prediction from yours truly.
No nukes, no settlements, period.
End of story, especially on the moon.
So I'm gonna ask you, a marketing thing.
When we first did our designs, one of the first things we talked about is we would need nuclear power.

(01:47:23):
And when I saw it on the chart, on our diagrams, and we I think, again, well, I don't remember.
We didn't show you these things yet.
And I looked at it, and that's the first thing I saw was the nuclear power symbol.
And I said, we put that on there.
This will go ballistic, meaning everybody will be against it.
And I said, for now, because we have to figure this out.

(01:47:44):
We're we're a long way from Laramie.
We're a long way from where we need to go.
Let's take that off for the purposes of being able to articulate our message.
We do understand that you need nuclear.
But in your mind's eye, again, no one's listening.
They were just talking to each other.
Humankind is psychologically averse to the concept of nuclear, even though on the moon or in in beyond our space, it wouldn't make a difference.

(01:48:15):
I mean, the sun is it's the sun.
I mean, we do have it.
How do you get around this reality of perception?
Yeah.
Politics and perception.
Yes, exactly.
It's it's the narrative.
That's what I'm asking.
Narrative that's been done.
Yeah.
And the only thing you can use as an antidote to the to the narrative is the truth.

(01:48:40):
Run the numbers.
Run the numbers.
The lunar night lasts almost 14 earth days.
Temperature variation along the equator ranges from 250 degree Fahrenheit in daylight to minus 208 at night.
And I and just to give the numbers, it's approximately 1 third minus 133 plus 122 on Celsius.

(01:49:06):
That's okay.
I'm just I'm just dumping it in there.
So yes.
And and So you understood.
Look.
There are other problems with panels, and we're gonna get to it.
Even if you could snap your fingers and magically array the solar panels on the surface of the moon pointing to the sun, There are problems because the panels are going to get electrostatic.

(01:49:30):
They're going to end up being covered with regolith.
And, there's no way that we know of to get that regolith off the panels without damaging the solar panel.
And if you build your solar panels and you launch them and you launch them toward the moon, just the transit through the Van Allen radiation belts is gonna degrade the solar panel about 12% right off the bat.

(01:50:00):
We didn't go solar because we knew that was a challenge overall.
But in order to create a story and I think I think I told you on the story, like, someone like Dan Dumbacher who's been a guest who said, this is the only story that makes sense.
We've talked about Andy Aldrin agreeing because they've seen the pieces.
But one of the things that we don't want, you don't you want people to see the story and understand what we're working on.

(01:50:25):
And so you could show them the numbers.
And I understand this Van Allen belt and and the integration, I think you said 12% reduction?
Yes.
Somewhere around 12%.
So okay.
So keep on going because I wanna hear how you would weave by the numbers or the data or to get someone to say or enough people.
Because remember, it's politics is one of the space.

(01:50:48):
Earth is hard To get people, individuals to say there's a value proposition here that is not as unsafe, has the viability, and it should be pursued.
In my opinion, you just shine the white light of truth on it.
You ask them the ultimate question.
If you had a choice between nuclear power or no space habitation, what would you choose?

(01:51:13):
I'm gonna tell you the answers.
Often, no space.
Well, then tell them to have a nice day and move on.
Yeah.
There sometimes when you're trying to create, a project David, David.
You have to.
Look.
Look.
You no.
You don't.
You don't.
And what you're doing is you are you are enabling and continuing the narrative.

(01:51:38):
Well, no.
What we're doing is we're leaving it till later so that they can bite into the story.
It's like when you when you go to a movie, they don't come out and tell you the end or something that they do, you know, an hour and a half into it until you at least understand the basics.
For example, you didn't start off
with ask you what I would ask you is is if you describe the concept to me, the first thing I would ask is what's your power source?

(01:52:03):
You would.
And you told me solar energy, I would say Yeah.
We're we're
not solar.
Enjoy enjoy your fantasy.
No.
That that math doesn't work.
So I will The
numbers the numbers don't close.
Right.
They don't they don't they don't make sense.
The I wouldn't say that.
What people are when they see it, they don't it's in I mean, I'm thinking back because we've given this to 100 and 100 of people.

(01:52:28):
I haven't had that I haven't had that pushback.
I'm gonna push back on you a little bit here.
I'm listening.
Remember, the lesson in mission control that everybody learned from Gene Kranz during Apollo 13 is that you have to deal with truth as it is, not how you want it to be.

(01:52:49):
I under wait.
I understand and accept that that a lot of people that that's not how they want it to be.
No.
No.
I'm not I'm not
I'm not talking from that angle.
I'm I'm talking from a different angle.
I'm talking storytelling to bring someone into the fold because the first thing I mean, again, I have not had anybody ask about orbital dynamics or so.

(01:53:11):
I'm saying when you get to the point of now we're gonna talk about energy, because people do have not asked us about energy.
Seriously.
I mean and you know, you've seen the list of people, almost everybody from, I don't know what point to what point who've done our podcast have seen what we're working on.
Even with all those people and you know many of them, we haven't had that question asked.

(01:53:35):
So my question is, when and how?
Because it doesn't have to be the first thing.
You don't have to point out the ugly thing.
I had a hairstylist one day, and she looked in the mirror.
She said, yeah.
One of the issues I have, and I've been going through it for years, is this thing on my chin or her cheekbone.
Do you know I couldn't stop looking at that cheekbone for that forever?

(01:53:57):
I seriously even to this day when I think about her, I think about how there's an irregularity in her cheekbone.
My question is, when do you bring, in your opinion, because it's not first, how do you how do you don't just walk in and say it.
Maybe you would because you've got that personality.
I would.
I would.
Mine mine would be I'm bringing the story in.

(01:54:20):
So if you had to bring a story, let's say we're okay.
Let's say I've shown you our our design, and I'm just gonna use it in general terms.
And you know we need a power source called nuclear.
So first, you tell them what were what it looks like, how it evolves, and let's say we're now to say to them, now we're going to be talking about power.
Because they have been argued, they haven't disagreed with anything.

(01:54:44):
And you are going to be not going, Jim, or going ballistic, or going post I'm
going Logan.
Going Logan.
You were going to give them a lesson, and I'm asking for a real lesson, a lesson that they could bite into.
Okay.
I'll give you
That that makes sense.
You know what I'm saying?
It's not you're not slamming it.
One I'll give you one that makes total sense.

(01:55:06):
Okay.
It's a narrative.
That's what I wanna hear.
Here's the reason why we need nuclear fission in space.
We need it not only for power, like you're talking about.
We also need it for propulsion.
We need nuclear thermal propulsion because what that enables you to do is to employ multiuse propellant.

(01:55:35):
It's hard enough to get from point a to point b, and you know the constraints of the rocket equation and the tyranny of the rocket equation, which is the next thing we're gonna go into.
But we need a technology that gives us advanced propulsion.
And nuclear thermal propulsion would enable us to use water as a propellant.

(01:56:02):
Water would be a multiuse propellant.
You could use water as a consumable, as radiation protection in transit.
We'll talk about that a little later, and as propulsion.
It is a synergistic solution to a number of problems.

(01:56:24):
Okay.
So I'm my mind, you tell me if I'm wrong.
I would then I would because not everybody's gonna follow that and you know that not everybody gets the original orientation to something.
I would and I don't know this, so I'm kind of making this b s up.
So take it just as a storyline.
Back in the year x, when we were using submarines or aircraft carriers, We got to a point that we knew as humans in order to create a military force that had sustainability for long duration activity in environments.

(01:57:04):
There was a clamor, there was a challenge of whether we took this what could be considered a technology that could destroy the oceans or destroy our environment.
We made the transition to nuclear power because it created a stable ongoing set of conditions that allowed individuals to thrive in the condition that they're in.

(01:57:26):
Would that be an r a storyline that you might propose?
Well, it would.
Let me give you another one from history that is monoclonal.
Yeah.
You've heard of the German battleship Bismarck.
Yes.
Yep.
You
know the you know the Bismarck was sunk Yep.
By the British in its harbor in its harbor.
They finally chased it down to its harbor.
You know the reason it had to get back to its harbor?

(01:57:48):
It needed to get fuel.
What?
It was out of coal.
Out of coal.
Yeah.
And it had to go back to the harbor to get coal.
That was its propellant.
The British made the the the giant leap of converting their ships to oil.
They have been cold, but they made the strategic decision to convert them to oil.

(01:58:12):
You know why?
They could refuel them at sea.
Yep.
Okay?
You know who made that decision in World War 1 or prior to World War 1?
I was not old enough.
I was not old enough to know to know him.
I I I wish I had met him, but I no.
I've never been introduced.
Well, it was the British secretary of the navy at the time.

(01:58:34):
You know what his name was?
Nope.
Winston Churchill.
Oh, really?
Yes.
Yes.
So the British, because they could refuel at sea, they were able to pursue the Bismarck all the way into its harbor and then destroy it.
Okay.
All because of the strategic decision of what was the ship's propellant.

(01:59:01):
And
so when I'm asking the question, just any of these questions, so you understand, I'm not looking I I'm looking in my mind for our team.
My job one of my jobs is to tell the story.
And I you've seen me on stage, 3 TED Talks on and on and on.
I've done I I focus very much on the human psychological adaptation and acceptance of ideation.

(01:59:27):
And in order to sometimes get family, friends, relatives, business associates, and people you're involved in projects to get them to a point, they need to be taken through a story.
And it's as old as sitting by the campfire that goes back, 100 of 1000 of years.
So the reason I was asking was because in order to be able to smooth that out, which you've given and I love the way you did it because then I can we could I can weave this with the Bismarck and with the aircraft carriers.

(01:59:55):
Do you know stories about aircraft carriers or how that came about?
Because that would be nice to know if you actually know.
Sure.
I'd love to hear it because I wanna I wanna weave that in to the storyline of the things that we're creating.
And this is just a small fraction of a small fraction of the project.
But it's it's important to add it's important to tell the story.
So what how would you go about it when we're talking about an aircraft carrier or a submarine?

(02:00:21):
Well, the the great story about the submarine that you can use is the submarine is what killed the whole idea of lunar basis in the sixties.
Really?
You know why?
No.
The US military was seriously considering putting nuclear rockets on the moon pointed to earth.

(02:00:43):
And the reason was if the Russians attacked us and blew up all our cities and all that kind of stuff, we'd be able to assure you know, we would be able to do mutually assured destruction because we launch our volley of nuclear rockets from the moon.
In 3 days later, they would impact the Soviet Union and blow it to smithereens.

(02:01:07):
Yeah.
And there was nothing the Russians could do about it.
And believe me, in the sixties, late sixties well, actually, early mid sixties, there was some serious thoughts about putting military bases on the moon.
But the concept of the nuclear submarine solved the problem.

(02:01:29):
The problem was how do you have a stealth launch system that the Russians cannot track that in the case of a large nuclear exchange would be able to do the 2nd volley or the response and destroy the enemy.
And that was the nuclear that was the nuclear boomers because they could stay at sea for almost almost forever.

(02:01:55):
Do you know who, when, how, what was the first that made that transition?
You mean the person?
No.
You you used the reason I'm saying is you used Winston Churchill and you used the Bismarck.
Yeah.
Well, it was it was, it was, admiral Rickover.
Rickover?
Yeah.
Rickover.
Because he was trying to he was trying to create a nuclear submarine fleet, and he had an argument that was irrefutable.

(02:02:24):
And that you could and that you could accomplish your mission at a fraction of the cost that it would take to put lunar bases on the moon with nuclear weapons.
And do you know what the first one was?
With the first nuclear, submarine?
Sub yeah.
Yeah.
It was the Nautilus.
Oh, really?
I think well, may maybe not.

(02:02:46):
I may be wrong.
I'll look I'll look it up, but, I thought the Nautilus was run by somebody else for 40,000 years under the sea.
Is that the same
new No.
No.
No.
No.
You're thinking of Jules Verne.
And by the way by the way, while we're on Jules Verne, let's have a let's have a little side conversation.
Because I've actually I've actually studied this data.

(02:03:07):
Okay.
I that's why I'm asking.
I've,
When I when I think when I have thought about all the people who've been inspired about space, about aviation space, I have and remember I was inspired by my teachers when I was young.
Yeah.
So I wanted to find out who what inspired these pioneers.

(02:03:29):
Who was it?
And honest to God, when you follow the thread all the way back to its inception, it was Jules Verne.
Jules Verne was the most translated author in western civilization history at one point in time.

(02:03:51):
In 10 years, he pumped out 4 what we would now call science fiction novels, and I think I can probably name them.
1 was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, 1 was Around the World in 80 Days.
What were some of the journey to the center of the earth?
There's another one, and there was a fourth one.

(02:04:12):
And he was the one that inspired the generation.
And by the way, he pumped those all out between about 18/69/18/79.
When I give when I give
I'm pulling them up to see.
We had 80 days journey to the center of those 20,000, the mysterious island from No.
What it went north.

(02:04:33):
To
Yeah.
From Earth to the moon.
That was the 4th one.
You know, the I I'm I'm smiling here and you can't see it because we have our one side of our messaging is how do you get the world word word out there.
So we have a whole team working on, we call it, Mearth Magic.

(02:04:56):
But it is responsible for AR, VR, digital twin, haptics, 3 d 40 gaming toys, books, bringing the not to talk about the moon, but to tell story lines that individuals can be inspired by the types of things that could happen within the ecosystems that we're talking about.
So because you can't go and change well, you and I spoke about this, but you don't change your, I haven't changed my wife, and I've been with her for 4,000,000,000 years.

(02:05:23):
And I don't think I ever will.
She has changed herself, and I haven't changed yet.
Many people will say they have changed their spouse, and they normally mean I'm on my 2nd or 3rd.
Yes.
It it's not that they've changed them.
They've physically changed them.
And that happens.
It's it's amazing how many times you'll say, well, you can't change your spouse.
And they say, oh, no.
Yeah.
I I have.
And it it always is.

(02:05:45):
I'm on my next version.
So, it's interesting because I didn't know this.
This Jules Verne, the story line that goes with it.
And I absolutely love the story line that ties together with the Bismarck, with the, the the evolution to submarines, I'm assuming aircraft carriers were very similar in terms of, you know, staying staying out on out in sea longer, being able to have readiness global because you can't always go to shore.

(02:06:17):
Look up Billy Mitchell.
Billy Mitchell was an army officer who was court martialed because he made the statement that airplanes would make the navy obsolete, and he demonstrated it by taking 3, big ships that were getting ready to be scrapped, putting them out off the coast in North Carolina, and in three biplane I mean, we're talking old.

(02:06:46):
We're talking a long time ago.
Bombers in front of a cash of journalists, they sunk all 3 of them.
And for that, he was court martialed.
So look up general Billy Mitchell.
Oh, I do.
I have it.
It was 19, born 1879, died 1936.

(02:07:11):
That's who the Mitchell bomber was named after, the b 25
So he was the he was the creation of the United States Air Force.
Well, no.
He he was the instigator.
Of Major role
in it, it says.
A major role in air force power, in the power in air power.
K?

(02:07:33):
And the it was the army air corps until after World War 2.
The air force wasn't established until 1947.
And Hap Arnold, who was a general in the Army Air Corps, was the first secretary of the air force.
So the first aircraft, nuclear aircraft, was when?

(02:07:57):
Well, we don't have a nuclear aircraft.
No.
We know.
You're talking about aircraft carrier?
Yes.
Yeah.
I don't know what the first carrier was, but, you you have to look that up.
I'm looking it up.
You'll probably when I say it, the USS Enterprise 1961.
Was that the first one?

(02:08:18):
The USS Enterprise was the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the world commissioned in 19 60 1.
It was the 8th ship to bear the name Enterprise, which is also named the Big E.
That's right.
And in order to assist the Project Mercury program, so it says the next one commissioned to to to Ordered to assist the Project Mercury program in February 1962.
She tracked and measured the flight of the first American orbital space flight, Friendship 7.

(02:08:45):
It's John Glenn.
That's right.
Mhmm.
Perfect.
This was very helpful.
Everything's been helpful.
But, It's amazing how the history of technology.
I told you early on in our podcast that my perspectives are informed by history.
Well, you and I already fought, so we're we're now at a point where we can talk with one another.

(02:09:08):
Yeah.
No.
I I it's not that you just we've had many guests who are informed, so I'm I'm not gonna put it in that category.
What I would say is the because I'm
not saying I'm not saying I'm informed.
I'm just saying that we're
using data.
We're informed by this.
You're also you're also coming at things that are also psychological.

(02:09:29):
You're coming out at physiologic, in a in a manner that works.
But so I'm not downplaying anybody who's who who we've had.
What I'm saying is I think that at this time, in this point, there's an intersectionality that when Greg said the 2 of us should talk, because Greg's on the team, he's trying to figure out how to help us answer some of these questions.

(02:09:52):
That's where it came to Andre.
Because if you and I if we had met 2 years ago, I wouldn't the orbit dynamics would not have been there.
So there the timing is perfect for the right questions, and this was extremely valuable for us to have this conversation even about the enterprise because now you have something and I have something about the the Friendship 7.
So very valuable.

(02:10:14):
Okay.
So what's what are we on to next?
We had are we still on Space Realities?
Or what was that?
Yeah.
What
Biomedical Constraints for Long Duration.
Biomedical Straints.
So let me
So let
me look here.
Oh, so the lot so we we jumped into power and propulsion.
Oh,
here.
Yeah.
Here.
Let's, let's go into, let's go back to the tyranny of the rocket equation because I need to I need to use an example so people understand the tyranny of the rocket equation.

(02:10:47):
Okay?
Yep.
And I and yes.
Help me understand.
Okay.
Let's and this is the example you can use.
Go to Apollo 17, which was the last mission to the moon.
Yeah.
Picture in your mind the massive Saturn 5 Rocket with the spacecraft perched on top.
Yep.
The the entire vehicle was a self contained lunar exploration system.

(02:11:11):
Everything you needed to get 3 men to the moon, 2 to the surface, and back was in that vehicle.
Fully fueled on the pad, it weighed £6,500,000.
That's almost 3,000,000 kilograms and stood as high as a 16 story building.

(02:11:32):
So as you know, David, we live at the bottom of a huge gravity well.
Yep.
And we have to expend a lot of energy to get out of to go anywhere in the solar system.
To get into earth orbit, the entire Apollo 17 vehicle had to accelerate from 0 miles an hour sitting on the pad to 17,500 miles an hour which is 5 miles a second in order to make earth orbit.

(02:11:57):
At the moment of engine ignition, it had 100% of 6.5000000 pound mass left.
K?
Yeah.
During the 8 minute ride uphill, it used massive amounts of propellant and jettisoned multiple spent stages.

(02:12:20):
You see the spent stages are discarded as they say to feed the gravity beast.
Yeah.
By the time Apollo 7 achieved earth orbit, less than 5% of the original mass remained.
So I'm gonna say it in another way just to make sure the cold hard physics of the rocket equation registers with everybody.

(02:12:44):
Yeah.
In the in the first 8 minutes of the mission, our self contained lunar exploration system shed more than 95% of its original mass.
Yeah.
Now think think about that.
Yeah.
That's why Arthur c Clark made the famous statement that once you were in Earth orbit, you were basically halfway to almost anywhere in the solar system.

(02:13:07):
But it gets worse.
By the time the mission was on its way to the moon, it was only 1.6% of its original mass.
At lunar touchdown, the command module and the lunar lander together accounted for less than 1% of the original mass.
When the lunar lander was jettisoned just prior to entry interface on the way back, the command module was less than 1 half of 1% of the original mission mass.

(02:13:37):
And it splashed down in the Pacific, the command module, the 3 astronauts, and the lunar samples they brought back weighed less than 2 tenths of 1% of the original mass.
That's the tyranny of the rocket equation.
So when the reality of that tyranny fully dawned on me, and I was at NASA by that time, I realized I needed an expert to educate I didn't have to look any further than Dan Ademo.

(02:14:07):
Dan was one of the chief flight dynamics officers in Mission Control.
Is Dan still alive?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Very much so.
You'll introduce us?
Of course.
Okay.
Of course.
Yeah.
He's a very good friend of mine.
He met him I met him about 15 years ago at Johnson Space Center, and this is the clincher.
Prior to meeting, each one of us had independently come to the conclusion flight dynamics and bio astronautics would be the chief challenges to the upcoming deep space or interplanetary phase of human flight.

(02:14:40):
So immediately upon meeting, we began to eagerly tutor each other in our respective disciplines.
Over time, Dan and I became very good friends and frequent collaborators.
I'll send you a couple of the papers he and I have written.
Essentially, Dan and I became the blues brothers, if you will, of a new evidence based multidisciplinary approach to deep space long duration human activity.

(02:15:06):
I think
one of the Blues brothers died early.
Right?
Yeah.
John, I know.
I'm joking.
So don't don't follow that path.
Oh, no.
That's
what we did.
They actually they actually referred to us as the Blues Brothers.
So so people just don't like to call you Jim.
You're just you're just you're just a mess of a person, just so you know.
I'm just a mess.

(02:15:27):
Yeah.
There are a lot of people who would agree with that.
I I'm and I love you.
So thank you.
Okay.
So the you've got this equation, which I this this breaking down of the mass all the way down
The tyranny of the rocket.
The tyranny of the rocket equation.
Let's talk about the implications of such draconian weight and volume constraints.

(02:15:51):
Okay?
Yeah.
So, again, we start with history.
When European settlers first arrived on the East Coast in North America, they came in rickety, dangerous wooden ships propelled by the capriciousness of the wind.
They were fortunate to be able to haul the food and water they even needed for the voyage.
They were lucky they could do that, so they couldn't bring a lot of stuff.

(02:16:16):
So they only brought themselves, their knowledge, and some of their tools, and immediately they had to use their tools to fabricate more tools in order to utilize the resources they found locally to build their villages, towns, and farms.
Yep.
Had they been forced to bring with them every brick, every board, every nail they were gonna use along with every molecule of air they were gonna breathe, every morsel of food they were gonna eat, and every gallon of water they required, the new world would have never happened.

(02:16:53):
Mhmm.
That's a fact.
Likewise, on lunar Mars, we'll obviously have to bring some temporary structures basically to camp out, but then we'll have to use tools to make more tools and our knowledge to fabricate more tools to extract resources if they even exist to build the permanent structures we'll need to thrive and survive.

(02:17:16):
So, again, there is nothing new under the sun.
And and that's actually how we got to you because of the conversations that, Greg and I have been having.
So it it's tied together, and you know him well enough.
So.
Yep.
Okay.
I'm a big fan of Chris.
Yes.
He's a great guy.
So in terms of so now bring it forward.

(02:17:39):
Your, the implications.
Yep.
Yeah.
So with the implications we just talked about, you're gonna have to bring your tools and to make more tools to the local resources so you can harvest local resources to build your structures.
You cannot bring everything with you.
You cannot bring all the food that you need.
You cannot bring all the water that you need.

(02:18:01):
In fact, I've heard the argument made that early space pioneers will meet will be the most rabid conservationist in history.
No.
Not at all.
Because they'll have to recycle everything.
Oh, in terms of that, yes.
They will be recycling.
That's one of the values that's transportable back to Earth is the technology that will be necessary to sustain whomever on the moon will be dual purpose Right.

(02:18:30):
Right.
Which is part of our our proposals.
Okay.
Let's go be if we have time Yeah.
We have plenty of time.
There's there's no there's no end.
The longest we ever did in terms of a podcast was Brent and our that was 5 and a half hour.
So you just you just keep on going because we're just on I mean, we still have these are space the by.

(02:18:55):
We're still I don't know, we're 6, 7 biomedical constraints for long duration.
And then we've got implications and constraints for us.
So keep on going.
Yeah.
Let's go to potential bioastronautics and bioengineering showstoppers.
Okay.
Yeah.
So these are the, you know, these these are the ones, and they are regolith, radiation, and hypogravity.

(02:19:21):
K?
But before we do that, let's do a little paragraph on the human conundrum.
You and I talked about this when we had our conversation, and that is, what is the role of humans in space exploration?
But what was it?
So just run you had regolith radiation.
What was the third
one?
Hypogravity.
Weightless.

(02:19:42):
Yep.
Oh, I just I I couldn't write long enough.
You were speaking quickly.
Okay.
Weightless.
Yep.
So going what's your question?
So the human conundrum is, what's the role of humans in space exploration?
Is it science?
Is it settlement in a community, if you will?
Yep.
That's a better word.

(02:20:04):
Or is it just theater?
Because if it's science, and that's a legitimate answer.
If if the purpose of space exploration is science, that's a very legitimate answer, and the experience is and the facts are you don't need humans.
Right.
You could be completely robotic.

(02:20:25):
There's never needs to be a human going up.
You don't need humans for science.
Correct.
And we're not about science research in that way.
So yes.
Exactly.
I agree with you.
Or is it community?
You need you need humans if you're gonna make a human community.
Yeah.
But you have to be able to do the basic science to basically empower, human communities in the first place, and so far we haven't done that.

(02:20:56):
That's the reason I said things are we're woefully inadequate in the preparation for the deep space phase of human space.
Why?
Because NASA doesn't see it as their prerogative.
Yeah.
They don't wanna do that.
They have no interest in it.
NASA doesn't do visions.
See, human settlement is a vision.

(02:21:19):
NASA does vehicles.
Vehicles need engineers.
Vehicles need projects.
Projects need programs.
Programs need contractors, and contractors need money.
So it's basically turned into a jobs program.

(02:21:43):
Now let me be clear.
I have nothing against jobs program.
Mhmm.
Jobs programs, I mean, that pays the bills.
It enables families to eat and and send kids to college.
I have no problem with it.
But if you're spending that kind of money, why not do something relevant as opposed to just theater?

(02:22:06):
And the type of things that NASA is considering in the human area is basically just theater.
It's a redo of the flags and footprints mission that they did in the sixties, only this time it's 3 times more expensive.
You don't know our 4 phases.

(02:22:27):
I thought you heard them.
But our 4 phases are the moon that we were named, then it becomes, then it becomes Industrial Park, which is a lot of things you're talking about being able to do the things on the moon.
Then it is extended stay, being able to stay there longer.
And and then the last one is community.
So it's the evolution of community.
So you're using the exact same terms without even knowing, and I'm not the most creative.

(02:22:51):
So those were the names that when we sat down, when I was describing what we should do, it was those 4 phases.
Those names are fine because they're subscript they're Right.
Scripted.
That's what
they were because I didn't know enough.
So yes.
And you just mentioned another reason to have nuclear power.
Yes.
Oh, absolutely.
And and we we knew it
from Show me any industrial park in the world that's powered by solar power.

(02:23:16):
Any Yeah.
No.
It doesn't.
And many of the countries have
is because you can't do that.
Right.
You can't.
Solar power cannot provide baseload power for industry.
It does not work.
And so what happened was the the story was what do we need first?
And that's why I was asking you story because I was sitting across the table, and I I more or less said, hey.

(02:23:39):
Look.
You wanna really go to the moon.
Let me explain what you have to do, and I didn't know you.
And I said, the first thing we need to do is put a box of the roof on the moon.
Now the reason I said box of the roof, it's not about settlement.
It's not about colonization.
Those are bad words around the word because it's sales, not settlement, colonization.
It's not science, research, and exploration.
We have to put a bit and my inside was a box of the roof is a home.

(02:24:02):
So we're now our directive is to establish a home on the moon, not an outpost, not a base, but a home.
There's a very big difference between setting up a home and a base and outpost.
They're they have different they have different psychological perspectives.
Then it was, hey.
We have to be able to get to the moon, do work on the moon.
We need to be able to build in, constructions.

(02:24:25):
We have an industrial park that will enable us to create, build work, but it'll also label us to have an economic condition, selling to and from the moon.
Then the next one was extended stay, which meant we will stay there longer.
We will have solved some of the challenges so that we do have that tenacity, that capability to do more, be more people.
And then we go to community.

(02:24:46):
So we we end up with 5 8 people, 90 people, 578, 1,644 over time.
And that becomes a community.
So what we're building is kind of what you've been talking about, which is in parallel.
Not exactly.
But it's interesting that you've gone to this community side because I I was hoping you would that saying he's not gonna go with theater because this is not theater.
There's a story and a messaging like we did with nuclear power, but the story has to be that someone sees the evolution of the idea.

(02:25:15):
So I love it.
Love it.
And so I I think as you're talking, I'm sitting here thinking about Polaris Dull.
And I'm remember I told you, I thought it was a big deal.
Mhmm.
And the reason it's a big deal is because it had nothing to do with NASA.
It didn't get a penny from NASA.
It didn't get any equipment from NASA.

(02:25:38):
It wasn't launched by NASA.
The suits were built by NASA.
NASA is irrelevant to Polaris Dawn, and it was a huge success.
So the saga of Polaris Dawn has made me a lot more optimistic that the private sector will get out of the theater business.

(02:26:01):
Yep.
Things like tourism.
That's theater.
That's all theater.
Mhmm.
I mean, you know, the aviation analog for tourism was the barnstorming era after World War 1.
It was about 10 years in which these pilots went to every county fair with a biplane and sold rides.

(02:26:27):
Okay?
That was barnstorming.
In the entire barnstorming era, there were no advances in aviation, period.
And and we are not even because we're not visible, a lot of people in the Beyond Earth ecosystem like to go out and tell everybody what they're doing.
We're gonna have 700 people a month going to a Van Braun wheel, and they're going to be doing space tourism.

(02:26:50):
You don't hear us out there in that in any sense of that tone.
Ours is really to do the hard work to create a a Mearth ecosystem and a Mearth economy.
So, yes, I this is it.
Now I'm gonna toss something out again.
You know anybody connected with, Polaris?
You want anybody who might wanna hear or be in the podcast?
We'll go over later, but I'd like you to think about it.

(02:27:13):
So okay.
So let's take the, we just went over.
We're taking science community info.
No.
We went over the we went over the tyranny of the rocket
So we got we've got show, showstoppers of biomedical is where we are.
Yeah.
So the first one is regolith.
Yep.
K.
And regolith is, oh, and by let me go back.

(02:27:34):
I didn't finish the human conundrum because my point is if if the goal isn't settlement for whatever reason, if it's not settlement, you don't need astronauts.
You don't need the Johnson Space Center.
You don't need flight surgeons.
Okay?
You don't need these big boosters.

(02:27:57):
The the whole human NASA program can go away if settlement isn't the goal.
NASA has already gone on record saying settlement isn't its goal.
So in my mind, that makes NASA completely and totally irrelevant, and the only thing they're doing is a jobs program.

(02:28:20):
And I have nothing against jobs program, but somebody else can do that jobs program and we can do something relevant with it and promote your vision or the vision of like minded people that really have settlement or community as the goal.
Getting people off the planet, permanent, in decent numbers.

(02:28:45):
Because remember, that's one of the causative tests.
Mhmm.
And that's the 4th one.
And so NASA hasn't done anything anything to facilitate that test.
And and we're that is not our that is not our planning, that it is a NASA.
It's a global initiative.
We have people from New Zealand and Singapore.

(02:29:07):
We have people from, Italy, people from Netherlands, people from Germany.
We have individuals from Macedonia, from Hungary.
We have people I mean, from all go down South Africa.
We have them in Colombia.
We have them Canada, US.
Just named countries, and they're all helping us in different capacities.
So we look at it more, and I think in the line that you are.

(02:29:28):
Let me run an idea by
you.
Sure.
Instead of a hu instead of a NASA human program, and I'm not talking about eliminating NASA, keep the science, keep the rovers, keep the cosmology, keep the planetary defense.
I mean, NASA does a lot of good stuff.
Yes.
They do.
Just not just not in the human program.

(02:29:49):
But that's a different plan.
That's okay.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
That's right.
That's right.
So instead of a human program, let's get rid of that, save a lot of money, and instead, let's form a what I'll call a national space development administration.
And this would be grants that would be awarded for work toward the vision of making permanent communities in space.

(02:30:22):
So and to to some degree so I don't know, we, there there's some language things, but I understand the construct of using that type of framework is that we became of nonprofit, and individuals and organizations that are in the Beyond Earth ecosystem already are helping us.

(02:30:44):
They're not public, but they they wanna be a part of this future that we're building.
So we're building I'm gonna bad word, but coalition consortium of individuals and organizations who are working with us like Mike Lookes, and Greg, and all of these individuals are coming together.
A National Space Development Authority.
Well, we the challenges for this is we're not we could have

(02:31:07):
a national.
But let's talk about that because I'd love to be able to collaborate on how we can make something happen that ties with the initiatives that we've got in place.
So, yes, I've got it marked down as an idea that you and I will follow-up on.
And the the challenge is everybody's going in all different directions for different types of initiatives.
We need to have and I don't say we need to have, because everybody could do their own thing.

(02:31:30):
But wouldn't it be great if enough people had enough synergy towards something that has a directive that works?
And that's why someone like Greg, after 14 hours of calls, he said, I wanna work with Project Moon Hut.
And so, yes, I I think that this would be great, and I'd love to talk about it.
Let's get back to this regolith.
Where are you going with regolith?

(02:31:51):
And I've got it noted.
It started and everything.
What about the regolith?
Okay.
Regolith.
Gene Cernan was a friend of mine.
He was head of the contractor group that worked the, mutual buoyancy lab where I was the, co medical director of that, so I knew him pretty well.
I liked him a lot.

(02:32:13):
He and I had several conversations about the lunar regolith.
And by the way, he was not a big fan of the moon.
He told me several times he would not go back.
He said the lunar dust was a pain in the you know what.
Mhmm.
I'm quoting here.
He said, we found it everywhere.
Coatings, seals, gaskets, filters, switches, windows, lens.

(02:32:36):
It got into our nose, eyes, and lungs.
Okay?
So, it was a big, big problem.
He told me that they would have been it would have been on multiple occasions, he told me emphatically that 4th lunar moonwalk, they did 3 in Apollo 17, would have been impossible because the spacesuit, quote, had been rendered nonfunctional by lunar dust.

(02:33:08):
The joints grind to a halt.
The seals have partially failed.
The faceplate was irreparably scratched.
He said that the lunar dust adhered to the outside of the faceplate and he and Jack Schmidt would reflexively use their gloved hand to try to wipe off the dust, but it merely scratched the faceplate which impaired their visual acuity with each wipe.

(02:33:32):
He said it had a very odd smell.
He said it smelled like burnt gunpowder.
That's the only thing he felt like he could compare it to.
Inside the lunar lander, it seemed electrostatic, meaning it stuck to everything especially electronic components, wiring, switches, and it overheated many of the systems.
So lunar dust, best case, is an onerous environmental nuisance and in worst case a significant biological hazard.

(02:34:02):
A significant fraction of lunar dust is small enough to be inhaled all the way to the alveoli, which is a unit of respiration.
Lunar soil is very complex.
There's nothing like it on Earth.
These tiny dust particles are agglutinates that have huge surface to volume ratios.

(02:34:24):
And the reason is they haven't been weathered.
They haven't been touched by water or wind in 4000000000 years.
And for the life science professionals, a huge service to volume ratio means lots of highly reactive surfaces.
There've been at least 2 reactions termed hay fever to lunar dust by Apollo astronauts and at least one reaction by a flight surgeon who entered the command module after the mission.

(02:34:54):
There are a number of terrestrial dust to analog disease states that are due in large part to a combination of very small particle size and intense reaction by the body.
Examples include things like, asbestosis, silicosis, Grinder's disease, volcanic ash, 911 syndrome, and possibly even agent orange syndrome.

(02:35:20):
The edge surface has a lot of hot bonds that react with biological molecules.
So think of all those surfaces on these really tiny particles with magic fingers
Mhmm.
Pointing up trying to find something to react to.
They're not inert to the body like stainless steel.

(02:35:41):
So these are like hot bonds of active fingers looking to react with anything biological.
Like I said, lunar dust hadn't seen oxygen or water in several 1000000000 years but has been constantly irradiated at least at the top levels for at least that long.
Plus, if that weren't enough, these small dust particles contain manophase iron, extremely small particles of elemental iron with a valence of 0, not the plus 2 or plus 3 forms we're used to seeing on a highly oxidized earth.

(02:36:21):
In the aqueous environment of the lung these nanoparticles will most likely be absorbed directly into the bloodstream and may, if man made nanoparticles are any guide, be able to migrate directly into the brain via tiny passages surrounding the olfactory neurons in the nose and therefore bypass the blood brain barrier completely.

(02:36:47):
How would the human body respond?
We don't have a clue.
Mhmm.
The respiratory damage mechanisms can be caused directly or indirectly via free radicals or so called reactogen oxygen species and your reactive nitrogen species.
What we're worried about is the possibility of the syndrome like silicosis.

(02:37:12):
What used to be called stonegrinder's disease first came to widespread public attention during the great depression when 100 of miners drilling the hawks nest tunnel through the Cawley Mountain, West Virginia died within half a decade of breathing fine quartz dust kicked into the air by dry drilling even though they'd only been exposed for a few months.

(02:37:37):
It was one of the largest occupational health disasters in US history.
Plus, we don't know what the inhalation toxicity status of lunar dust is.
Where is activated lunar dust on the toxicity scale?
What pulmonary changes are irreversible or progressive?

(02:37:58):
Are there any mutagenic issues like, like inducing cancers?
What are the pulmonary clearance mechanisms, if any, for these particles?
Because the villi microvilli that line the trachea and the bronchioles, you don't have those in the alveoli.
Mhmm.
So there's no way to get rid of this stuff.
And can we trust studies on activated simulant?

(02:38:21):
You know, you can get simulant you can buy simulant from a vendor, which simulates the chemical composition it does.
But to activate it, you have to grind it into smaller and smaller pieces.
Now there was a recent there were reports of an extensive study recently, and this was several years ago, by researchers at Stony Brook School of Medicine looking at the effect of immunoregolith simulants on mammalian cell death and DNA damage in neuronal and cell lung lines.

(02:38:54):
And the results were very sobering.
Activated stimulus, whether it was increasing the surface area per unit volume by grinding, was much more effective in producing cell death and DNA damage than standard stimulant obtained from the dendritic.
Furthermore, the degree of cytotoxicity that is damaged direct damage to cells was not correlated with either detectable DNA lesions or production of reaction reactive oxygen species suggesting that we were simulant has a direct cytotoxic and genotoxic effect on mammalian DNA and lung cell lines through some mechanism we don't understand yet.

(02:39:42):
Have you have you ever been in a mine?
Yes.
I have.
I I ran a rock quarry, the largest rock quarry that supplied New York City with stone, and, they my car didn't have a windshield.
And at the end of every day, my nose was caked, my ears were caked, even though I wear goggles.

(02:40:03):
And I'd have to go home and shower and, you know, flush out of each nose trying to clean out the the stone that got every and even in your hair, you would try to put your hand through your hair.
I I mean, I wear a hard hat.
I was I was dropping 22,000 ton of stone a day, which is 250 semis and 24 scows down the river.

(02:40:24):
So we were 92% of stone in New York, and it was just everywhere.
It didn't matter what you touched, and that is nothing in terms of electrostatic.
This is just stone.
Well and it was wetted.
Yeah.
It was weathered.
Correct.
Wetted.
And it was weathered.
So I can imagine how it got everywhere where we were.
I mean, you you walked into a desk.
It was covered.

(02:40:45):
You were on the on the primary, the secondary, the tools that we had covered constantly.
And and it was challenging.
Unbelievably challenging.
So I'm trying to imagine this is a factor of, 20 or 30 or 40, but it's even worse because it's charged and it is unweathered.
So now you've got sharp
And you've got nano phase on it.

(02:41:07):
And and you've got nano phase.
So we're we're adding a a a factorial of an unbelievable number of complications biologically as well as operationally to the equation.
And that's the reason one of the reasons that NASA will never do a lunar base.
I will say that categorically.
They aren't capable of doing a lunar base.

(02:41:30):
They love talking about it.
But between the tyranny of the rocket equation and the regolith hazard, it'll never happen, not like NASA is envisioned.
So you guys who wanna set up community, you'll be the ones that'll have to solve this problem.

(02:41:51):
It's a
I I would call yes.
I I like the word challenge better.
We're we're working on the challenge, but that's why we call you.
Come on.
Okay.
So you don't you
don't you didn't you didn't get it?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
No.
No.
I definitely got it.
So let me and let me give you another perspective.
Pete Conrad landed Apollo 12 within walking distance from surveyor 3.

(02:42:12):
It was about 600 feet.
They did a moonwalk, and they retrieved hardware for analysis from surveyor 3.
They found that it was intensely scoured.
Results suggested that during the Apollo 12 lunar descent descent, the lunar fines were accelerated to velocities that in theory could propel them around the entire lunar globe.

(02:42:41):
So there's gonna every time you land, there's gonna be a lot of dust particles hovering above the moon.
We've had conversations about this big time.
Yeah.
Now the, let's talk about the most tragic planet in the solar system.
The one that never ever fails to disappoint.

(02:43:04):
You know which one that is?
No.
Mars.
Oh, okay.
Planet light dust storms on Mars can be active for months.
I've got a NASA JPL, Caltech generated rendition of what midday would currently look like from the perspective of the Mars rover opportunity.

(02:43:25):
And the last panel is dated June 18 June of 2018, and that is a big problem.
They have also found chlorinated hydrocarbons called chlorates.
They've been found by 4 Mars rovers including curiosity.

(02:43:49):
Perchlorates compromise a whopping half to 1% of Martian soil everywhere on the planet.
Its discovery by the Phoenix lander in May of 2008 was a complete and total surprise.
Some microbes on earth use perchlorates as an energy source by reducing oxidized chlorine down to chloride and using the resulting energy for their for their metabolites.

(02:44:16):
But perchlorates are very toxic to humans.
So that means you would have to if you were gonna do agriculture on Mars, you'd have to scrub the dust, you'd have to scrub the soil.
Otherwise, the stuff would get into the plants.
And if that weren't enough, hexavalent chromium, a very potent carcinogen, has been found in lower doses that's still widely widely disseminated.

(02:44:44):
So and there's more heartbreak from Mars that was made public in the last couple of years.
Remember all the business about terraforming?
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Here at all time.
People like Bob Zubin, Elon Musk, and space cadets for decades.
Well, a study determined there isn't enough c o two on Mars for so called terraforming.

(02:45:06):
So that darling myth is gone.
So the soil of Mars is beginning to look like 1 giant contaminated stew mixed for billions of years by dust devils seen in space and by the rovers.
There were some recent reports, I've read this in the newspaper paper from the Netherlands looking at growing crops in martian simulant, but of course that was all without prochlorates or hexavalent chromium and of course souped up by the addition of earth like nutrients and fertilizers.

(02:45:43):
So talking about misinformation, now there was a breathless story from the university from the University of Netherland that they had grown food in Martian soil, and it was all bogus.
Oh, really?
What about they grew it in a martian simulant that they that they upgraded with fertilizers, and it didn't include the prochlorates or the hexavalochromia?

(02:46:13):
K?
So Mars is the very last place I would propose sending humans, especially to establish settlements.
So Mars is out biologically.
Biologically.
Yep.
Biologically, it's out.
Okay.
Now let's talk about the biggie, and the biggie is ionizing radiation.

(02:46:39):
Instead of a benign nothingness, space is seething undulating cauldron of dangerous ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation in contrast to non ionizing radiation has enough energy to destroy molecular bonds and strip electrons off of the atoms creating free ions.

(02:47:01):
In space, there are 2 major sources of ionizing radiation, galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind.
We now know that they're not rays at all, but particles, ions actually, mostly protons with some heavy nuclei mixed in.
These are elementary particles that penetrate spacecraft, pressure vessels, and space suits, as well as the organs, cells, and DNA of human occupants, generating shrapnel like secondary radiation called sphalation in the process.

(02:47:38):
In biological systems, these ions and secondary radiation induce degenerative changes usually associated with aging, including extracellular matrix remodeling, persistent inflammation, oxidative damage, cataracts, and cumulative deterioration of the central nervous system including cognitive decline.

(02:48:01):
Damage to DNA results in increased mutation rates, instability of the genome, induction of cancer, and activation of plate tumors.
Here's how it works.
These highly energetic particles slam into the atmosphere at nearly the speed of light.
They generally penetrate down to about 60,000 to 80,000 feet before they crash into an air molecule.

(02:48:26):
This collision knocks off a proton or a neutron or 2 and unleashes a shower of high energy gamma rays and the rest of the atmosphere serves as a sponge to absorb the shrapnel at this initial collision.
Now, I heard NASA engineers all the time dismiss galactic cosmic radiation by saying, well, you can't shield against cosmic rays, but that's not true.

(02:48:56):
Our atmosphere shields us very effective.
There's over a kilogram of air above every square centimeter on the planet.
So you and I and all the creatures on earth benefit from a natural, passive, and constant 1,030 grams per square centimeter radiation tube.

(02:49:17):
I want you to remember that number, 1,030 grams per square centimeter.
Yep.
That's a kilogram per square cent over a kilogram per square centimeter.
To a lesser extent, the earth's magnetosphere protects us but only at low latitudes.
So what the engineers actually mean is that from the earth's perspective, it's impractical to shield for GCR because of the increased weight in volume associated with passive shielding.

(02:49:48):
Now I've talked to everybody I know at NASA, and as far as I know, there's never been a single recorded case of the space life science life scientist telling an engineer, escape velocity is impractical.
Okay.
So the Earth's natural radiation shield is damned good.
The average annual radiation dose for all passengers on spaceship Earth is, depending on the elevation, upholstery 300 milligram a year.

(02:50:19):
That's the same as a couple of chest X rays.
But outside of the atmosphere in pre in free space, cosmic ray bombardment is relentless.
According to astrophysicist Eugene Parker, for which the Parker solar probe was named, approximately 1 proton or much heavier nucleus would pass through your fingernail every second.

(02:50:43):
Wow.
5000 ions would rip through your body like a machine gun every second.
Each one leaving a trail of broken chemical bonds and triggering the same cascade that occurs in the atmosphere.
Now the few heavier nuclei do as much or more damage than proteins because of their ability to break chemical bonds is proportional to their charge.

(02:51:09):
An iron an iron nucleus, for example, does 676 times more biological damage than a proton.
One third of the DNA in your body would be sliced by cosmic rays each and every year you spend in interplanetary space.
Now we know the sun too can unleash horrendous bursts of protons and heavy nuclei at nearly the speed of light without much warning.

(02:51:38):
These coronal mass ejections or solar particle events can deliver an excess of a couple of 100 rem over an hour or so, a potentially lethal dose for an astronaut.
So even on short duration sorting missions you can get fried by a massive solar particle event if you're unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

(02:52:01):
Now radiation was not an operational concern during the Apollo flights to the moon because mission durations were short and because of one other very important factor.
Can I I wanna before you get that, I wanna bring back because I think it came from you, but I'm not sure, and I'm trying to remember where it came from?
Above our atmosphere, if you just to add the data piece, if you compressed all the water that starts at in our atmosphere to a singular source, it would end up being about 10 meters, 30 me me 30 feet of water.

(02:52:36):
And the water is one of the protective shields in that discussion or the the way you were describing how we're protected.
Is that data something that you would say?
Well, I I don't understand what you mean
by water.
If you compress the water if you compress the water above every human from the begin the top of the atmosphere down and took all the water that's within it, it would

(02:53:05):
excellent radiation protection meter.
Outstanding because it has a lot of hydrogen.
Okay?
So, it's you could one of the concepts that Dan Adama and I have, we call it Aquarius.
It's a nuclear thermal propulsion craft, remember, that uses water as a propellant and radiation sheet.

(02:53:29):
Yes.
So so when you get to your destination, in our case, it was one of the Martian moons, Demos, because it it's not worth going to the Mars surface.
That's too deadly.
You in order to do capture at the Mars system, you would burn your radiation sheet.
Mhmm.
But you'd only be exposed for about 3 or 4 days.

(02:53:50):
So water is a very, very good radiation sheet.
Okay.
Yeah.
And it was just the the the I think it might have been Greg that there's 30 feet of water if you go from surface to the extent of our atmosphere.
There's 30 feet of water if you compress that.
That that I have never heard.

(02:54:11):
And 30 feet of water in all directions.
No.
Yes.
It was.
That's what I had heard.
So, again, remember, everybody's everybody's sharing different data.
I'm asking a question.
That doesn't sound feasible to me.
Okay.
I'm That's
a that's a huge
That's a huge amount of water, but it was something that was tossed out as a reason why you can't be on the surface of the moon.

(02:54:36):
Well, you you Because
you don't you can't create that.
Surface of the moon long long term.
That's right.
And so, eventually, I'll get down to the punch line on that.
There is there is a workaround.
Okay?
So, talking about solar flares, remember they were Yep.
NASA lucked out.
Yep.
Because I had guys say to me, doc, we went to the moon 6 times and never had to deal with radiation.

(02:55:00):
It's just not a problem.
Well, my rebuttal was to always show them a chart which showed that all the flares happened at the precise time that there was not an Apollo mission to the moon going on.
However, in the late summer of 1972, there was a tremendous solar flare, a real biggie.

(02:55:22):
It's often referred to as a granddaddy flare.
Had the Apollo 17 crew been on their way to the moon in August of 72 rather than December or worse, if James Cernan and Jack Schmitt had been in the lunar lander, the equivalent of only 5 grams per centimeter radiation protection.

(02:55:43):
What did I tell you the atmosphere provided?
Pop quiz.
Oh, I gotta go back.
I don't remember.
Let's see.
I have a Oh, that was a grams.
1,032 grams per square cent.
1 30 yep.
Okay.
The lunar lander had 5 5 grams per square centimeter.
They would have received enough radiation to cause nausea, vomiting, cataracts, internal bleeding, fatigue, bacterial infection, fever, and perhaps even death due to sepsis.

(02:56:14):
So these large solar flares are the tsunamis of space.
These large tidal waves aren't all that rare, and there isn't much warning.
They can be incredibly distracting, even lethal.
And remember, these solar flares occur on top of the baseline GCR exposures.
Are you aware of the x class the x forty class flare that happened in July of 2012?

(02:56:39):
No.
No.
I am not.
Well, the reason you aren't is because had it happened 1 week earlier, earth would have taken a direct hit.
Minimal estimates of the damage to the electrical grid of the planet according to a national academy study was in the neighborhood of about $2,000,000,000,000 with millions of people being without electricity for months to years.

(02:57:04):
Okay?
This one was at least as big as the Carrington event of 18 59.
Wow.
The largest flare ever observed by human beings.
There's even been talk of establishing a z class flare category that would be beyond the x class, which, like an f 5 tornado, would be generally considered the finger of God.

(02:57:27):
This kind of a thing would be catastrophic
Oh my god.
Like a human space mission.
Okay.
Now let's get into a little bit
of And I did see that chart, by the way.
I did see that chart of where the, how the astronauts had been inside of the parameters, the the low time that they didn't hit any of those flares.

(02:57:48):
So I I did yeah.
I saw it.
Mhmm.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm sure Greg probably sent that too.
Yes.
Okay.
Now NASA and the National Council on Radiation Protection in acquiescence to the fact that space is a high radiation environment adopted the reed concept.
Reid is an acronym, r e I d, which stands for risk of exposure induced death.

(02:58:14):
It's a statistical approach pegged to a single radiation effect that is death from cancer directly directly attributable to the exposure, not to aging, not to chronic disease like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, cognitive decline, or systems performance, or musculoskeletal or bone.

(02:58:36):
In 1989, NASA accepted the NCRP recommendation of career dose limits to a lifetime increase of 3% in cancer mortality.
So NASA permits its astronauts to be exposed to enough radiation that its chances of dying from cancer is 3% more than it is on the baseline, which is about 25%.

(02:59:05):
Okay?
So in 2 in the year 2000, NCRP kept this kept the same 3% recommendation, but reduced by almost half the dose expected to reach the 3% lifetime risk.
So I'll give you some examples.
Mhmm.
For a 45 year old male astronaut, the 10 year 3% career limit went from 325 grand in 1989 to only a 150 grand in the year 2000.

(02:59:35):
A 35 year old female astronaut, 10 year 3 percent crew limit went from a 175 grand in 1989 to 60 grand in the year 2000.
Now this is not a more conservative standard because in each case, it resulted in a 3 year, increase in death from cancer due to exposure in the career of the astronaut.

(03:00:04):
It was a realization that radiation is more harmful than initially predicted.
And that was because of the basic surge that was done in the 11 years between 1989 and the year 2000.
So what my friend, Dan Anemo, and I did was set up a new radiation protection scale.

(03:00:28):
Instead of talking about grams percent, we talk about, that you're it was normalized to earth protection.
So in other words, radiation protection 100%, which is rp100, is the same radiation protection that earth provides its ceiling.

(03:00:50):
In other words, it's a 10 30 grams per square centimeter radiation shield equivalent or a 100%.
Rp50 is the radiation shield equivalent to 18,000 feet.
Because at 18,000 feet, half the atmosphere is above you, half the atmosphere is below you.
You know what the best locations on the ISS is?

(03:01:14):
I I I couldn't tell you.
R p 2.
Oh, really?
2% Earth's protection.
The radiation protection of the Apollo lunar lunar lander, I've already given That's 1 half of 1%.
Yeah.
And the radiation protection equivalent of the space suit is 1 10th of 1 percent Earth equivalent.

(03:01:40):
So, really, what we have here is a radiation perfect storm because permissible exposure limits continue to plummet as the result of cumulative evidence, and GCR radiation exposure levels are increasing to levels never seen before in the space age because there's an 80 year glitzberg cycle.

(03:02:07):
Every 80 years, galactic cosmic radiation goes up.
Now we've been expecting deep space exposure limits for about 5 years now from NASA.
But so far, all we've heard is crickets.
We have exposures for low earth orbit.
Well, because why do you why do you think there are crickets?

(03:02:31):
Because they're ignoring the problem.
They're they're are they ignoring it, or they've decided to to keep it quiet so that there's no pushback?
No.
They've pivoted from radiation protection, which is what they ought to be doing to protect their astronauts to are you ready for it?
Informed consent.

(03:02:55):
I'm serious.
I'm dead serious.
I I know you are.
I'm just it it's it's like the, we have one of our team yeah.
We have one of our team members who's in a lawsuit with somebody, and they they ended up with mold because the neighbor did something that did 3, $400,000 of mold.

(03:03:16):
And the neighbor said they didn't do it, and the person said that they're fighting a legal battle.
And it was the the insurance company said, well, that's what happens when you have neighbors, and they're not paying it.
So they're suing.
Like, okay.
That was not the way the plan was supposed to work when you buy your insurance.
So kind of pushing it on to the individual.

(03:03:38):
It's informed consent.
Therefore, you understand the the risks and go forward.
Yeah.
Here, astronaut, you wanna be on a mission to Mars Right.
Here's the form.
Yep.
Informed consent.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Crazy.
Yeah.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
So instead of as low as reasonable, achievable, radiation exposure, they have hunted to inform consent rather than rather than, addressing the problem.

(03:04:08):
Okay.
Let's talk about the actual dose flux in deep space.
Dose flux?
Those flux of radiation.
GCR radiation exposure in deep space.
So these are not my numbers.
These are numbers that were developed by the Mars Science Laboratory radiation assessment detector inside the curiosity rover on a 253 day 560,000,000 kilometer journey to Mars.

(03:04:39):
So are you ready?
Yeah.
The average daily dose rate is a whopping 1.8 millisieverts per day.
That's 200 times the average sea level radiation dose of all sources except medical.
It's 2 1,000 times Earth's daily GCR dose.

(03:05:02):
This is like getting a whole body CT scan every 5 to 6 days.
95% of the dose, at least when curiosity flew to Mars, was from GCR.
Only 5% of it was from solar radiation.
So the average daily Mars surface dose is 0.67 millisieverts a day, 75 times the average earth dose and 744 times the earth daily GCR dose.

(03:05:36):
The maximal daily dose limit for human embryo and fetuses is delivered every 13 minutes in deep space and every 34 minutes on the surface of Mars.
I'll let that sink in.
No.
We I can't mention the person because he's very well known.

(03:05:58):
We were on a call, and he was doing a calculate he did his calculations about the Starship and going to Mars with the expectation.
And I'm just sharing what he had said.
He said, okay.
The expectation is a 100 people will go to Mars.
He said there is no way a 100 people can get into that starship and survive on life support systems.

(03:06:23):
But even he believes that 6 people would be only in enough that if it could survive would, and most likely they wouldn't make it.
Well, let me give you the numbers.
For a Mars mission that is 240 days out, 470 days on the surface waiting for the next great launch window for Earth return, and 240 days back, the cumulative dose would be 1.2 sievers or 120 rem, not milliamp.

(03:06:55):
Yeah.
It's more more radiation in 950 days than you would get in 370 years on earth, and that's just for a single mission.
Imagine the cumulative doses if you settled on the surface permanently like the space cadets won't do.
Now this single mission exposure, believe it or not, is within the current career limits for a 45 year old male, but more than double the limit for a 35 year old female.

(03:07:24):
Clearly, something has to give.
So here's my statement.
If human beings ever live on the surface of the moon or Mars, they'll have to live like ants, earthworms, or moles.
Which yes.
They'll have to lead a subterranean distance.

(03:07:47):
Back in the maybe about 10 years ago, there was a retired Apollo astronaut in the audience, and he came not recognized him.
He came up to me after the talk, and he said, quote, dig a hole.
Yeah.
Well, good luck with that.
My response, going Logan on him, was, look, any intelligent species capable of traveling 560,000,000 kilometers to another planet and is either unwilling or unable to, quote, dig a hole, end quote, once they get there, doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.

(03:08:27):
He had no answer to that comment.
Okay?
So here are the numbers.
Here are the numbers that would enable you to live subterranean existence on the moon, Mars, or Deimos and be able to generate r p 100.
In other words, the same shielding that you would get on the earth's surface.

(03:08:51):
And that's based on the density of the regolith of each place.
So for the moon, you'd have to bury yourself in 4.12 meters of lunar regolith or 13.5 feet.
For Mars, there there is a little bit of protection in its thin atmosphere and I've included that protection which is small in these numbers.

(03:09:20):
For Mars, you'd have to Mars soil is 3.75 grams per cubic centimeter, that's the density.
But for the meters, you'd have to be 2.65 meters below the surface or 8.7 feet.
For demos, you'd have to be 7 feet 7 meters below the surface or almost 23 feet.

(03:09:44):
So you are not gonna see I see all the time these beautiful PowerPoint slides with these half design contests and all that kind of stuff.
But, you know, when I look at them, the walls don't look 9 feet thick, and and they're not there needs to be no windows and no rovers and no repetitive EVA by the same crew.

(03:10:11):
Now this is very complex and complicated, but it's not our first rodeo.
So let me give you an example from history.
Paleolithic men men, homo sapiens, exiting Africa when they got to the Red Sea, I'm sure they noticed real quickly that it was saltwater, and saltwater is a poison.

(03:10:37):
If you drink it, you die.
You can get hypothermic, and you can drown in it.
So their choice was if they wanted to leave Africa, they had to develop the technology to isolate themselves from a hazard.
What was that technology?

(03:11:01):
For I don't know.
I couldn't tell you what.
Boats.
Boats.
Oh, really?
Boats.
They had to isolate themselves from the hazard.
Otherwise, they wanted to cross the Red Sea.
Otherwise, they drowned or get hypothermic.
Oh, you mean just the just the s?
Just to be able to not be in contact.
Yes.
No.
Yeah.
Okay.

(03:11:22):
So simple.
That's the story on radiation.
Radiation is the showstamp for deep space human, habitation.
You're gonna have to fit in the way that we did it with our Aquarius concept was we figured you needed at least, r p 5 on in transit and then r p 100 at your destination.

(03:11:51):
So that was our that was our requirement that my friend Dan Adam and I developed.
So one of the I've been listening for a while to taking the data in.
I can hear you eat.
I just my wife just handed me something because I have not literally left my desk since 9 AM since 9 AM.
I know the feeling.
I've been fed the entire day at my desk.

(03:12:12):
I feel your pain.
So the question that I have is you've got to have shared this before.
I sure you are not you're not
a period with everybody who will listen to
right.
So given that you've shared it, and my first time hearing about you, it wasn't, hey.

(03:12:38):
You gotta speak to this guy, Jim.
He's gonna give you the data.
He's gonna tell you what he hears and sees, and you can also make your own, decisions.
And why why the loss of traction?
And I understand the cadets.
Why that loss of traction?
I'll tell you why.

(03:13:00):
When I do something like the space show, do you know David Levinson?
You ever heard of him?
Yeah.
I've heard the name.
Yeah.
But I don't know.
Yeah.
He does he does the space show, and I've done multiple space shows for
Oh, yes.
I know him.
And, the the the feedback that I get, it's funny because nobody takes issues with my facts because my facts are irrefutable.

(03:13:27):
Right?
The thing they the thing they really recoil against is my tongue.
They call me they call me too negative.
You know, I I don't care.
Essentially, when you say I don't care.
Why the reason I've been quiet for the past few minutes is I'm saying plans I don't care.

(03:13:51):
If your plans are bad, the plans are bad, period.
It's not a matter of, well, maybe I'll try to make it work.
The 17 SDGs come to mind.
They'll never work by 2030.
And I we had an someone from, I think it was Austria, one of the senior people there said, well, we we have to use it.
We have nothing else, and we have to give people hope.
And I said, well, a plan that's terrible is a plan that's terrible.

(03:14:15):
Don't give people hope about something that won't work.
In the case, what I've been what's been going through my mind is how do we project Muna?
How does our team adapt to the challenges that you're tossing out?
We have to, I'm not gonna say verify, but I'm not gonna go out and do all the homework that you've done.

(03:14:36):
Obviously, we've had enough conversation in that regard.
But I'm I'm I'm struggling, I have windows in front of me or to the side.
And I'm looking out, and I'm I'm pondering what types of activities.
Now, you know, we're talking with Greg.
You know, we're talking with some of these other people that I I I think you respect even just the way you reacted to when I said the names.

(03:14:57):
And we're we're trying to make this work.
And and these numbers I've never heard before.
I don't listen to David's podcast.
That's not a slap against him.
He has a lot of podcasts.
He has a lot of people on.
And I our approach is we bring you on once, you're on once.
We're not gonna bring you on multiple times.
Give us what you know, help us out, and then join the party.

(03:15:19):
He'll join our team and help us move forward.
So mine is not a reaction that's negative, which I can understand that people say your tone is negative.
I don't care.
Mine is, okay.
What types of things can we adapt to that we've already got working or in the works?
Or what types of changes have to happen?
How would we be able to bring someone like yourself into the into the mix and still make sure our story works, the activities that we're engaged in, because we've got a lot of different activities that are not just space related.

(03:15:52):
It's innovation related.
There's, techno there's, patents, trademarks, copyrights, a lot of things that we're working on.
So mine is, I'm just absolutely baffled that this if you've been sharing this, which I can't believe you wouldn't be, that this just wouldn't have been, you know, one of the you think of the movies where the person just throws everything on someone's desk and says, read this before you do anything.

(03:16:20):
And it's
Well, I used to give all through the 20 tens.
Every year, I gave talks at ISDC, at New World's, multiple conferences, and the attendance at my presentations was always standing remote, always standing remote.

(03:16:47):
Mhmm.
And the sponsors always asked me to come back because they knew my presentations would be filled.
But after about 8 years of this, David, I realized I was getting no traction.
Yeah.
And I was I was going back to these meetings and hearing the same old space cadet deja move that I had always heard.

(03:17:12):
In other words, none of it stuck.
And so I one of our our challenges on our and I wanna continue on.
One of our challenges that you and I had in a rich an original conversation was that in my head, I am saying how do you adjust plans and how do you address story lines?
How do you get people I can

(03:17:33):
tell you how you adjust
my Well, I I that's my point is because I don't wanna continue with this and you give it in a second, but you're giving the raw data, which is great.
Oh, a guy pops to mind.
When I was a young kid, there was an orthopedic surgeon.
He was the best in town.
And when you would go to him, he would do the exact same thing.

(03:17:55):
And everybody warned you.
He would give you 3 options.
He would say, let's say you have a a broken collarbone or something.
He'd say, first thing is, you can have surgery, first thing is you can have surgery.
You could have it repaired.
It'll take 6 months.
You'll heal.
It'll be painful, and you'll come out the other side with 80% mobility.

(03:18:17):
Second thing is we can wait a few weeks, then do a surgery, and you'll get about 60% of your mobility back.
It won't be as painful, and you'll be able to do whatever you want in about 4 to 5 weeks.
The third one is, we can do nothing.
And you will be in pain for the rest of your life and probably die in the process.

(03:18:39):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and
everybody warned everybody when they went in that they were going to get this horrific set of options.
And then he would say, what do you want to do?
The first thing I would do is get a second opinion.
Oh, he was he was he was very good.
So I'm not gonna argue with that.
I guess you get a second opinion.
Well, one of the reasons he he was so direct is that he was very good.

(03:19:01):
You know, he could afford to be direct.
Mhmm.
So, you know, I I kind of if you know, I have medical issues just like everybody my age, and I appreciate the doctor tells it gives it to me straight.
Yeah.
But not not every the the world politics, finance, storytelling, there are different mechanisms to get there.

(03:19:23):
I understand a
lot.
So all I'm when I'm thinking of you, and I am, you know, I'm thinking about how would you how could we make you a part of the team when we we're growing every single week.
We just brought on 40 people in Europe, and we're simultaneously doing projects along the way.
I'm asking myself, how do we take what you've given and move it to a place where it becomes knowledge that is people can bite into it.

(03:19:49):
And I just received from one of our previous podcast guests from 2 years ago, 3 years ago.
She said, I listened to all of them.
They're great.
So I think this this dynamic is working, but I love this content.
I mean, I'm I'm sitting here digesting it, trying to figure out what it means, but in no way, shape, or form am I saying, oh, no.
This guy is full of it.

(03:20:11):
I'm I'm I'm contemplating moves, if that makes sense
to you.
Nobody nobody ever accused me of being full of it.
What they didn't like was that I was negative.
I don't care if you're negative or not.
That's my my job is to figure out what to do
with it.
Just telling you that what they didn't like was my truth.
That's what they did.
No.

(03:20:32):
It's not the truth completely.
And so you can hear it from somebody on the other end of the line.
You have a delivery style that is methodical.
And, and it doesn't allow for absorption of content in a way that someone can digest it.

(03:20:53):
Because it's like a rapid fire machine gun.
Well, that's because I'm going through it once.
I understand that.
I love it.
I love it.
I'm not
complaining.
So, again, I'm going back to why why why why 10 years and you for first time I'm hearing.
Let me give you some suggestions.
Sure.

(03:21:14):
First of all, one of the things that you could do is to basically have 2 parallel designs.
One design in one path is reality oriented, and the other one is marketing.

(03:21:41):
And, you know, you there's a lot of cross fertilization between each of them.
That's doable.
The other thing is I'm I'm at the age now where the most valuable resource that I have is time, and I'm not interested in getting involved in projects.

(03:22:03):
I'm just not.
What I could do is if you will serve up a few young people to me, I can mentor them.
I can train them.
I I I
don't know where it'll go.
What I'm saying still is and we don't have 2 different paths.
What we have to do is, 1, create the the we have options for paths for construction.

(03:22:24):
But what I mean is inside of them, they all have to have stories no matter what they are to get people engaged and excited.
And and the age of infant is one of them.
You are
you're a guest 64, 65, something in there.
This is a different style.
People who listen to the podcast say it's a very different style than anything they've done before.
So I I love it.
I love it.

(03:22:45):
And we can figure that out, but I wanna continue with the David Wilkinson.
I wanna continue with the content.
I just it's it's the fact I accept the facts.
I don't have a challenge with that whatsoever.
So we've got on here implementation
for Interplanetary human space flight.

(03:23:06):
Interplanetary human space flight, zombies and way forward.
So let's take let's
jump let's let's go through hypogravity because that's the next showstalk.
Okay.
Hypogravity.
Yep.
Alright.
We have to finish that.
And, we'll we'll go through this fast even though I could keep you busy.
No.
No.
No.
I I don't want you
to go through it fast.
You're never gonna be on again.

(03:23:28):
And anybody who's listening to this should be hearing I should be hearing what I need to hear whether I like it or not.
So it's not fast that I prefer.
I'd prefer thorough.
Okay.
Well, for hypogravity, there are several main physiological problems in spaceflight.

(03:23:49):
There are a number of them.
Muscle loss, normal demineralization, radiation exposure, fluid shift from the lower body to the upper body, motion sickness, and theemia increased red cell destruction.
Sunita Williams is going through there right now in the ISS, and there is there is some concern in some circles that she's destroying red blood cells faster than she's making.

(03:24:21):
Wow.
Historically, what has happened is a lot of these changes it's a it's a classic example of adaptation.
And so it depends on your language.
If you're talking adaptation to space flight, then you can use the word adaptation.

(03:24:43):
If you're comparing it to the deconditioning of earth physiology, you can phrase it that way, but it's the same phenomenon.
And so what happens, there are changes in which when you're immediately exposed to weightlessness, for instance, there's a massive fluid shift from the lower body to the upper body.

(03:25:06):
And you see this in the photographs.
The astronauts look like they pulled an all nighter.
They had puffy faces.
And so what happens is hydrostatic pressure is pulling down on us when we're here at Earth, normal gravity, and blood is pooling in the large veins in our lower extremities.

(03:25:29):
When you rocket into space and all of a sudden there's no gravity, there's nothing to counteract the elastic recoil of the lower extremities.
And like squeezing a toothpaste tube, it forces all that fluid that has been in the lower extremities up into the central blood volume.
Right.
And there are reflexes in the right atrium called the Henrik Gower reflexes that sense that the atrium is stretched.

(03:25:57):
And so the Henry Gower reflexes sends a message to the brain that basically says, oh my god, fluid overload.
And the brain says, no problem.
I can take care of that And the brain sends a message to the kidneys that says, diurese like crazy.
And so the first 24 hours that the astronauts are in space, they can't even float by the restroom without having to pee.

(03:26:24):
Really?
Yeah.
And so what they do is they pee off about about 2 liters of fluid, and then they reach a new steady state
Ah, yeah.
Which is the new steady state to weightlessness.
So a lot of the changes happen that way, but there are couple of them, maybe about 3 systems that is not like that.

(03:26:46):
They don't de adapt and then reach a new city state and then stay there until you come home.
One of them is the radiation dose.
The radiation dose for reasons that I've talked about ad nauseam Yep.
Continue to increase throughout the mission.
For the bones, the bones immediately start to lose calcium when you're exposed to weightlessness.

(03:27:09):
And so the bones lose calcium and you become hypercalcemic, meaning the calcium level in your blood goes up.
And then your kidneys filter it out, you become hypercalciric, increase calcium in your urine, and that's a setup for kidney stones.
So there are certain conditions that you're more likely to get in weightlessness than you would on the ground.

(03:27:36):
Excuse me.
Kidney stones is lava.
Them.
So your muscle your bone continues to lose mineral throughout the duration of the mission.
And I could give you the numbers.
They're very sobering, and they don't wanna saturate you.
No.
No.
I'm I'm okay
with it, but my question I I transitioned to the moon.

(03:28:00):
How would that with the one six gravity?
Well, the answer is we don't know.
Okay.
But the but the my prediction is that it won't make any difference.
And here's the reason.
You gotta realize I come at this through the perspective of an evolutionary biologist.

(03:28:21):
So on earth, all life on earth evolved and persisted under the constant influence of one gravity.
In the course of geologic time, there were huge changes.
I mean, the atmosphere has changed, the oceans changed, the climate whipsawed back and forth between tropical earth and snowball earth.

(03:28:47):
Even the continents changed and took up new positions.
Mountains were thrust up and then dissolved back into the sea, but there was one thing and one thing only that never freaking changed, gravity.
Evolution has superbly crafted us to be gravity dependent creatures.

(03:29:14):
This is especially true with reproduction, organogenesis, fetal development, gestation, and early developmental milestones.
As a former evolutionary biologist, I think it's wildly naive to think we and the plants and animals we subsist on can make a single evolutionary leap to weightless civilization.

(03:29:45):
No engineer worth their salt would send people into space without air.
Right.
No engineer worth their salt would send people into space without water or without food.
Okay?
Like it or not, say this again, like it or not gravity needs to be on the list.

(03:30:10):
Gravity is the law.
We don't call it the law of gravity for nothing.
So are you saying that the only way to do this is if you're in a Van Braun or some type of structure that is in motion.
The only way we know how to create pseudo gravity is gravity by rotation.

(03:30:34):
Right.
That's what I'm saying.
So, yes, if you want earth normal gravity and remember I said it was naive to think that we were gonna be able to get by now we may be able to get by on maybe 90% of earth gravity, maybe 85%, but 1 6th earth gravity, no.
I'll bet every single penny I have that it won't work.

(03:30:58):
Now what it may do is it may slightly retard the rate of deconditioning, but it won't make up for the lack of gravity.
And so and and look, have you ever, David, have you ever experienced lunar gravity yourself?
No.
I have many times.

(03:31:19):
I did that on the bomb at on the k c 135, and I'll tell you, lunar gravity is not all that much fun.
There's even not there's not even enough gravity to walk.
You have to you have to bunny hop.
You have to hop.
You have to bunny hop.
K?
And that's that's 1 6th g.

(03:31:45):
So
are you are are you professing that we should have on the moon some type of rotational device?
Or are you saying
that the moon is not an option?
Here's what we don't have.
We have 63 years of human spaceflight experience, and we still don't know what the gravity prescription is.

(03:32:08):
We don't know the dose.
We don't know the frequency, and we don't know the side effects, and there will be side effects.
And it's an indictment of the space life sciences community and senior NASA management that we don't have the gravity prescription after 63 years of human space.

(03:32:32):
Now it it doesn't necessarily have to be an all or nothing thing because for a lot of these physiologic changes, we have countermeasures.
In other words, for muscle de adaptation, muscle atrophy, we have them lift weights.
K.
We have special pulley arrangements.
They can they can, you know, lift the equivalent of of mass.

(03:32:54):
You know, they can curl it or press it or whatever, and that helps retard the rate of deconditioning.
For the bone demineralization, we have them run on a treadmill.
Yeah.
And every time you come down on your heel, if you have the bungeenies appropriately adjusted, you're transmitting quite a bit of force through your heel and it does result in in a decreased rate of decondition, but it doesn't prevent.

(03:33:24):
One of the one of the dirty little secrets of all these countermeasures is that they really don't work because we have a countermeasure for each problem.
And so the real countermeasure to microgravity is ready?
Drumroll.
Mhmm.
Gravity.
Okay.

(03:33:46):
That's the countermeasure.
Yeah.
Of course.
Gravity.
Okay?
What we don't know is how much gravity, how frequent, and what are the side effects.
You know, there are ways you can generate intermittent gravity.
There at Johnson Space Center, the, there was a contractor that put together a little mini centrifuge that you would lay down in and it would whirl you around and it would spin you so that you had one g at your heart, and I think it was 2 g's at your feet and, of course, less than 1 g at your head.

(03:34:25):
And they put people at bed rest, which is the analog to weightlessness.
We do we used to do a lot of bed rest days, and they had 2 groups.
There was 1 group that they didn't do intermittent gravity and another group, that was the control group and the experimental group, they spent an hour a day in this centrifuge.
Oh,
wow.
And they found that muscle atrophy was was considerably reduced.

(03:34:52):
So it's possible to do intermittent gravity.
What you can't do intermediate intermittent gravity for is something like pregnancy.
Mhmm.
So you ask if the moon was if you could cross I mean, look.
If we do the studies once we have people on the moon or let's say we have a variable g research facility in earth orbit.

(03:35:16):
A lot of a lot of people have talked about those.
In fact, my input to the agency was the ISS should have been a variable gravity research facility where you could generate a variable amount of gravity.
You could generate lunar gravity or you could generate Mars.
The only study you'd have to do is Mars gravity because if Mars gravity didn't work, you can blow off lunar gravity.

(03:35:43):
That's not gonna work.
So Mars gravity is 1 6 g, and by the way, I've experienced a lot of Mars gravity too.
Mars gravity is wonderful.
Mars gravity is just enough gravity where you can walk, albeit slowly, but you could still walk.
What are the numbers?
Because you were you said you don't wanna give I wanna hear the numbers.

(03:36:06):
I'd have to look them up.
Oh, I thought you had them.
So that's why I was asking.
No.
I mean, I have them somewhere.
I can tell you that in the trochanter for bone demineralization, we've had crews lose up to 25% of their bone mineral in the trochanter.
We've had space we've had space station astronauts after they spend 6 months in space break their leg when they get back down to earth.

(03:36:34):
And by the way, it looks like there are 2 kinds of bone.
There's cortical bone, which is the surface bone, and there's trabecular bone, which is the matrix on the inside of the bone.
Mhmm.
Yep.
And it's the matrix that gives you the strength.
And what the deal is is it looks like cortical bone, you can replenish after the mission by re by rehabilitation.

(03:36:59):
It looks like the trabecular bone that you lose in space, you pretty much lose forever.
Wow.
That's what it looks like.
Okay?
So I always terms of radiation and microgravity, what I've concluded is that space is an accelerated aging environment.

(03:37:21):
The radiation artificially ages you and the weightlessness artificially ages you.
I'm telling you, I know a lot about the physiological issues in spaceflight.
You wouldn't you couldn't talk me into spending a year on the ISS if you promised me $1,000,000.
I wouldn't do it.

(03:37:42):
My health is too important, and I can tell you for a fact, although I won't name names, that the people who come back after spending as little as 6 months on the ISS or a year on the ISS, they are not happy campers.

(03:38:04):
I have been the first one into the space shuttle when it lands in, back when we were flying the shuttle missions, and back when the missions are reasonably short, 7 to 10 days.
And I can tell you when I would walk in, the flight surgeon would be the one to walk into the vehicle before the crew ever walked out.

(03:38:25):
Because the flight surgeon has checked the crew out.
And there are a lot of times I would walk in and see these people that look like they were 80 years old after a short shuttle flight, and mostly it was because of dehydration.
Mhmm.
And I would or or their muscles had atrophied, and I would tell them when they were in the white room there.
I'd say, you gotta walk around.

(03:38:47):
You know, you gotta just keep walking.
Keep walking in circles.
You gotta get your balance back, you gotta get some of your strength back, and you gotta drink this fluid.
We fluid loaded them prior to entry interface anyway, and I knew these guys real well and gals.
So they were friends of mine.
Right?
And they would give me a smart, like, remark.
Right?
And I would say, hey.

(03:39:08):
No problem with me.
If you wanna be the first one to fall down the stairs on national TV, be my guest.
And, of course, then they'd get up and start walking around.
So it's very sober.
Physiology of space flight is extremely sober.
So And we're going to have to take our gravity with us, period.

(03:39:33):
End of story.
Okay.
Now for the moon for the moon, it might be a great community, but you're not gonna have you're not gonna have children on the moon Yep.
Because you need gravity for the developmental milestones.
Yes.
Especially while they're building bone and all that kind of stuff.
But adults, adults who go up there probably for a while, especially if we figure out a gravity prescription that's in some way, shape, or form includes intermittent gravity.

(03:40:03):
I can think of a number of ways to do that, but we don't even we haven't even done the studies, David.
Mhmm.
And this is year 63 of human space flight.
And the reason is NASA doesn't wanna do the studies.
Oh.
Because NASA doesn't wanna do communities.
They only wanna do theater.
And and and and I again, I'm,

(03:40:24):
I'm not tied to NASA.
It doesn't that's not the intention of our project.
So I'm I'm listening.
I'm just telling you the history.
I know.
I I agree.
I'm I I'm I'm no challenge with it.
What I'm saying is I'm you know, when you have that look out the window type thing, I keep on looking out the window and saying, how do we impactfully do what we're trying to accomplish that we will accomplish?

(03:40:46):
We're just gonna figure out how.
And if you heard the narrative of what we're proposing, there are phases of development over time.
So the types of things you can learn along the way, obviously, are building blocks.
But we're also we've never proposed Mars because too far away.
A lot of risk.
A lot of people we spoke to.
But it it didn't even start that way.
The moon is 3 days away by the technology we have today.

(03:41:09):
Moon the moon is the place to go.
And that's it's been it's been since the beginning, since the very first day.
And the reason I say it is you started talking about having children and the entire thing.
Everything that started Project Moon was I was told, you know, that NASA is working on what would happen if a woman gets pregnant on the moon.

(03:41:30):
And we're studying that.
NASA's not working on.
Well, this is not working on.
That's what I was told.
Again, we just have to go with what I was.
NASA, the NASA approach is to prevent pregnancy.
So what I said well, I was told to do that.
So maybe the one hand isn't watching the other, meaning they're telling one thing and not telling them to tell something else.
But what happened was I I looked to the person and I we were in restaurant night, signal to come closer.

(03:41:58):
And I said, I can solve that for you.
And he looked at me like, what are you talking about?
And my words were send her the f home.
We don't know if the cells will divide.
We don't know if the cells will divide properly.
We don't know how they will grow up and develop.
We don't know anything about what would happen to this child.
And by the way, we have technology today.

(03:42:19):
It's not complicated.
It stops a woman from getting pregnant.
The first thing we should not we should not be working on that today.
We should be working on how do we get to the moon and say that we have the ability to stop that so that that's not an issue today.
I agree.
And that's that was quite I was a little bit more, colorful, but I was quiet.

(03:42:40):
And then I leaned back and you I said, do you wanna know how to get to the moon?
And that's where you wanna you need to start with the box of the roof.
That's the whole that is actually what happens.
So when you're tossing out these, I'm not gonna say realizations, when you're talking out these talking points, I'm traveling back and saying, okay.
So we had some things.
Right?
We have other things we're missing.

(03:43:01):
But I I I I think it's, I don't know why I'm told other stories by other people about things that can happen.
And then Ask
him for citations.
Next time somebody says something like that, ask him for citations.
Ask him where it's published in literature.
Look at it.
I'm I'm a pain in the butt enough.

(03:43:23):
I don't need to, you know, pry them with a knife.
No.
Just ask them just ask them pleasantly.
What's the where is that?
Citation.
Yeah.
And so I the intermittent gravity, I'm asking myself.
You just said, under your breath a little bit, it wasn't too loud, but you said that you have a few ideas for intermittent gravity on the moon.
So let's assume let's assume that project moon at 4 phase development of the moon with the phases that we've got, we've got to get people to be able to stay there.

(03:43:50):
Part of the evolutionary progression that you've talked about from the beginning of the conversation, that to become an interplanetary species, if that's the end game.
Our game is to, that's that's after us.
I mean, I there's almost, I'm not gonna say I'm dying because I'm not.
But I our plan is 40 years.
Let there'll be other people who can work on that.
So if we were gonna do just the moon, just the moon, what are your ideas for intermittent gravity?

(03:44:19):
Well, that's a separate discussion.
Well, you oh, okay.
So we we we'll have a separate discussion to go over what your ideas are for their because you you said it under your breath, and I wasn't sure why you were holding it back.
Yeah.
The only the only way the only way to do that is by some kind of rotation.
It's the only way we know.
There is no magic switch that you can throw that gives yourself partial gravity.

(03:44:43):
The only way we know how to do it is pseudo gravity through through rotational acceleration.
That's it.
So I don't have any
So so it's it's either, it's I'm trying to think, is it kind of like you have a hamster wheel that, people can run on.

(03:45:06):
No.
Because what you're talking about, a lot of people think about that.
That's the that's the 2,001 syndrome.
Well, I'm I'm just trying to toss out at what what is besides if he said you just gotta spin them.
You just spin them.
But you don't spin them while they're moving.
You spin them while they're while they're still while they're while they're lying.
And so you're talking, an hour a day.

(03:45:28):
You an hour a day, you have to jump into it.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's not complicated.
I mean, it's complicated, but it's not complicated.
But it will probably only address certain, issues and not others.
Such as and such as?
Well, it might it might address bone demineralization to a degree because you are putting accelerated force down the longitudinal axis of the spine.

(03:45:56):
Yeah.
So you could predict, you could hypothesize that you will retard bone demineralization to some degree to be determined.
Yeah.
Right?
And that's probably a function of how fast you spin somebody.
When you spin somebody at a decent speed, you have to you have to basically you can't you can't let them move their head because if they're rotating fast in one plane and they look to the left or look to the right, look up or look down, they'll be overcome with overwhelming vertigo.

(03:46:32):
Yep.
Okay.
So I remember the last time you wrote a Tilter World?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, then you know what I'm talking.
So So, there are there are ways to look at it, but what has to happen is the basic research has to be done, David.
You can't immediately leap into an operational.

(03:46:54):
I I understand.
I'm I'm actually not going to operational.
I'm going to I'm
going That's
what that's what years into the future in my head because
That's what NASA has refused to do.
Why I'm not going to We're 40 years.
We're 40 years.
And I'm asking myself, in those 40 years, where do we start this?
And in my head, I just came up with and I this is just making it up.

(03:47:16):
It's a, it's a stacked set of cyclonic devices that spin, and there are a certain dimension because if you have x amount of people and they have to be in the device x amount of time, so then what you do is you get the individual into this carousel, this, the spin, and they don't need a tremendous amount of space.

(03:47:43):
And I'm not saying you sandwich them in, but you almost have a stacked set of circles.
So you can use
What what you'd have is a radial.
You have, like, your axis of rotation.
Yeah.
And extending from that perpendicularly, you'd have a series of litters.
Yeah.
Little little beds, little stretchers, And, people would be immobilized.

(03:48:08):
So Yeah.
Correct.
And you would rotate this thing as for a certain prescription.
Yeah.
That's what yeah.
I'm thinking I'm say thinking that it it could right.
It doesn't have to be one person.
You could have a series of beds in this one condition.
You show up at 4 o'clock or whatever the time is in there.
The hot bunk.
Right.
For the bunk.
You you you lay down.

(03:48:29):
You're gonna be there for an hour.
There are 8 beds, but that's floor 1, which is, you know, a meter high.
But there's another one, a meter, another one underneath it, and another one on top, and another one on top of that.
So you can have, depending on the volume of people, I'm thinking of, you know, not having 4 people.
But you have a volume of people that are there.
And you you could be able to create a system that allows for those individuals to spend once a day.

(03:48:57):
So that's what all I'm go that's what's spinning through my head as spinning.
That's a bad way to say it.
It was part of the experimental design every other day.
Do you counter rotate?
Yeah.
Or do you rotate in the same direction?
Interesting.
Yep.
Counter rotation.
I hadn't thought about that.
So, yes.
Which in which I do you do that?
And and maybe maybe you alternate on speeds.
Maybe it's one day, it's one speed.

(03:49:18):
Another next day, it's another because there's a value to, a or the speeding of slows down to a speed, goes to a speed, goes back to a speed.
So there could be all sorts of different calculations that are made.
All all part of a potential radio gravity prescription.
Okay.
Makes sense.

(03:49:39):
And I'm so I'm trying to adapt to what you're saying and say what types of innovations might be necessary to make it happen.
So what do we have?
Let's, let's move on here quickly.
Yeah.
That's what I was gonna say.
Are we next one?
Dinner plans I have to do.
Yep.
So, let's talk about let's go down to the NASA standard approach.

(03:50:01):
And so, really, what you have is that NASA has a standard approach to its deep space exploration program.
Okay?
And it's in my mind, it's precise precisely the wrong way to go.
So the standard NASA approach are chemical propellants, minimal radiation shielding, frequent repetitive EVAs, no ISRU.

(03:50:32):
There was insight to resource utilization other than sunlight, microgravity.
K?
Then there was no artificial gravity, and that's the standard approach.
And so not only is it insufficient for interplanetary human space flight, it's downright dangerous, and it's usually reverse engineered.

(03:50:56):
What NASA does is decide what it wants to do and then reverse engineer the thought process to get it to what it wants to do.
They don't design by first principle.
Now they may design the vehicles by that, the stresses on the vehicles and all that kind of stuff, but with the humans, they reverse engineer what they wanna do.

(03:51:18):
I saw it many, many times.
So that's the standard approach.
The correct approach is everything opposite to that.
Advanced advanced propulsion, adequate radiation shielding, no repetitive EVAs, and all be done by teleoperated EVA robots Mhmm.

(03:51:41):
Controlled from inside a radiation protected habitat.
Some kind of artificial gravity or at least intermittent gravity.
Alright?
And, that would be the Logan deep space approach, precisely the opposite of what NASA
You had 5 points.

(03:52:02):
You had chemical use, minimal,
creation shielding, no repetitive EVAs, ISRU.
There you go.
On the ISAU.
Okay.
And some, artificial gravity or some gravity prescription Yeah.
To be determined.
Okay?
So that that covers that.
So let's move on.

(03:52:25):
Okay.
Let's talk about radiation protection on the human element.
Because basically what you have to do is you gotta think of ways to radically slow the radiation clock, which is ticking up to a career limit of 3% risk of induced death dose that I described earlier.

(03:52:48):
Yep.
Right?
Yes.
So you have to redesign the human part of the vehicle to leverage all infrastructures including propellant for radiation protection.
So starship is precisely the wrong shape for an interplanetary vehicle.

(03:53:11):
If you look at the starship, you see up at the top, there are windows.
There are windows.
Maybe people are are seated there like you are in an airplane looking out the window.
Well, Starship has your the the crew, the passengers are just exposed in the nose of the spacecraft because that's the notional view of what a spacecraft is supposed to be, and it has to be that shape in order to get into earth orbit, get through the atmosphere.

(03:53:44):
Mhmm.
That's not the shape you wanna do going between one orbit and another orbit.
Let's say earth orbit to Mars.
What you want is a spherical spacecraft that looks like a big beach ball.
And where's the crew?
Right in the center of mass of that beach ball.

(03:54:08):
So you line all the propellant, you put all the equipment, all the stowage around the crew.
Why?
Because the more mass shielding you have, the less exposed to radiation they are during an 8 month transit.
That makes sense?
Yep.
It makes perfect sense.
Okay.
Would you do the same thing for the moon?

(03:54:31):
No.
Because it's a short journey.
Okay.
I'm just I'm just asking.
Okay.
I would agree with you, but I because we we are really
3 days versus 8 months.
No.
And and the only reason I said is you've more or less discounted the the Mars completely in in the beginning.
So I didn't realize you were going back to that.
So that's why I came back to moon and saying, okay.

(03:54:52):
Are you using a similar methodology?
I wouldn't think you would need to.
No.
Okay.
No.
But but what you do need is you need probably r p five radiation protection in transit, and that's the equivalent of 51.5 grams per square centimeter in transit.
Okay.
Yep.
That's r p 5.

(03:55:13):
R p 5.
I got it.
And, anything you could do to decrease your transit times, you would do that because that decreases exposure.
But when you get to your habitat, you must provide r p 100 radiation protection.
You must provide the same kind of radiation protection that they have on.

(03:55:34):
The equivalent of a 1,032 grams per square centimeter, passive 24 hours a day radiation protection.
Okay.
Okay.
Alright.
So let's go down.
We're almost done.
Oh, this did this really amazing.
You you remember the movie, The Martian?
Yes.
Okay.

(03:55:55):
Go watch the Martian again and look at the Mars transit spacecraft in that Ridley Scott movie, the Martian.
And based on what we've been talking about, it'll make you laugh.
And the reason it'll make you laugh is this design actually came from NASA.
So what it is, it looks like a big pencil with the crew up in the in the nose, and that's exactly the opposite kind of structure you would want for an air planetary vehicle.

(03:56:30):
In fact, the prototype, the prototype perfect shape Yeah.
I see it.
For a deep space interplanetary vehicle is the one that was used in the movie 2,001 to take people from Earth orbit to to the surface of the moon.
And I forget what it was called.

(03:56:52):
I have a picture of it.
I'm looking at it right now, but it's it's basically a sphere with 4 engines at the bottom and hydraulic 4 hydraulic legs.
The difference is the crew wouldn't be up at the top looking out of windows.
They'd be right in the center.
They would be right in the center.
Yeah.
I've I'm looking at the, the pictures also.

(03:57:15):
Yeah.
And so that's the perfect shape for a deep space interplanetary vehicle.
The other perfect shape is, the discovery spacecraft in 2001 that had the big sphere with the with the big spoke Yep.
With the engines at the back.
And, again, the crew isn't looking out windows here in the front.

(03:57:36):
The crew would be in the center.
Yeah.
Just protecting them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so remember I talked about the concept of multiuse propellant Mhmm.
Using the same substance as a consumable, as a propellant, and as radiation shielding.
And you could do that with water.

(03:57:57):
And with water, you can use water as the fuel for nuclear thermal propulsion provided we can solve the problem of how to how do you burn water at about 3,000 degrees centigrade without the oxygen ions decimating the inside of the reaction vessel.

(03:58:19):
That's that's a materials problem.
K?
So that's a problem you'd have
to solve.
And we do have a materials team that are working on certain things.
So
Okay.
Okay.
So so the way forward for NASA would to reboot for the Deep Space Hero would be to revamp the entire organizational structure and culture to reflect the known and expected hazards.

(03:58:49):
In other words, and this is the showstopper, they'll never do this.
Life sciences must be a co leader.
Right now, there are probably NASA's probably, the engineering is probably 90% aerospace engineers and 5% life sciences people.
It needs to be at least 5050 because the problems for the deep space era are biologic problems, the gravity prescription, advanced propulsion, spacecraft redesign, that kind of stuff.

(03:59:26):
So and and they'll never do that because they don't like life sciences pieces.
So I I I I'm patting ourselves on the back.
I just pulled up our budgeting.
The first person on our list was life support.
The one of those people on the team is human factors.
We have individuals that cover everything from psychology to architecture to in terms of human capabilities, even planetary biologists to be able to understand the human side.

(03:59:56):
So we have, I wouldn't say it's 50%, but we incorporated into the design, of the teams who are looking to build.
We were looking at those things.
And I'm going back because I'm trying to figure out when did when did this list come about, but this list has been this way for quite some time.
So the first person on there was Life.

(04:00:18):
K.
Alright.
So let's talk about, let's talk about zombie ideas.
I was gonna say zombies is an interesting one.
I've been waiting to hear what you're gonna say for zombies.
I'm kinda
zombie ideas.
You know, let's first of all, let's define zombie ideas.
Zombie ideas are ideas that repeatedly get legend to death by analysis and evidence, but then rise from the dead to roam the countryside infecting others.

(04:00:52):
That's that's the definition of the zombie idea.
Okay.
I love the rise to infect others.
That's right.
They rise from the dead and roam the countryside infecting others.
K?
The 2 biggest zombie ideas are skinny, thin, aluminum, cylindrical space habitats.

(04:01:16):
That's been debunked for almost a generation now.
And the other one are, you know, pin pin shaped sleek rocket ships too.
So those are 2 zombie ideas that we have to bludgeon to death over and over.

(04:01:38):
Okay.
Yes.
Based upon what you've said, I understand exactly what you're talking about.
Okay.
So that's that's really
That's all there are for zombie ideas?
There's nothing else?
Oh, there's a lot of zombie ideas.
Give me give me 5.
Give me 5 off the top of your head.
You don't have to go crazy.

(04:01:59):
You you eliminate those 2, and I'll give you the other 3.
Toss out 3 more.
You've got them on the top of
your head.
No.
You gotta eliminate the first 2.
So no no skinny thin aluminum cylindrical space habitats and no pin shaped sleek rocket ships.
Those are the those are the
big ones.
Hell, I was just And

(04:02:20):
and the other one the other one is, you know, no, no ISRU, you know, it's just goes to the standard approach.
Minimal radiation shielding, that's a zombie idea.
We have the data to show that that's not what you should do.
So alright.
Let's go to my conclusion.

(04:02:42):
Yeah.
Look.
If we are to make the giant leap from a terrestrial to a celestial civilization, we're gonna have to think outside the box.
I'm an I'm an evolutionary biologist.
To me, it's all just a cosmic intelligence test.

(04:03:03):
The essential question is, do we as a species have the right stuff or not?
If someday our ruins are found by an intelligent species who succeeded in making the leap, They'll just shrug their shoulders if they have shoulders, and note that ours was just another initially promising species that could have been a contender, but in the end just couldn't go the distance.

(04:03:36):
It may be that most intelligent species don't make the cut.
Perhaps they destroy themselves or their planet as soon as they're able.
Maybe that's the ultimate answer to the Fermi Paradox.
If we don't make the leap, we'll go extinct.
A mere footnote in galactic history because single planet intelligent species don't survive.

(04:04:02):
So there's a long list of formidable problems to overcome.
Some of which seem almost impossible from our present vantage point.
We are humans In all our complex, chaotic craziness, that's what we do.

(04:04:23):
In my heart and soul, I'll always be a part of Gene Kranz's flight control team.
Failure is not an option.
Maybe Mark Watney in the movie The Martian was right.
Quote, faced with overwhelming odds, we have no choice.
We're gonna have to science the shit out of this.
Yes.
I remember.

(04:04:45):
So let's get on with it, shall we?
There's not a moment to lose.
We can do this.
One thing I promise with a 100% certainty, if we do choose to rise to a greater destiny, our adventure is just beginning.
That's it.

(04:05:06):
Okay.
Well, I have thoroughly enjoyed this.
We've had amazing guests and, in on for where I sit, I learned a tremendous amount from every individuals that helped us make micro and macro steps forward, and I appreciate the time you put into this.
So thank you, Jim, for being a part of the project in terms of helping us with the the podcast and as well as I I know there'll be future things that we can pursue together.

(04:05:38):
And I thoroughly enjoyed it myself, David, and I apologize if my native frustration No.
You are actually, trust me.
I've been frequently surfaced.
No.
My personality is very direct, but it's not direct in a mean way.
Mine is just hey.
Just when I get into a mode, it's there.
And so the thing I appreciated, again, when I said to my wife, hey.

(04:06:02):
We had a good call because we're pushing at each other.
And you know more about this category, and I know more about other things.
We all bring things to the ideas and information, everything to the table.
So this was absolutely fantastic.
I I what number am I on?
I took, not a lot of pages and notes, 32.

(04:06:23):
So I don't think anybody's I don't think anybody in history has taken 32 pages during one of my presentations.
Well, I just took 32 because my head is down.
One reason we don't have the cameras on is, as I said, there's a psychological component of being able to not have to look at you, listen to the words you say, identify if they are clear enough for me or us, but I'm gonna say me, to be able to interpret them and use them afterwards.

(04:06:50):
And so there was I mean, I I was with you.
I'm with you.
It doesn't mean that I agreed with everything.
That's okay.
Because I still have to get my mind around it.
But what the thing was I
I would have I would have no respect for you if you agreed with everything I
said.
Yeah.
What my job when I'm learning from somebody is to learn from them.
And once I learn from them, whatever perspective it is, then I can pursue other avenues.

(04:07:17):
We make we make journeys of getting to destinations are often through a series of interconnected conditions.
It might mean that the, people on on many teams have owned over 20 businesses.
So why are you wasting time with that person?
Well, because with that person, they know another person.
And the reason I met you is you were 4th generation off of someone I met.

(04:07:38):
I have to meet people, experience with them, and grow with them.
When it comes to the podcast, I'm present.
I mean, the only thing I did have to have something to eat because I I haven't eaten since 10 AM.
But I I was present with you.
That's what I was.
I was present with you, what you were working on, so I get my mind around the angle that you're coming from because everybody's got different perceptions.

(04:07:59):
And then bring that together into a holistic view.
So again, this was absolutely fantastic.
You could put it down in your record book that someone actually took a lot of notes and paid attention to you.
So, so Who
could who could ask for more?
Who could ask
for more?
So Certainly not.
Let's do this.
Wazu and I will talk after this for just a few moments.
I wanna thank you for taking the time, everybody out there for listening in.

(04:08:21):
I do hope that you learn something today that will make a difference in your life and the lives of others.
The Project Moon House Foundation where we look to establish a box of the roof and the door on the moon to the accelerate development on earth, the space based ecosystem, and then turning those innovations in the paradigm shifting thinking from the endeavor back on earth to improve how we live on earth for all species.
Just imagine we have the numbers we've talked about, the 8, the 90, the 5,71,644.

(04:08:47):
There still will be 10,000,000,000 people on this planet, including friends, relatives, and everybody else.
We've shown throughout history that the innovations that we've developed beyond earth for beyond earth, not at beyond earth, but for beyond earth are used ubiquitously through our lives every day, and we wouldn't have our lifestyle the way we have it without them.
So we're pursuing that.
There are if you go to our website, wwwprojectmoonhot.org, you scroll down, there are 3 videos on the bottom.

(04:09:14):
The first two, I recommend if you wanna talk to me.
Watch them.
You'll get a sense of some of the things we're talking about, then you and I can have a conversation, and we can move forward with an amazing group of people who are helping us worldwide.
So, Jim, I'd like to ask you, is there a single best way to connect to you?
Probably the best way is to use the LinkedIn.
I'm on LinkedIn.

(04:09:37):
Okay.
That's simple.
And, easy name.
So there's probably 4,000,000,000 of them there, but it's still yeah.
You you have such a you have such a unique name that I know if I put it in, I'm not gonna find anybody else with it.
So you can go to LinkedIn.
For, if you love to connect to us or David Goldsmith, so, david@moonhot.org.

(04:10:02):
You can connect to at project moonhot or at goldsmith on Twitter.
LinkedIn, David Goldsmith, Project Moon Hut Foundation.
You can you'll be able to find us there.
Facebook, Instagram, it's mister David Goldsmith at the moment.
And that said, I'm David Goldsmith, and thank you for listening.
Hello, everyone.
This is David Goldsmith, and welcome to the Age of Infinite.
Throughout history, we've seen humanity undergo transformational shifts that are so important and impactful that they define the entire ages.
Just recently we've lived through the information age, and what an incredible journey it's been.
Now think about this, you could, we could very well be in the midst of a new monumental shift, the transition to the age of infinite.
We're talking about an age that transcends the concepts of scarcity and abundance.
It introduces a lifestyle rich with infinite possibilities, enabled by a new paradigm that links the moon and the earth together, a term we call Mearth.
This synergy will create a new ecosystem and economic model propelling us into the era of infinite possibilities.
Sounds like a plot of an extraordinary sci fi story, but does it?
But this could actually be where you'll see it unfold during your lifetime.
This podcast is brought to you by the Project Moon Hut Foundation.
We look to establish a box to the roof and a door on the moon, a moon hut.
We happen to have been named by NASA Project Moon Hut through the accelerated development of an earth and space based ecosystem.
Then to turn the innovations and the paradigm shifting thinking from the endeavor back on earth to improve where we live on earth for all species.
For more information, you can visit our website at www.projectmoonhot.org, where you can check out our 40 year plan, our work, and so much more.
We are a nonprofit.
So while you're there, consider making a donation to support the cause.
Now let's dive into today's podcast.
The title which is an ex NASA's flight surgeon an ex NASA flight surgeon ponders humanity's long term prospects in space.
And today, we have with us Jim Logan.
How are you, Jim?
I'm doing fine, David.
I'm looking forward to it.
So let me give a little short, brief bio.
We always just give a brief bio on individual.
You'll be able to read the rest online.
Jim is an aerospace medicine physician with a 22 year career at NASA Spaceflight men as NASA Spaceflight Medical Officer.
Inclusive, he's held various positions all over, including the Johnson Space Center, such as chief of flight medicine, chief of medical operations, and chief of medical information and health and care systems.
He is considered a world authority in space medicine, long duration interplan interplanetary spy spaceflight, and permanent human expansion off earth.
I'm having trouble speaking today.
We'll see how that goes.
So before we get started, and this has been brought up because individuals have shared, hey, David.
I mean, you must have really put a lot of prep into all these questions you have, and how did this happen?
And I said, no.
No.
No.
See, this is how we work so that you're aware.
I know nothing about what Jim's gonna talk about today.
Nothing.
Jim and I did have a long conversation.
We always have them with our guests, and we were working on creating a title.
We actually spoke about 2 and a half, 3 hours the first time we got together.
And we work on creating a title so that what happens is then I say to after Jim has been selected, not everybody many people don't become guests.
Jim goes off on his own, and he thinks about the title and how he's going to deliver it to us.
He comes here today.
I don't know what he's going to talk about.
I don't know the direction.
I have a pay piece of paper in front of me.
We have our cameras off.
I do not see him, so I don't even see his biological movements, his head shakes, anything.
He doesn't see mine.
I'm learning for the first time from Jim about this topic alongside of you.
That said, let's get started.
Jim, do you have an outline, a bullet point, series, things that we're gonna cover today that we can start with?
Yeah, David.
Let's start with a couple of things.
The first one would be what I consider the prime questions, in this age that we live in, and that is
Wait.
Wait.
So it's just the type that number 1 is prime questions.
I'll get the we'll get those after unless that's another heading.
Okay.
No.
That's the prime questions.
Common survival imperatives for any intelligent species anywhere.
Yep.
Common survival imperatives for any species intelligent.
Yep.
Species anywhere in the galaxy.
Anywhere in the galaxy.
Next.
I'd like to talk about the lessons I learned in mission control, how I got there, and the lessons I learned.
Lessons learned in mission Control.
Next.
Magical Thinking and the Rise of Space Cadets.
Health Thinking and the Rise of Space Cadets.
Next.
Space realities.
Realities.
Next.
Next one would be the biomedical constraints to long duration or interplanetary space.
Constraints for long duration.
Next?
Next would be the implications of those constraints for permanent human expansion into space.
For permanent expansion into space.
Next.
Next would be the zombie ideas that are still out there for long duration space flight.
There are several.
Idea zombie ideas.
Okay.
Number 9?
The way forward.
Is there a 10 or 11?
No.
Let's, let's leave it at that.
Let's leave it at that.
That's a the interesting list.
Some of them are pretty long.
So why don't we start with number 1, the prime questions.
Well, the prime questions are things like, where are we?
Who are we?
What's our story?
What are the existential threats to our existence?
And the ultimate question, and that is what happens to creatures like us?
Okay.
So So yeah.
Go ahead.
I I was a evolutionary biologist before going medical school, and I've also been an avid student of history.
So I've I've always tried to bring these two perspectives, plus a lot of, shall we say, operational experience with first principles into any discussion about the prospects for space.
Okay.
So the when you consider humanity's prospects in space, I can categorically state based on more than 15 years of intense study and experience that they are, as you might guess, complicated.
Mhmm.
Challenging and compelling, but by no means straightforward, easy, or even predestined.
But in my opinion, it's absolutely necessary that we as a species expand into space.
We must make this very problematic transition from a terrestrial to a predominantly celestial species, period.
So given the overwhelming numbers of stars and planets, the late great Carl Sagan, who really was kind of a virtual mentor of mine, I met him once toward the end of his life, and it really affected me.
But Sagan believed that the universe is teeming with life and that probably in a certain small percentage of these laboratories of life, if conditions are favorable, intelligent species would arise, persist, and evolve, but would actually do themselves in as soon as they're able.
That is as soon as they develop the technology to make themselves extinct, they would do so, either by intention, which would be war, or by accident, which would be stupidity or negligence.
Sagan believed this so strongly he thought it was the best and simplest answer to the question, why is the universe so eerily, utterly, and profoundly silent despite the fact that it's probably teeming with life.
Oh, that's interesting.
I've never I've never heard that one.
So let's ask let's always start with the universe.
I learned that from another virtual mentor, Lucky Fuller, who I met twice.
At one point in time, I probably read everything the guy had ever written.
So we need to ask some very basic basic questions, moving, of course, from the general to the specific, not the other way around in the hopes of revealing some general truths and maybe even a few first principles.
Okay.
So where are we?
Who are we?
What's our story?
And what are the existential threats?
And most importantly, what the heck happens to creatures like us?
So let's take the first one.
Where are we?
Well, we live in one of the spiral arms called the Orion arm about 2 thirds of the way out from the center of a slightly smaller than average spiral galaxy consisting of probably 400,000,000,000 stars in the Goldilocks zone of an average mostly well behaved, mature, stable, g type main sequence yellow dwarf star that formed about 4,600,000,000 years ago from the gravitational collapse of matter within a region of a large molecular cloud.
Now things have been kinda peaceful in our neck of the woods of late, but that hasn't always been the case and it's sure to change eventually.
But for now, we can feel lucky we evolved over a long period of relative calm.
So in terms of of, who are we, I've actually taken the liberty.
This was kind of an intellectual exercise that I did, and I tried to condense my responses to the remaining questions to a 135 word short summary of 300000 years of human history.
So can I, can I share that?
I'm I'm, actually, I I'm I've never heard the way you presented Orion Arm, the 400,000,000,000 I heard, Goldilocks, the all the way through the stable dwarf.
I had never heard that sequence, so I thought that was just kind of interesting.
So, yeah, let's hear your 135 short word summary.
And I've worked on this for about 20 years.
Oh, okay.
So you didn't do it just for us?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
I'm I'm definitely not that smart, David.
It took me a long time to come up with this, and I've pondered it for a long time.
Okay.
So so let me give it to you.
This is a short summary of 300000 years of human history in a 135 words.
Okay.
K?
Here it is.
In the beginning, we were frail, vulnerable, and afraid, Surrounded by predators with vastly superior physical capabilities, we learned to rely on 2 strengths, our intelligence and each other.
Despite a planet paradoxically been on destroying as well as nourishing us, we became the undisputed alpha species on earth.
But intelligence cuts both ways.
Solving one problem creates a cascade of others.
So far, our species has managed to slip through a series of closing doors, otherwise we wouldn't be here.
But has all our technology merely postponed the inevitable?
Have we painted ourselves into a corner from which there is no escape?
Are we at the end of ingenuity, victims rather than masters, trapped on a runaway train racing headlong over a cliff into oblivion, or are we just not thinking big enough?
So that's my 135 parts.
Oh, it's, I like the narrative.
The
it's the narrative of humanity.
I had I had thought so, yeah, it answers your question, which you were proposing is who are we?
And I'm just not being argumentative, just tossing this out.
I I was waiting for the rest of the species on the planet.
Well, the questions are who where are we?
I know.
I know.
So that's what I'm saying.
I I had I've you answered your question.
I am What's what's our story?
Yeah.
That's what I said.
I said, who are we?
So you actually answered it.
It was funny, though.
In my mind, I was enjoying it, and I was saying, okay.
Give me more of what this means as the interconnectedness of everything.
So that's great.
Okay.
So that answers that question.
Perfect answer.
Alright?
Well, let me We go on to
the next
Yeah.
Yeah.
Let me make a comment on the interconnectedness because that's that's real.
Yeah.
We are interconnected with all the the creatures on the planet and all the forces on the planet, geological forces.
You know, you know, you can answer I remember I took a final exam in college one time and and the the final question was, what is the nature of the universe?
And it was getting late and I had already used up all my time trying to answer other questions.
Parenthesis, I was never a straight a student till I got to graduate school, so I really wasn't among the best and brightest.
So I decided to answer the question with one word, change.
And I made an a on the final exam.
Good job.
Or she or the professor, he or she said, he didn't he missed it.
He just completely skipped this one.
What happened?
But he's No.
He's a good student.
He didn't rest well.
So
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
They thought that was a great answer to the question.
The nature of the universe is change.
Yeah.
Everything is in a state of change.
Always.
And it's actually yeah.
That's actually the nature of of, human beings too.
It's change.
Which is part of the challenge when people are trying to address certain situations.
It's almost as if they're feeling like they're working with a static environment or a slowly evolving environment.
Yet we are I I will we are where we are based upon a an interconnected set of conditions that I've hope happened over 1,000,000,000 of years.
We didn't just get here.
So even our conditions will exist today, you could probably go back to, you know, a 100000 years ago, and there was a a guy looked at a girl, someone got killed, someone was it all cascades down to where we are today.
So it's not as simple as we, we can take certain solutions and use them unless you add in the paradox of change.
So I agree with you a 100%.
Because, really, what we do is in order to survive, we have to leverage change.
You really can't fight it.
You have to leverage it.
It it's almost you have to consider yourself like a surfer.
You know, the surfer goes where the wave wants to go, But within that scenario, the surfer does have some lateral control and some altitude control.
You know, they can be higher on the wave, lower on the wave, wherever.
Basically, you're going where the wave takes you, And the wave is always changing, and all waves are different.
So I've always I've always resonated with the concept of surfing through history because there's a certain there's a certain resonance to history.
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it does kind of recycle or it does echo.
So, there's a I I lost what I was gonna say about it as I was writing.
I I think, yeah, it's the question of if this to you, it is to me very obvious.
What's your thought on why it's not obvious to others?
I I think it's because and this is gonna be, I'm just gonna throw it out there.
Yeah.
And and like I said, you know, I didn't come from a privileged background.
Neither of my parents were college educated.
I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, but two things happened when I was a kid that changed my whole life.
And the first one was the launch of Sputnik that the Soviet Union did in 1957.
And I'm I'm getting I'm gonna answer your question, but I may answer it for kind of the long way around.
It's okay.
So and then I had 3 female public school elementary school teachers, the librarian, the science teacher, and my homeroom teacher in the 2nd and third grade.
And for some reason, they observed my newfound passion for space, and they nurtured it, and they completely changed the trajectory of my life.
So to answer your question, I was my imagination was so much on fire as a child that I was curious about everything.
And I think that's the that's the thing that separates the people in which, you know, change is obvious versus the people who are just terrified by it.
So are you equating it to the 3 individual the homeloom teachers, the science and library?
Are you equating it to that you had it, they identified it and nurtured it?
Well Those
are 2 different things.
Was it built into you?
I know.
Or was it the okay.
And I think I think it's built into every child.
So the to answer your question, yeah, it was built into me, but it but I'm not special.
I think it's built into Ultra.
When I when I was young, my my parents would ask a word or something, and I was the one who wanted to go up and look at a get the encyclopedia.
So I'd go up and my mom would come up 20 minutes later.
Where are you?
What are you doing?
And I'd be on the bed.
And bird doesn't start with b a.
So I'd be reading all the things that got me to bird.
I didn't come down.
And so, you know, I wonder societally, the structures that we put in place, whether it's political, education, religion, support groups, and, I mean, support like your extended family and all of those intricacies, they're not always identified as how valuable they are to that young child even though we say it all the time.
I think people say a child is an open book.
It can do anything.
It's possible.
But then at the same time, the things around us close those doors.
That's right.
And I think that every child is kind of born mostly a genius because they're curious.
They're trying to figure out their way in a a in a new environment, at least for them, and, our educational system in large part proceeds to to pound that out of them and it becomes much more of an exercise of memorizing, regurgitate than it does really learning how to think.
And those 3 elementary school teachers and virtual mentors like like Bucky Fuller really taught me how to think, how to contemplate, how to be curious, how to how to get something from your curiosity.
So And I
think that made the difference.
So bringing that to how do you define with your thinking, How I think the next one is how far along are what's the next one on that sequence?
Well, I think that half how far along are we?
I tried to address in my 135 words.
I think we're kinda terrified right now.
I think we're on a roller coaster ride, and we're not really sure what we're doing.
We're not really sure whether we're victims or masters of our own ride.
And so that's the reason why there's so much kind of existential dread.
What what do you think we are?
Oh, I I don't I think we're neither.
I think we're surfing.
I don't think we're victims, and I don't think we're masters.
I think we're trying to figure out how to surf how to surf these webs these waves.
Okay.
And what was the next one?
Was it threats?
Yeah.
What are the threats to our existence?
And, threats to our existence, I'll cover in the 5 cosmic tests.
Okay.
The next
the next step.
What's the next after your question series in terms of the prime questions?
Is there another one?
No.
I'd like to go to I think that's a good lead in to the common survival imperatives for any intelligent species.
Okay.
Go ahead.
And I spent a lot of time thinking about this too.
I I, I basically spent the first half of my career wondering if there was such a thing as common tests that any intelligent species, no matter where they originated, would have to address in order to be a survivor.
And I was fascinated by the prospect that there might be a short list.
So my initial list was pretty long, but eventually, after thinking about it, I distilled it down to just 5 tests, And I considered it kind of the ultimate game of survival.
Okay.
And it's
it's not a pass fail final exam.
It's a single elimination tournament.
You have to get every question right or you die out.
So it's not really survival like the television series.
It's it's one of those, morbid television shows or movies where someone passed the doesn't pass it and they die.
That's right.
And we were talking at the species level.
Yes.
Okay.
But fortunately, it's an open book test.
And that the until the die is cast, leading inexorably to the end, you can change your answer.
Right.
And so metaphorically, the most important part of your final exam pencil is the eraser or the delete key if you decide to take the exam on a computer.
Okay.
Okay.
So here are the 5 species survival imperatives that apply to any intelligent species anywhere in the universe.
The first one, test 1, and we mentioned this before, is to become the alpha species on your own home planet.
It it looks like there just doesn't seem to be room for 2 or more at the top of the species pyramid for biological systems.
You know, we we tend to think of ourselves, homo sapiens, as somehow special, but we aren't.
We weren't the first hominins to evolve.
We weren't even the first to leave Africa, Origin of all hominids.
We aren't even the longest lived yet.
I mean, Neanderthals existed for over 390000 years and, although our origins are still murky, we're just now approaching the 300000 year mark.
At one point in history, on earth, there were at least 5 and perhaps 6 or 7 hominid species alive on earth simultaneously.
But fairly soon after the emergence of homo sapiens, the others, probably for a variety of reasons, simply vanished.
It's interesting.
Just jumping in for a minute.
When you said the alpha species, I went to, okay, dolphins, whales, what other species have intelligence?
I did not at all.
So I'm probably one of those not so smart in one of your lists that you said intelligent.
Yeah.
I don't have the intelligence side.
I didn't go to the species itself of the various forms of, of human history, which is interesting.
My background is I I dual major biology psychology, but I didn't go that way, which is very interesting,
at least for me.
Tell me about which way you went.
I I just went to the diversity of species on the planet.
And I said, okay.
So you're comparing humans, not even Homo sapiens.
And I did biology verberates.
I've taken all this course.
I've seen all the trees, so I have seen them.
But I just went to a current space and time and said, okay.
In in the reasonable past, humans have come to dominate, but you created a subset of humanity to go back to the evolution of homo sapiens, which I just thought was a very interesting twist.
It was kind of, oh, okay.
He's taken it a different way, which I I appreciate.
Well, you know, there's really I mean, I don't think, I don't think there is a good argument for saying that there is more than 1 alpha species on the planet.
It looks like, at least on our planet, there's only 1.
And, unfortunately or unfortunately, we're in.
Mhmm.
I agree.
It was just an interesting twist.
I I had not gone in that way.
So immediately, I can almost see his name was professor Waltz.
He was a terrible teacher and a great teacher simultaneously.
But I remember the chart when I'm I'm seeing it right now, and this was 400,000,000,000 years ago when I took this class.
And I I remember the chart of all of the, ancestral versions.
So, yeah, just interesting you went that way.
Okay.
So the second test is that you cannot annihilate yourself by war.
This is basically the Carl Sagan scenario.
The largest nuclear explosion on earth was just under 60 megatons, and that was done by the Soviet Union in a nuclear test in 1962.
Now if I had a magic remote that I could detonate all the nuclear weapons currently on earth simultaneously, basically at all out nuclear exchange, it would result in an explosive force of about 20,000 megatons.
Now, David, I want you to remember that number.
20,000 megatons.
I've written it down.
So, yes, I won't forget.
So we've had the capability to eliminate ourselves for about 80 years now.
And it's really to our credit that so far it hadn't happened.
Yet, the so called doomsday clock has hovered anywhere from about 4 to 10 seconds to midnight for decades.
So, you know, we think of Carl Sagan as an astronomer, but he was a very effective anti nuclear weapons advocate.
It was Sagan that did the original calculations that discovered and also popularized the concept of nuclear winter which could occur even after a quote minor nuclear exchange consisting of as few as 10 to 15 total nuclear detonations, you know, like the kind that might be expected in a flash war between, let's say, India and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear powers.
Now you and I were part of the duck and cover generation.
Nuclear annihilation was an ever present threat, and it hasn't gone away, and it probably never would.
So the 3rd So so in that sense, your the argument and I I don't know if you were gonna end it this way.
Is you're saying that even if would you well, not even if.
Are you making the assumption we'll never do it, or are you saying this is the other one that came to mind?
Even if we did it, humans would still survive.
Yeah.
I as a biologist, if we had a full scale nuclear exchange, I don't I don't think that we would survive.
And if we did, we wouldn't survive very well.
So I'm a little bit of a pessimist on that.
Now I'm an optimist considering the fact that we've gone 80 years without destroying ourselves.
I don't know how that relates to other possible intelligent species, but I still think it's something to feel optimistic about.
But, no, I think if we had a full scale nuclear exchange, we'd be toast.
Okay.
And and the probability in your analysis at this point is the probability of a large enough volume to hit our 20,000 megatons, or whatever number that has to hit, the probability at this point is that we would not we would not have enough to completely annihilate the species even if we had some nuclear activity.
Well, some nuclear activity, even 10 to 15 detonations would initiate a nuclear winter scenario, and that would kill a lot more people than the 10 or 15 detonations.
So so we we don't need much is what you're saying.
Need much to really do ourselves in or to go pretty far down the path of doing ourselves.
It's kinda my mind.
It's almost as if you have a confidence that there are enough and not call it's on a checks and balance.
But there are enough individuals around the individuals who could make this happen, that would stop it from happening.
And you have that confidence in humanity, one way, shape, or form it could be, and I'm going to be crude here, it could be a bullet to the head to somebody, it could be tackling and killing, it could be all sorts of things, but something someone out there is going to prevent this from happening.
Because humans want to survive.
In some ways.
I hope that's the case.
I'm just I'm tossing out a projection.
But the way you're phrasing it, I'm listening to your words.
It's almost as if an underlying current is you believe somehow some way, like all the movies when the key is about to be turned, or something's supposed to happen, somebody says no.
And we we take the next step.
Well, the data point that we have so far is that for the past 80 years, it sounds like somebody has been there to say no.
Okay.
But all it takes is one.
Okay.
Number 3, I think, is what you were gonna get to.
Okay.
Number 3 is you can't pollute yourself into extinction.
I mean, you know, David, if our planet gets any more toxic, we're gonna have to rename it Pluto.
You've used that before.
So this is the revenge of the dinosaurs scenario.
We're essentially burning their remains for fuel and in the process, unleashing vast amounts of c o two and other toxic materials such as mercury from coal combustion that gets into the air and then gets into the ocean and gets into the fish, and that's the reason you can't eat a lot of swordfish anymore.
It's because of the mercury contamination from coal combustion.
So carbon dioxide and other toxic materials get into the atmosphere leading to rampant and unrelenting climate disruption and overall global warming.
So you can't pollute yourself into extinction, and David, that's what a lot of organisms do.
You take bacteria, you put them in a petri dish, and that's what happens.
So let's be clear, for an intelligent species this is a self inflicted predicament.
Not only are we failing to keep global warming to only 2 degrees centigrade, there are enough easily accessible hard hydrocarbon reserves in the ground we already know about to raise average global temperatures a whopping 8 to 12 degrees more.
An outcome that, let's face it, would be truly catastrophic.
So I I'm okay.
I'm this is comes from my wife, and I'm looking at the words you're saying on these.
You cannot avail your you cannot annihilate yourself by war.
You cannot pollute yourself into extinction.
I think you're what and I'm translating just for me to grasp at this.
What you're saying is the test is if or did they or could they or would they pollute themselves into extinction?
So this is each one of these, are not a test in the same word.
The the wording is off for me.
It's they are the are you the alpha species?
Are you, did you annihilate yourself by war?
Did you pollute yourself into extinction?
It's kind of the the sentences don't work, but I think I'm getting what you're saying that each one of these are something that the species could do that would or not if they don't do them, that's how they survive.
Well, I think I'm arguing even something more than that.
Okay.
I think I think the the, default mode is to annihilate yourself from war.
The default mode is to pollute yourself into extinction.
Oh, so That's
that's the default.
So it's it's not you can't.
It's did you.
Do do you or did you pollute yourself into extinction?
Did you or do you avail yourself of, annihilate yourself by war?
Well, if you if you did pollute yourself into extinction, you're no longer taking the test.
The the reason it's challenging for me is because of the the first one, alpha species on the planet.
So did you become the alpha species or did you it's there's no damage there.
You just became it.
So the other 2 and this is just a you remember Sesame Street?
One of these things doesn't is not like the other.
It I understand what you're getting at now, but I got a little bit lost in the way it was framed.
Not bad.
Just I got a little bit lost.
So now I'm following you in that line of thinking.
So thank you.
Yeah.
Because it's it's, I think I think the standard, path is to annihilate yourself.
Mhmm.
The standard path is to pollute yourself into extinction.
So you have to not do that.
But but the first one doesn't apply, and that's my point.
Did you become the alpha species?
Well, stop it, David.
If you did, you pass the test.
If you don't, you don't pass the
test.
Right.
Okay.
So You could you could phrase it that way.
You you could say the first test is to make sure that you don't not become the opposite.
Yes.
Did you become the opposite?
Did you
like the language.
Well, that's what I'm saying.
It was the language part that I I'm a very literal person.
But I'm I I listen to the words people say, but not only the word.
I'm adding the the inflection or the the positioning of the word.
And the funny thing is I don't have a huge vocabulary.
But the way in which it was phrased, that's where my mind just kinda said, okay.
Let me clarify this.
So, yes, now I understand what you're saying, the default mode.
So we're so so far, we're we're doing okay, but we're not doing okay.
We're right on the cusp.
Yeah.
We're
not doing okay.
We are right on the cusp.
And you you hit that you hit that perfectly.
And that's and that's one of the points I'm gonna make here.
Okay.
So number 4.
Yeah.
So, you know, let's just finish number 3.
So the decreasing bottom line on number 3 is there are enough remaining hard hydrocarbons to literally do ourselves in.
So we basically can drill, baby drill until we suffocate to death in our own toxic stew.
So that is revenge of the dinosaurs indeed.
Is there is there a movie, Revenge of the Dinosaurs?
Yeah.
Revenge of the Dinosaurs.
Okay.
They did make a they did great movie.
How do you In
fact, in fact, I don't think we need a movie.
I think we're living it.
Well, the hydrocarbons are not the only thing.
One of the challenges, the solid waste runoff for the 30 versions of runoff that go into our oceans.
So when you're using pollute yourself, I think you're also aggregating.
At least I would see it as aggregation of any type of pollution.
It's a total aggregation, but but global warming is the metaphor.
Okay.
Yep.
That works for me.
You you teach by metaphor and you teach by, analogy.
Otherwise, you get into the weeds and you lose every
Yeah.
Just just a clarification for me because there are individuals who are let me phrase it this way.
In Project Moon Hut, we don't place blame of where something came from.
It just exists.
You have to deal with what exists, not the blame.
And you can't go you can't you can't, you can only create tomorrow you can't fix yesterday.
So I often will say to individuals when they talk about some type of dire position, I said, let let me ask you a question.
If the number one person on the world disagreed with you on everything in you despise them for all of their beliefs and structure and anything, but you have a child that needs surgery, and this is the only one in the world that can do that, Would you allow this person to do surgery?
By the way, this is the worst person in the world.
I mean, you would never want to have anything with this person at all, but would you?
Every single person says, absolutely.
Yeah.
I went to I went to medical school with a number of those people.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I've, I was I did surgery, which I told you the story about.
So, so the the challenge for individuals is if we have, and I'm gonna use the word if because some people absolutely don't believe, even the friend that you and I have, does not believe that climate change was man made.
The the chat the thing is but these people are often brilliant, and they can help us with the next evolutionary solutions to ideas.
So we don't wanna turn them off.
So The the question I always ask when somebody tells me that, I don't think climate change is man made.
The question I ask them right back is, which climate change are you talking about?
Yeah.
Because if you're talking about this one, it's absolutely man made.
The the challenge is do you is the oh, that goes back to is the discussion worth the argument if you're talking about developing something that would be beneficial for the solution that you see viable.
So let me give you an example.
If I knew that there was a person who absolutely does not believe in climate change, however, they have an ability to create a new technology within the next year or the I've even seen it that could produce unbelievable energy.
They're so close.
They need some funding.
They don't even real think climate it's not for the purposes.
They wanna be wealthy.
I'm not gonna
start a
fight with them just to prove the point.
Let me ask you a technical question.
Sure.
I don't know anybody that doesn't believe in climate change.
I know a lot of people that don't believe in human
Correct.
Well, I'm using that terminology.
Yes.
There are I do know quite a few people who do not believe that climate change is human made, that it and they are unbelievably bright.
Unbelievably bright.
I know a few of those people too.
I do.
And so if they have a value to a project that you're working on, I'm gonna call it Project Moon Hut.
If they have a value to the initiative, and they have different directives that they're following, but it still gets us to the same place together, I'm game with that.
I'm not gonna sit on a call or talk to somebody for a long time about what they don't believe in.
Yeah.
We're we're go we're working together.
Let's just get this solved.
I agree.
We just move on down the road.
We just move on.
That's not the topic we bring up.
It's not something we're gonna agree on, but we care about each other.
We find each other valuable.
Let's do that.
So that's why the the word climate change is we point fingers at people too often.
At this point in the game, we can't be pointing fingers.
We have to look for solutions.
Well, the scenario you just described sounds like every family in the United States.
Yeah.
Especially at Thanksgiving.
I I've been to those dinners too.
It depends on it depends on the strong hand of the, patriarch or matriarch of that family.
Hey, David.
It's always a matriarch.
I look.
I'm trying to be an equal opportunity employer here.
Come on.
No.
No.
Don't kid yourself.
It's always a matriarch, and it should be.
It should be.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because they're smarter than we are.
Yes.
Absolutely.
And it's on recording now.
So we are No.
I'm serious.
Yeah.
I listen.
I'm I'm all in favor.
I think the I think the women ought to be in charge.
The men have had their turn.
They haven't done very well in my opinion.
So what's are we on to 4?
We're on to 4.
The 4th test is the test we're gonna talk about today.
The 4th test is you must get off your own home planet permanently in numbers sufficient to create self sustaining and self replicating communities in space.
Until this condition is met, the earth itself is a single point failure.
If, God forbid, something terrible happens to the earth as has happened at least 10 times in the past, it would be the end of the story, at least for us, not for the planet.
It could be a natural or a man made disaster.
It could be everything from plague to ecological collapse, to war, to to any number of things.
So remember the 20,000 megaton number I asked you to remember for world war 3?
Yep.
Okay.
Now consider this, a 1 kilometer impact asteroid impact to earth would deliver a 1000000 megatons of explosive power, 50 times the maximum possible destructive power of world war 3.
Any impact or greater than 1 kilometer in diameter is considered a civilization engine.
That's not my definition.
That's other people's definition.
And for a while, the search for near Earth asteroids was turning up 1 1 kilometer ride asteroid per day.
At least 6 of the 10 top extinction level events in history is due to an asteroid impact.
So just look at history.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for almost 200000000 years, but all it took was a single very bad afternoon to wipe them off the planet forever and they never came back.
No more than 10 to 12 early mammalian species survived that particular extinction.
Amazingly, we are their direct descendants.
So
How how many do you know how many do you know how many tons of megatons of impact was that?
Of the, 1 kilometer asteroid or the
The the one that took up the dinosaurs.
5000000 years ago.
Well, it was about the size of Mount Everest so we'll have we'll have to look it up.
Okay.
I didn't know
if you knew that.
But it was that it was big enough to wipe the dinosaurs off the face of the earth permanently.
Yeah.
And to kill, I think, up to 60, 65% of all the species on the planet.
And by the way, this has happened several times before.
I mean, obviously, it doesn't happen every day, but in if you're talking about geological time, it happens with relative frequency.
So the alternatives are pretty clear.
Leave the planet or perish.
It's really just that simple.
Every day we delay replacing massive all or nothing bet on the survival of the entire human species.
Someday, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, maybe not a 1000 years from now or a 100000 years from now, someday the odds will go against us.
What's the one?
There's one right now.
I don't know how large it is that's coming near us.
Well, of course, the dinosaurs didn't have a space burger.
No.
They I've seen plenty of dinosaurs with helmets on as if they had space suits.
That's right.
So I wonder why they didn't have the whole kit and caboodle to go up.
But I
know it does make you wonder that.
It does
what you I don't
think they had I don't think they had very good elementary school teacher.
Yes.
That's it.
They didn't get that they didn't get that nourishment as they were growing up.
That's right.
So there is a 5th test, but I'm not gonna talk about that one until the very end.
Okay.
So you mentioned this before, so let's take stock of how we're doing on our cosmic final exam.
So I think you could argue that we're now 1 out of 4 best case and even that one even that one that we apparently have solidly under our belt, that is becoming the alpha species on the planet, at least to me, seems more tentative every day.
So where are we really?
And I think we're our species is on the cusp of the next giant leap of our evolution, and that's the transition from a terrestrial to a celestial civilization.
Now please understand there is nothing preordained about this.
It's not destiny.
It's a choice.
Choices have consequences.
This particular one is significant and if we don't accomplish this transition will go extinct.
That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So let's talk about what intelligent species do in a general sense.
You're a biologist so you'll understand and resonate with this.
Intelligent species expand, adapt, and ultimately transform their habitats.
It's really important not to put a value judgment on that.
That's just what intelligent species do.
Mhmm.
They either do it successfully or unsuccessfully.
If it's the former, they live another day.
If it's the latter, they perish.
And apparently, the universe really doesn't seem to have a stake in the matter either way.
It does not care.
Species can either perish like the proverbial frog in the pot of increasingly warming water or be completely wiped out for by black swan events.
Just ask the dinosaurs.
I can't.
They're not here.
Well, that's the reason.
I know.
I'm joking with you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, in a way, I have always looked at history.
I don't think there's really anything new under the sun.
People talk about the expansion of humanity into space as something completely new, different.
I don't see it that way at all.
I think that's what human beings have done since they started walking upright, and they're just basically continuing the journey, and the setting is a little different.
But the theme is the same.
So when you look at the golden age of exploration, you know, sailing ships routinely ply the Mediterranean for several 1000 years before the golden age of exploration began in 15th century.
However, once extended transoceanic voyages were attempted, it didn't take crew captains or their respective patrons long to realize that long duration voyages across a vast expanse of ocean were a whole new ballgame.
Mhmm.
Magellan left Spain about 500 years ago with 5 ships and a crew of 265 men.
3 years later only one stricken ship and 18 men half dead from starvation and disease limped into Seville Harbor after circumnavigating the globe.
Jellon lost fully 80% of his crew to scurvy and known that heretofore rare disease crossing the the Pacific even though he and his voyage changed the course of history.
So fast forward to the 21st century, after being mired in low earth orbit since 1972, that's 52 years ago, Long duration habitation and crude void crude voyages across interplanetary distances are being seriously contemplated.
If that's successful, humanity's course will undoubtedly change again.
So it looks to me like deep space may be the early transoceanic exploration, but low earth orbit is to the Mediterranean Sea.
Yeah.
I would agree.
So I basically grew up with the space program.
Astronomy was my first love, but between you and me, it was the rescue of Apollo 13 that changed the course of my life.
And so I'm sure you've seen the movie.
Almost everybody that I've ever known has seen the movie.
Anybody who was alive in 1970 or or seen the movie knows the story.
Flight director Gene Kranz and his flight control team had to deal with the initial hours of an unfolding catastrophe, which essentially became a race against time to keep the spacecraft and therefore the crew alive.
They set the constraints for the consumption of spacecraft consumables like oxygen, electricity, and water.
They made the decision to use the new module as a lifeboat.
cardboard, paper, scissors, and duct tape.
They controlled the 3 course correction burns during the trans earth trajectory and created an in space power procedure for an essentially dead command module, which had never before been done or even simulated.
It allowed the astronauts to jump into it in the last second, jettison the lunar module, and parachute safely back to Earth.
So, you know, David, we've seen this ethos before of keeping your cool, not freaking out, getting a grasp for the situation no matter how desire how dire, then thinking it through and doing the math.
Prioritize sequencing the problems, and then you focus on one problem at a time always mindful that the solution to one problem can inadvertently create otherwise.
That's essentially the same philosophy that was embodied in that Andy Weir character of Mark Watney in the Martian.
Mhmm.
Of course, let's be clear.
If Watney hadn't been a life scientist, he wouldn't have a prick.
Yes.
So I'm sure you you have seen that famous picture of the splashdown of the real Apollo 13 taken in the mission control center showed Gene Kranz, a lead flight director who was played by Ed Harris in the movie, standing at his console enjoying the well deserved victory cigar.
On the big board was the live video of the face of commander John Lovell safely aboard the aircraft carrier Iwo Jimi in the Pacific.
That picture was burned into my brain as a 20 year old.
So here's the point.
The Apollo 13 team, including the astronauts, had to deal with truth as it was in all its ugly and complex manifestations, not what they wanted it to be.
For their heroic roles, Krantz's team and the crew subsequently received the presidential medal of freedom.
Now I followed that emerging crisis of Apollo 13 real time with laser like focus.
I was to tell you the truth, I was completely transfixed by the tremendous confidence, tenacity, and creativity of Krantz and his incredible team, and I decided that was one of the things I most wanted to do in my life.
12 years to the day after that famous photo was taken in 1970, through a series of seemingly random events and more than a little luck, After years of college, graduate school, military, medical school, surgical internship, and residency in aerospace medicine, as well as months of intense study covering every aspect of spaceflight operations including guidance, navigation, calm, propulsion, flight dynamics, shuttle systems and subsystems, special training in the environmental control and life support system, as well as the successful completion of scores of intense mission control, ascent, orbit, and entry simulations.
I was granted admission to one of the most exclusive clubs on earth, Gene Francis flight control team.
Wow.
It was and still is one of the proudest accomplishments of my life.
Now in the mission control center, every flight controller is an expert at his or her own his or her his or her own area of expertise.
The physician who sits at the surgeon's console is the only front room controller whose area of expertise is the human.
Every flight controller works directly for the flight director.
The spacecraft commander is in charge of the vehicle, but the flight director is the ultimate authority for the mission.
In that room, the flight director is God.
Not even the president of the United States can override the flight director, and that's built into the flight rules.
So, in mission control, one of my first challenges was to get a p stand alone PC in Mission Control.
Oh, yeah.
This is okay.
Yeah.
And so I had to go against 25 years of precedent protocol in order to get that to happen, but I was the one that had the real valid requirement.
And that was I had medical data that I had to keep private.
So it took me about a year of going up against the powers that be, including Ford Aerospace.
And so in doing so, I was the first one to get a PC into mission control, and I developed a reputation for being a disruptor.
As I got older, my defense against the in the invariable organizational pushback was always the same.
Cite the numbers, reference the studies, and make my case forcefully and and directly.
Now you know what the term going postal means.
Right?
Yes.
I do.
So there was a new term that sprung up kinda toward the end of my tenure.
The way that just just for clarity, just in case someone doesn't going postal, why don't you give your definition of it?
Well, going postal, refers to an event that happened at the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma, where a worker just basically went in circle one day and started injuring people around him.
And so it it, I think he actually killed a few people.
Yeah.
I think he did.
And so that that that whole event was made into kind of a verb, which was going postal.
So at the end of my tenure, a news term kind of sprang up, which was going to Logan.
And when I asked somebody, I asked a stranger, if he didn't know who I was, what it meant, he told me it meant telling an especially brutal version of the truth.
So when we're talking about the prospects for humanity in space, I am going to continue the legacy.
After all, I have a reputation to maintain, and I'm gonna tell an especially brutal version of the truth.
Now here's why.
There's a tremendous amount of misinformation out there.
A lot of things are being said or implied on the Internet, on social media, the mainstream media, and even the people at NASA by those who should know better about humans in space that just simply aren't true or based on a mistaken understanding of human physiology, biology, and adaptation.
This means you Elon Musk.
So Okay.
So that's that's that's the invite.
You gotta listen.
Yeah.
Alright.
So let me but before I start, let me let me start
And and by the way, this is where you and I got connected at this point.
It was, I I again, we you and I had 2 and a half hours or 3 hours of conversation, but the original intention was I had heard some things that were because I'm not a space person, using that loosely word, I get all sorts of information from amazing people that always say that what they're saying is the truth.
Everything from budgets, from time frames, from capabilities.
And then every time I turn around, something is counter to that.
Whether a company was supposed to be doing incredibly well, like we just had the the news that's been coming out on Voyager, all the way through down to a technology that was supposed to be revolutionary, evolutionary, dynamic, and then we find out none of it's ever worked.
So, and you you've heard these stories of promises that are made.
And in Project Moon Hunter, the work that we're doing, we're trying to be very pragmatic.
So I actually called you because I wanted to hear the raw data from somebody else.
So that I in in my role and the work that I have to do with your organization, I have to hear it even though I don't like it.
And that's why our conversation was, as I shared with you before we got on, my wife said, do you really want him on the program?
And I said, yeah.
And she said, yeah.
But you guys were going at it.
I said, well, we weren't going at it.
We were discussing and trying to figure things out.
And I said, by the way, I got an email from him just, you know, the next day, I said I got an email from him.
Great conversation.
I said he and I got along.
We just got along by challenging each other.
That's right.
And that's okay.
So the reason that I called you is because people said you have a different interpretation of the biological side and the necessary requirements for the biological side to survive, but you had more.
And that was the reason that I wanted to have you, even though I you know, we had that rough conversation.
It was a perfect conversation.
Well, it was a perfect conversation.
Yeah.
It was great.
It was an intense discussion.
Yeah.
And the best the best discussions are the intense discussions.
Yeah.
I I loved it.
So I'm my body kinda reacted when you said the misinformation because I'm sitting here saying and and, Jim, you don't know my journey in terms of information.
But I I I've been told some amazing things that I don't know how people even think them.
Yeah.
About the whole ecosystem of capabilities out there and and possibilities and finance and funding and you name it.
And yesterday, I was on a call with one of our teammates.
He he and I had a conversation about finance, and he was just ripping into companies and their the way they're structured and how they're getting there.
We started off with Voyager, and I asked about some of the other companies out there.
I won't list them now.
And he was ripping into them.
They don't have a business model at work.
This won't work.
That won't work.
A module like this won't work.
And and he was doing the math for me.
And he comes from a finance background, business development background, and it was brilliant.
So, yeah, I've I love to hear it, but that's why that's one of the reasons I'm I'm wanting to I wanted to do an interview because I wanted to hear these things.
Well and so, you know, let me kinda start with a warning and a caveat.
You know, first, the warning.
Some of my remarks may border on Harrison for you.
But, keep an open mind, and please don't shoot the messenger.
Actually, it's not that with you, Jim.
I I know our our personalities bang, but that was a good convert good interest changes because I haven't been involved, I mean, 10 years in in various forms, given being data from NASA to you name it from I knew people from Russia, all different places around the world.
And it's so contradictory of one another, that it's very difficult to decipher what is reality from what is not when everybody just wants to go to space.
That's right.
And you can't build a plan.
Hope is not a plan.
Just coming up with a plan that you think will work and then saying, well, the numbers will work.
No.
That doesn't it's not how it works.
I I have the we have the saying, I think I went over.
It was at 2 minutes and 19 seconds when SpaceX rocket blew up.
Was it 2016?
And I was at NASA and the guy walks in.
I won't mention his name.
He says, see see, David, space is hard.
And it was a gut reaction.
It was not a a cognitive action.
I said, space is not hard.
Earth is hard.
We have a deep gravity well.
We have technology.
We have politics.
We have finance.
We have, temperature variations, you know, inclinations.
We have all of this.
And as a matter of fact, when we get to space, we're pretty good at it overall.
Space is harsh.
It's a geography that's harsh.
But the real challenges are solving for telemetry, solving for biology, creating the new materials.
All of those things take years years decades to be able to get to something that might work.
And so the challenges and I'm kind of bringing it back to this misinformation is even with you, I'm saying, so don't worry about the heresy.
I'm saying, okay, I'm gonna hear a perspective.
It's gonna be another one.
And then I have to, in my mind, to be able to to plan and work and build.
I have to then go say to somebody else, is Jim full of it?
Does he know what he's talking about?
He sounds good.
He sounds smart.
So I appreciate it.
So let's get on to your caveat of heresy.
No.
I'm okay with that.
I just wanna hear it and give it raw.
Well and, you know, I have to, again, point out that the majority of my professional career has been dedicated to human space flight.
As I've said previously, you know, I I think the eventual specie eventual success or failure of our species depends in large part on our ability to get off the planet in numbers that are that are, sufficient to do multiple self sustaining, self replicating, and thriving communities.
So, you know, the fact is single planet species don't survive.
So that makes me a believer.
You know?
I'm a believer that we have to do this.
But the bottom line, from my perspective, as an aerospace medicine and, biology expert is that we are woefully unprepared for the interplanetary or deep space phase of human spaceflight.
But but that's an assumptiveness that you start a single planetary species don't survive.
You don't know if they might have survived for 1000000 of years on other planets around the universe.
You don't even know if they've been that any of them were making an assumption here.
So it's a huge assumption.
I can live with it because we don't have any evidence otherwise, but we also don't have evidence that it does happen.
So I'm taking this for yes.
In your in your vantage point, single species don't survive.
Therefore, these paradigms, these these pieces of information that prevent us from getting there, part of your 5 tests need to be overcome to get there.
We could theoretically, Jim, be the first species on any planet anywhere in the billions of galaxies around the universe that actually does this.
That's a possibility.
It's a possibility.
And we and we're probably in our lifetime, at least in, yeah, in the next 40 years, we I'm I'm not sure we're gonna see Vulcan's landing on Earth.
Yeah.
I don't think that's the way it's gonna happen.
So, basically, I I really think we're woefully unprepared as I can get it from my perspective, and if present trends continue, I think we'll find ourselves dangerously unprepared.
So instead of boldly going where no one has gone before, we'll usher in what I metaphorically call the scurvy phase of space exploration.
Okay.
So even the term space is a misnomer.
It implies the cosmos is some kind of empty, bland, unthreatening, benign nothingness.
And therefore, once you get there, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
That is magical thinking.
Magical thinking is epidemic in the entire space arena, including unfortunately the halls of NASA as well as the head offices of so called new space corporations.
And you and I know exactly who I'm talking about.
Yeah.
Magical thinkers And
I and I'm gonna say on a global scale because we're global.
We have had individuals from around the world, and we do have teams in all four corners of the world of the globe.
They have this is a huge challenge, and it's a very, very, very, very, very difficult thing to engage with a person whose assumptions are so counter dimensional to reality.
How do you how do you I don't sometimes it's, like, okay.
I've gotta move on because I can't fight this battle of perception.
Well, you took the words pretty much right out of my mouth.
I mean, magical thinkers love truthiness, and that's a term that was coined by Stephen Colbert, meaning the quality of seeming or being felt to be true even if not necessarily true.
So one of the things I've learned over the years, David, is that is that in a very real sense, space is a projective psychological test, just like the famous Rorschach.
I've even come up with a formula for magical thinking.
Magical thinking is equal to ignorance to the power of arrogance.
I say it again because I I laughed and I stopped for the it's ignorance.
It's,
Ignorance to the power of arrogance.
Magical thinking is ignorance to the power of arrogance.
I have to think about that.
Yeah.
When you combine magical thinking with a media culture that values clicks over credibility, the result is pretty predictable.
So the ascension of magical thinking in space circles parallels the rise of what I and many others euphemistically refer to as space cadets.
So let me describe the type, and I apologize beforehand if I offend anybody.
No.
No.
But wait.
Wait.
Wait.
Wait.
So, I'm going to guarantee you if people were listening to, you and I having a private conversation, and we were saying we're let's say we're having lunch like we right now, you and I are just sitting across the table talking, and someone's listening in.
I can guarantee you out of the beyond Earth ecosystem, and I I you heard last time, space is not an industry.
It's a geography.
You know, there's no water.
There's no land.
There's no air.
The space is not an industry.
It there's a life support industry.
There's the rocket to the logistics industry.
Those are industries.
And but I can guarantee you, the people who listen to this are saying, I'm not in that group.
I have done the math.
I have done the orbital dynamics.
I have figured this out.
So he's talking about somebody else.
Well, you you and I, and we all know these people.
So let's just let's talk about
them a
little bit.
Space cadets are driven by ideology rather than evidence.
They're more zealot than visionary.
They're frustrated with a lack of real progress in space exploration and enraged, in many cases understandably, at what they perceive as timidity and risk aversion by people and organizations making the decisions and setting the priorities.
You and I both know people like that.
Yep.
As we've said before, they see space as a blank screen upon which they psychologically project their greatest hopes, deepest fears, strangest quirks, and favorite philosophies.
Most of the time, they're neither reason nor seasoned.
What knowledge they have is broad but rarely deep.
They're the epitome of the statement of little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Usually, but not always, they have no operational or any real scientific or engineering credentials and are disdainful or even outright hostile to those who do.
They tend to be deniers and if you dig deep enough there's almost always a hint of paranoia or even conspiracy theory.
In my experience they have not learned that any perception or truth that is isolated and removed from its larger context ceases to be true.
In many ways they're mainstream Americans.
As my German friends at ESA frequently observed, well, Jim, only in America do we find people who think the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.
Well, I I'm gonna be
a little bit more, global again in perspective.
It's not just in America.
No.
I know.
It's but yeah.
It's it's
But in many ways, they are mainstream America.
Yeah.
They can be mainstream Americans.
I didn't say they were just Americans.
I know that.
I know that.
I'm just I'm just you said it.
I'm just tagging on to remember words are I I pick up on words very quickly.
And when I hear it, I I have been in my journey through this ordeal is I've met an incredible amount of people from all over the world who have unbelievable talents.
The the going back to that interconnectedness, that intersectionality, if all of these people actually got together and were able to discount the ideas that are not going to work or they're not feasible or they don't make the math or, you know, space earth is hard in figuring out the politics or if they all got together, we could get there.
The challenge is they're all dispersed with their own ideologies, their own perceptions, and they they kind of counter they're counterproductive because not enough synergy is created in one environment to move certain needles forward fast enough.
Well and also and I've I've lived overseas.
I agree with I agree with my German friends.
Only in America you live?
I lived in Strasbourg, France.
Okay.
I was I was the first provost of International Space University.
Oh, so we've we've had on we've had on Juan de la Motte.
We've had on Pascal Unfront.
Yeah.
We've had, 2, I think, from the International Space University.
Mhmm.
Yeah.
I was the I was the first provin, so I was the one that took the beach and have the scars to prove it.
And, but my German friends are accurate when they observe that only in America do we find people who think the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.
David, you have to admit that's true.
Yeah.
It is.
I, yes.
And I
lived in Hong Kong for a decade.
I lived in Luxembourg.
I know.
Yes.
So, yes, I it's a very different world when you look at from the outside in.
And even though, you know, you you've lived there, it's a challenging or a challenging situation that those type of perceptions have have, I'm gonna say germinated to the point of their full bone full blown belief systems.
Yes.
They are.
They are.
And, you know, as let me go back to being the 1st provost in International Space University.
We had about 30 graduate students from maybe 15 or 16 countries, including Russia and the People's Republic of China.
That summer was the first summer after Tiananmen Square that the Chinese authority permitted their students to go attend foreign seminars, basically.
And I had to juggle many different cultures, And the one culture and I can say this categorically.
The culture that I have the most problem with were the Americans.
Mhmm.
And, and second were the Canadians.
Because Why?
Because not not just not what you just said, the Germans, but what else?
Too busy trying to pretend like they were Americans.
Yeah.
The Japanese were a joy to work with.
The Europeans were great.
The Russians were superb.
The Chinese were very cooperative.
It was the Americans that gave me a prop.
So I I would and I'm gonna caveat that for the sake of I I know you've at least somewhat that there are plenty of individuals who don't fall into the categories that you're articulating, and it's not all Americans.
And, culturally, this kind of and I'm using a broad brush, and I'm not trying to be too broad, but I I'm gonna use it for the sake of argument just to get the point out.
Is that the same tenacity, the same argumentative, the same stubbornness, all of these things that one might look at from an out external perspective and say, see, look at that, is the same reason that certain things have been accomplished in this country that other countries have not achieved.
That's true.
So there is a again, there's a I I wanna I'm protecting you on this one.
Hey.
What you mean is one thing, but you also I've gotta believe you understand that.
Those are sometimes the things that get someone to say, excuse me, fuck it all.
And I don't swear that often on the on a program.
We're gonna do this anyway.
And they're the ones who push through and made it to where other people are not.
So I'm gonna say that there's a a negative to that, but there's also a positive.
Well, like I've said in my 135 words summary of 300000 years of of, human history, it cuts both ways.
Yep.
Intelligence cuts both ways.
Okay.
So these let's go back to the space cadence.
You can recognize these people by these signs.
Number 1, they react very negatively to any inconvenient truth that doesn't jive with their belief system.
2, and I know you've heard this, David, they spout a one sentence solution to any problem no matter how complex.
I call this I I call this the magic wand phenomenon.
Basically, what they say is quote, well, you could just and then you fill in the blank, end quote, period, end of discussion.
I will go even further when you say, well, where's the plan?
They said, I just told you the plan.
And I said, no.
That's not a plan.
That's an idea.
Where's the backup plan to make this happen?
David, do you not get it?
I just told you.
That's true.
That's that that that there's no there's nothing there.
I can't do anything.
Oh, come on, David.
You always do this to me.
Like, what did I do to you?
I just asked you for a plan and you gave me an idea.
So, yes, I've I've heard that so often.
And so these people have real difficulty with detachment, which is the ability to let the difficult facts of reality work their way into the mind.
That's the definition of detachment.
Now when I was at NASA, they were the people who believed subconsciously perhaps that they could literally change the laws of nature by a PowerPoint slide.
I've seen it many times.
Okay.
Now, David, I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, why is this guy Logan so hard on space cadence?
Because I've been pretty hard on him.
So here's my confession.
I was a teenage space cadet.
Just like every other addiction, even if you stay clean for years, you're still a recovering addict.
So let me give you my story.
Okay.
Do you remember the do you remember the famous publicity poster from the movie 2,001 A Space Odyssey?
I I remember some.
I'm, I don't have a good memory of movies.
So if you but my my my definition of a movie is the girl who was with the, like, the blonde hair who was talking to that person who's very famous, who you've seen, you know, you've seen them on the
red carpet.
This poster you've seen.
Is this the one who was kinda curved?
No.
This poster was showed a huge lunar base on the floor of Clavius Crater, 2 transports departing at the same time from the perspective of several EVA astronauts space suits taking readings on the lunar soil from handheld instruments.
Remember that poster?
Yes.
I do.
It was a beautiful artistic depiction of a vision of the future.
And by the way, I I I pulled it up just to make sure.
Yes.
Yeah.
That's it.
You're looking at
it probably.
Right?
Yes.
Okay.
Now the movie was draw dropping because it was made in widescreen 70 millimeter super panavision 3 d emulating cinerama.
I was almost 18 when it came out.
I must have seen it a dozen times.
I couldn't get enough.
Everything about it called to me and resonated with me.
I just knew deep in my heart and soul this is the way it's going to be.
I basically fell in love with the truthiness of it all, and it was one of the main reasons I was inspired to get to NASA and to help as, Star Trek's Captain Picard might say, to make it so.
Mhmm.
Every generation has its special touchstones that electrify the imagination.
For me personally and many in my generation, it was the magic of cinema, the vision of Stanley Kubrick, the narrative of Arthur c Clark, and the shoe audacious boldness of the Apollo program.
Okay.
Now let me give you the punch line.
Yeah.
Now a full 56 years later with the hindsight of a 40 year career in space medicine and direct mission support, I must unfortunately report to you there is nothing depicted in that 2,001 vision that has withstood the test of time.
Nothing.
Virtually everything about what it shows, what it depicts, what it implies, and what it promises is no longer compatible with what we know about the space environment.
So if you think our future looks something like astronauts waking up on the moon, drinking their tang, going outside in spacesuits with their picks and shovels or scientific instruments in spacesuits, doing routine lunar surface EVAs, or exploring the surface of the moon in small pressurized rovers like a fancy RV, or living in pretty metallic dome shaped habitats on the moon or Mars with a personal rover in the driveway, tending crops into a plexiglass bubble sprawled out across the surface.
And admit it, David, we've all seen those kinds of depictions many times.
Oh, no.
Not not only I I've I've bought I've actually spent the money on buying some of these books because I I hold them up to people and I say to them, do you actually think this is real?
Like, playing having a space large enough to have a basketball court with trees growing and palm trees and windows that are 40 feet wide so people could look out.
And they're the only person standing in it.
And I where?
Who?
How?
So Yeah.
Yes.
So so if you're the kind of person that that thinks that, I have bad news for you.
You're not gonna like the first 2 thirds of this podcast.
Hang on hang on to the bitter end for an honest and evidence based bit of optimism.
Okay.
So the truth may indeed set you free, but not before it's likely to royally hack you off.
So reality is not the enemy.
Denial is the enemy.
If you listen, really listen to what reality is telling you regardless of your preconceived notions, reality becomes a kind of a compass heading kind of a compass heading to show you the way forward.
That's the overriding theme of the rest of my podcast here.
Okay.
But but first
I'm good.
So we're we're so, we're now on magical thinking arise of space cadets.
But you when you're saying and it's interesting because I didn't expect it in this category.
You were talking about these, you're going to be extremely harsh.
I don't think you're extremely harsh, but the the misinformation.
So you're not really giving misinformation.
You're giving misperpectives because I I
I'm not giving misperspectives.
I'm giving reality.
No.
No.
That's what I mean is it's not when I see misinformation, I think of information as data.
You know, how long someone could survive, what has to cover someone on the moon, how does, radiation how it's gonna really impact us.
But what you transit you actually went to was the misinformation of the human mind to accept the realities of the condition of planning, thinking something through.
And if you don't accept those realities of misthinking, then you can't create plans and create opportunities that work.
Yeah.
You can create fear.
Correct.
So that
that's my point.
But you can't but you can't create success.
And I took the misinformation in a different context.
So, yes, now I understand where it meant it was that you were really setting the framework for and I sent you a copy paid to think.
One of the things is if you if you don't if you don't start from the beginning well with plans, you can keep on evolving to them.
But the better you start, the longer you have or the the better data, better better direction, better, theories that you work with, the more chance you have of getting there.
It doesn't mean it'll happen, but you have a better chance.
And point a laser beam to the moon, move at a left a centimeter, move it to the right to centimeter, you'll miss the moon.
So if we're going to get there, you have to at least start with a solid foundation.
So That's right.
Now I've got the misinformation.
It's more of a mental misinformation than it has a
Exactly.
It's it's it's the psychological construct.
That's it.
Yes.
Okay.
Perfect.
Now I got it.
Okay.
So let me give you a couple of realities.
So so we're we're into numbers, 5, still space realities.
Let's see.
Where are we?
It's 5 is space realities.
Yeah.
5 is space realities.
So here we are.
Here's reality 1, and this is through the eyes of an expert that spent most of his adult life in the operational human space arena.
K?
So here's reality 1.
Space is always trying to kill you either slowly or rapidly.
I mean, folks, look.
We're biological systems, which means human beings are extremely fragile and vulnerable.
We aren't supermen and superwomen.
We exist and have our being within a very, very thin range of environmental parameters.
That's a huge constraint.
So the mantra that I subscribe to is one I learned from Gene Kranz and mission control which I assure you I assure you Gene Kranz was completely reality based.
And the mission control mantra was in God we trust all else bring numbers.
You can debate numbers.
That is you can deconstruct the assumptions, interpretations, and pedigrees of the numbers, but you can't debate ideology.
Mhmm.
Now I I have to admit I become particularly crotcheted as I approach elder status.
I pretty much exit the conversation when I sense it's degraded to the equivalent of debating religion.
Every time I hear magical thinking rhetoric in terms of space I get a sinking feeling of deja mu.
That's the nauseating feeling I've heard all this bull before.
So debating with a space cadet is like fighting with a pig, you just get dirty and the pig loves it.
So I was hard on the space cadets, but we remind everybody that's because I used to be 1.
Uh-huh.
I I got it.
I got it.
Makes sense.
So let's do the numbers.
We now have a considerable body of evidence.
2024 is year 63 of human space flight.
We've flown almost 580 men and women in over 278 space missions and have a cumulative experience of about a 150 person years more or less of spaceflight experience.
What does the evidence tell us about what should we be doing and why?
And perhaps even just as important is what we should not be doing, where we should go, how we should do it, and what goals could successfully justify the entire endeavor even if that attitude threatens our long cherished yet perhaps ultimately unsustainable truthy belief systems.
Okay.
Here's reality 2.
I hear people all the time discussing going to the moon or Mars like it was old hat, but the reality is we are almost complete neophytes when it comes to experience on other celestial bodies.
So let's talk about the numbers for just a second.
6 Apollo missions logged 300 hours on the moon, including 81 hours of EVA.
There were 2 person crews that went to the surface, so you got 600 surface hours and a 162 hours of EVA.
How many how many surface hours?
600 surface hours, a 162 of which was EVA.
Okay.
Okay.
The average surface time per Apollo astronaut in the entire Apollo program let me say that again.
The average surface time, talking about lunar surface time Mhmm.
Per Apollo lunar astronaut was are you ready for it?
Drum roll.
Mhmm.
2.08 days.
The average surface EVA time per astronaut was 13.5 hours.
That's it, folks.
That's the summation of our experience.
No human being has been any further from the home planet than Silicon Valley is from Los Angeles in 52 friggin years.
That is until 10 days ago, September 10th.
Polaris Dawn, the second all civilian commercial mission, meaning it had absolutely nothing to do with NASA, went to Earth orbit.
It was collaboration between the mission commander, a billionaire, Jerry Eisenman, and Elon Musk's SpaceX.
They flew to a high point in their orbit of about 870 miles above the earth's surface and that beat the record for astronauts not on a mission headed to the moon which the Gemini 11 mission set in 1966 at 853 miles and made 2 female members of this 4 person crew, Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon, both SpaceX employees, the first women to fly so far from Earth.
8 days ago, Isaacson and Sarah Gillis became the 1st private astronauts in history to successfully complete a space war.
During their 5 day mission, the 4 astronauts conducted about 40 experiments mostly about weightlessness and radiation and how radiation affects the human body.
They also tested laser communications between the crew crew Dragon and SpaceX's constellation of Starlink Internet satellites.
Now in my in my personal mind, Polaris Dawn is a very big deal because it showed conclusively space travel and space walks are no longer the exclusive domain of professional astronauts working at government agencies like NASA and will never be so again.
Perhaps we can come back to that concept a little later.
It has a lot of implications.
However, just to make sure we don't get too cocky, here are a couple of more relevant statistics.
870 miles above the earth is less than 4 tenths of 1% the distance to the moon.
Furthermore, less than 8 tenths of 1% of all the cumulative human experience in space in history has been in deep space.
That is beyond the protective magnetosphere of the earth fully 99.2 percent of the total human experience in space today has occurred in Leo, lower earth orbit.
So far we're only neophytes in deep space and we've only taken baby steps.
Okay.
You ready for reality 3?
I'm I'm following you.
Okay.
Reality 3 is the biggest challenges to interplanetary human space flight is flight dynamics, which is always constrained by the cold, hard physics of the rocket equation.
I am amazed how many space people I run into that have never even heard of the rocket equation, much less what it says.
So related to celestial and I'm talking about people at NASA too.
I and it's funny you bring it up.
We just were working we've been working with, doing orbital dynamics with, c space exploration.
The company and our team has been working with them, but one of our teammates, he's been spending the past 6, I don't know, 3 months just going through all of the equations to figure out how to be able to make this happen.
And it's it's, it's just unbelievably complicated.
That's right.
And that's the reason I've listed flight dynamics as the biggest challenge interplanetary human space.
It's huge.
It's everything from how much fuel you need, what type of fuel you need, what weight can you carry?
How far can you go?
How long can you sustain it?
How do you how do you, re refuel?
I mean, it it determines everything.
And I'll go back to Earth is hard, because you're doing this all on Earth.
You're also figuring out capital cost.
You're figuring out if the country that you're trying to launch out of will allow that type of fuel to be used.
You've got health and safety issues of whether they'll permit that type of rocket in that size and that shape, and it's gotta be reviewed by people who don't even know the orbital dynamics or how these things work.
And and all of those decisions are being made continuously.
And and the people don't know it.
I mean, it's just unbelievably surprising to me.
Well and so what we've established is you and I you and I agree.
Yeah.
A 100%.
And I I'm I'm in I'm not even a new I'm I'm below a nothingness here.
I mean, serious seriously.
That's
not true.
I I well, you haven't spoken to my wife, have you?
So I you know, I'm I'm in the less than I get a 0 point a 0 something.
I got a point before it.
Now the it's a a it is a surprising thing that and and I'm gonna give you a data point because I'm I've not been an Apollo.
I've not been a follower.
I mean, when I was young, I I was able to see the landing on the moon.
I was able to I had the newspapers, but I kept in my closet.
I really do spend most of my time, biologists.
I like Earth.
I like looking outside, and people have heard of the podcast that has been my focus.
And then this whole journey started in a series of events, which we have a video online, the 3rd video in the series on our website.
And it has just come to Hans Kugmersman came in, started talking to us.
He did our last pod, podcast 1 or 2 before he did a podcast with us.
We were introduced to, Mike Lukes, and we started talking about, you know, Mike.
Yeah.
We started talking to Mike and Chris Djanek, on the call.
Mike Mike refers to himself as a free range, fighter.
Yeah.
Flight dynamics officer.
And and he does he does the math, and he even admitted that he wasn't the person to create that next gen of what that rocket or how would manage that somebody else comes to him and makes that case.
And then we had Andreas Bergwiler out of Germany, and we're really wrestling with this.
But the surprises with everything we've shown people, and you haven't even seen the majority of work we've done you, you and I had conversations, but you haven't seen our designs, you haven't seen the 4 phases, you haven't seen the development, you haven't seen all of that.
Nobody.
Nobody brought up orbital dynamics or orbital mechanics, in all the time we've been designing everything not and I'm going to be if this is a fundamental, literally, it's a fundamental need in order to make anything happen beyond earth.
Yes.
Why wasn't it?
The first question, you're looking to do this, have you at least addressed the orbital dynamics or the capacity or the something?
And and the answer
is the answer is an assumptiveness that well, like, Elon will solve it.
Well, Elon doesn't change orbital dynamics.
He doesn't.
He doesn't.
He he doesn't have any say in it.
And or they'll and they'll or they'll or they'll say, well, when we get it's kind of like, when the something will arrive, it'll happen.
Like, there's an it's going to happen.
Someone's gonna find a way.
It's not happening.
Well, that's because they're coming from a position of ideology and not data.
So I I'm so with you that it is frustrating to get to this point.
I can't even think of an analogy.
You're building a home.
You've got the framework.
You've got everything done.
And someone walks up to you and says, well, did you add the ax?
And you say, what do you mean what ax?
Well, like, when you were putting it down in the ground and you you had to put that underneath the foundation to do that?
Did did you do that?
What are you talking about?
We had it approved.
The architects designed it.
They looked at it.
We have multiple reviews of it.
It had to be submitted to the board.
We had to talk to our engineers.
We had to make sure they the contractor agreed with it.
We started building it.
We got it financed.
Are you telling me that we needed an x?
Oh, yeah.
To build in this territory, you have to have an x.
There's just just no doubt about it.
And it's it's like that little it's like that cowboy that walks up to you chewing and spinning tobacco who's, you know, just kinda standing next to you and says, yeah.
Never gonna work.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
Never gonna work.
Seen it before a 1000 times.
Did anybody tell you about that?
Nope.
So that's kind of why I'm feeling and it's funny that you do bring it up.
So apologize for the ranting.
Oh, no.
You're But it but it's so freaking important.
And the reason is people don't understand that everything in the solar system is part of an intricate, multi body gravity ballet.
So I I yeah.
People don't understand that, and the space cadets really don't get that.
And I I tip my hat to Andreas Bergwiler.
He has he has been frustrated as can be trying to figure some of these things out.
And I think the food that he eats, he actually puts on his food the formulas so he doesn't forget them.
That it's really it's really scary how complicated this is.
Well, it you know, and so, you know, people talk about delta v, which is short for change in velocity.
Yep.
And, of course, you know, as you know, that's the oomph that it takes in terms of kilometers per second to get from one place to another in the solar system.
The oomph.
The higher
I'd love that.
Yeah.
That's the tech that's
the technical term.
Term.
Yeah.
I was just I
I thought you'd say it's the the, the the expulsion out the end of a rocket or something more a little bit more technical, but it's the oomph.
So I've got that as technical term for now on.
Yes.
I'm I'm a doctor, David.
Yeah.
I'm injured.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, the higher the delta v, the more propellant is required to make the trip.
Yeah.
Mission planners strive to keep the delta v and therefore the propellant mass, which is the biggest component of vehicle mass, as we shall see, as low as possible.
Delta v times transit time is probably the closest thing we have to the concept of distance in human terms in the space environment.
Flight dynamics determines what space travel is feasible given whatever the current state of the art of technology happens to be.
Okay?
Yeah.
So the next one, the first one was flight dynamics.
The next, big challenge is bioastronautics and bioneering.
Bioastronautics
I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna add something.
You're you're calling it dynamics.
Oh, I I was also
That's because that's what they call themselves.
Oh, because, they're I I heard, mechanics and then dynamic.
Yeah.
Celestial mechanics
Or dynamics.
And I I asked somebody, and they said they're kind of an interchangeable terminology for the same group of people.
So that's just making sure.
Okay.
So we got bioastronomics.
Bioastronautics.
Nautics.
Sorry.
And bio nearing.
Bioastronautics refers to the psychophysiological realities of human adaptation or the lack thereof to the deep space environment.
Pioneering is a little different.
That's the ability to support yourself and your tribe or your family or your crew or your community physiologically and emotionally.
They were 2 different things, but they're related.
We've only been doing bioastronautics since 1961.
We've been doing bio nearing since Hominids first stood up upright.
Mhmm.
Yes.
Okay.
The third is resources, which includes power.
This just kills me, and I can't say it's strong enough, especially for the space cadence.
You cannot violate the laws of chemistry, physics, and biology.
You can't make something from nothing.
That's magical thinking and we have enough of that already.
You must have resources for sustenance, which is survival, and economic viability.
One of the many reasons antarctica is not a settlement is there's nothing of real value down there other than science.
If there were oil, minerals, rare rare earth metals perhaps, resource outpost would spring up overnight followed by permanent settlements almost immediate.
Now that's apart from the legal paradigm, which is another issue that I'm not gonna get into because I'm not a lawyer.
So here's the deal.
Nothing happens in human space flight without power.
That's a resource.
And and underline this three times, solar power won't cut it.
Yes.
We're gonna need nuclear fission, which is the technology with the highest power density in history, and we're gonna need a lot of it.
So here's an evidence based prediction from yours truly.
No nukes, no settlements, period.
End of story, especially on the moon.
So I'm gonna ask you, a marketing thing.
When we first did our designs, one of the first things we talked about is we would need nuclear power.
And when I saw it on the chart, on our diagrams, and we I think, again, well, I don't remember.
We didn't show you these things yet.
And I looked at it, and that's the first thing I saw was the nuclear power symbol.
And I said, we put that on there.
This will go ballistic, meaning everybody will be against it.
And I said, for now, because we have to figure this out.
We're we're a long way from Laramie.
We're a long way from where we need to go.
Let's take that off for the purposes of being able to articulate our message.
We do understand that you need nuclear.
But in your mind's eye, again, no one's listening.
They were just talking to each other.
Humankind is psychologically averse to the concept of nuclear, even though on the moon or in in beyond our space, it wouldn't make a difference.
I mean, the sun is it's the sun.
I mean, we do have it.
How do you get around this reality of perception?
Yeah.
Politics and perception.
Yes, exactly.
It's it's the narrative.
That's what I'm asking.
Narrative that's been done.
Yeah.
And the only thing you can use as an antidote to the to the narrative is the truth.
Run the numbers.
Run the numbers.
The lunar night lasts almost 14 earth days.
Temperature variation along the equator ranges from 250 degree Fahrenheit in daylight to minus 208 at night.
And I and just to give the numbers, it's approximately 1 third minus 133 plus 122 on Celsius.
That's okay.
I'm just I'm just dumping it in there.
So yes.
And and So you understood.
Look.
There are other problems with panels, and we're gonna get to it.
Even if you could snap your fingers and magically array the solar panels on the surface of the moon pointing to the sun, There are problems because the panels are going to get electrostatic.
They're going to end up being covered with regolith.
And, there's no way that we know of to get that regolith off the panels without damaging the solar panel.
And if you build your solar panels and you launch them and you launch them toward the moon, just the transit through the Van Allen radiation belts is gonna degrade the solar panel about 12% right off the bat.
We didn't go solar because we knew that was a challenge overall.
But in order to create a story and I think I think I told you on the story, like, someone like Dan Dumbacher who's been a guest who said, this is the only story that makes sense.
We've talked about Andy Aldrin agreeing because they've seen the pieces.
But one of the things that we don't want, you don't you want people to see the story and understand what we're working on.
And so you could show them the numbers.
And I understand this Van Allen belt and and the integration, I think you said 12% reduction?
Yes.
Somewhere around 12%.
So okay.
So keep on going because I wanna hear how you would weave by the numbers or the data or to get someone to say or enough people.
Because remember, it's politics is one of the space.
Earth is hard To get people, individuals to say there's a value proposition here that is not as unsafe, has the viability, and it should be pursued.
In my opinion, you just shine the white light of truth on it.
You ask them the ultimate question.
If you had a choice between nuclear power or no space habitation, what would you choose?
I'm gonna tell you the answers.
Often, no space.
Well, then tell them to have a nice day and move on.
Yeah.
There sometimes when you're trying to create, a project David, David.
You have to.
Look.
Look.
You no.
You don't.
You don't.
And what you're doing is you are you are enabling and continuing the narrative.
Well, no.
What we're doing is we're leaving it till later so that they can bite into the story.
It's like when you when you go to a movie, they don't come out and tell you the end or something that they do, you know, an hour and a half into it until you at least understand the basics.
For example, you didn't start off
with ask you what I would ask you is is if you describe the concept to me, the first thing I would ask is what's your power source?
You would.
And you told me solar energy, I would say Yeah.
We're we're
not solar.
Enjoy enjoy your fantasy.
No.
That that math doesn't work.
So I will The
numbers the numbers don't close.
Right.
They don't they don't they don't make sense.
The I wouldn't say that.
What people are when they see it, they don't it's in I mean, I'm thinking back because we've given this to 100 and 100 of people.
I haven't had that I haven't had that pushback.
I'm gonna push back on you a little bit here.
I'm listening.
Remember, the lesson in mission control that everybody learned from Gene Kranz during Apollo 13 is that you have to deal with truth as it is, not how you want it to be.
I under wait.
I understand and accept that that a lot of people that that's not how they want it to be.
No.
No.
I'm not I'm not
I'm not talking from that angle.
I'm I'm talking from a different angle.
I'm talking storytelling to bring someone into the fold because the first thing I mean, again, I have not had anybody ask about orbital dynamics or so.
I'm saying when you get to the point of now we're gonna talk about energy, because people do have not asked us about energy.
Seriously.
I mean and you know, you've seen the list of people, almost everybody from, I don't know what point to what point who've done our podcast have seen what we're working on.
Even with all those people and you know many of them, we haven't had that question asked.
So my question is, when and how?
Because it doesn't have to be the first thing.
You don't have to point out the ugly thing.
I had a hairstylist one day, and she looked in the mirror.
She said, yeah.
One of the issues I have, and I've been going through it for years, is this thing on my chin or her cheekbone.
Do you know I couldn't stop looking at that cheekbone for that forever?
I seriously even to this day when I think about her, I think about how there's an irregularity in her cheekbone.
My question is, when do you bring, in your opinion, because it's not first, how do you how do you don't just walk in and say it.
Maybe you would because you've got that personality.
I would.
I would.
Mine mine would be I'm bringing the story in.
So if you had to bring a story, let's say we're okay.
Let's say I've shown you our our design, and I'm just gonna use it in general terms.
And you know we need a power source called nuclear.
So first, you tell them what were what it looks like, how it evolves, and let's say we're now to say to them, now we're going to be talking about power.
Because they have been argued, they haven't disagreed with anything.
And you are going to be not going, Jim, or going ballistic, or going post I'm
going Logan.
Going Logan.
You were going to give them a lesson, and I'm asking for a real lesson, a lesson that they could bite into.
Okay.
I'll give you
That that makes sense.
You know what I'm saying?
It's not you're not slamming it.
One I'll give you one that makes total sense.
Okay.
It's a narrative.
That's what I wanna hear.
Here's the reason why we need nuclear fission in space.
We need it not only for power, like you're talking about.
We also need it for propulsion.
We need nuclear thermal propulsion because what that enables you to do is to employ multiuse propellant.
It's hard enough to get from point a to point b, and you know the constraints of the rocket equation and the tyranny of the rocket equation, which is the next thing we're gonna go into.
But we need a technology that gives us advanced propulsion.
And nuclear thermal propulsion would enable us to use water as a propellant.
Water would be a multiuse propellant.
You could use water as a consumable, as radiation protection in transit.
We'll talk about that a little later, and as propulsion.
It is a synergistic solution to a number of problems.
Okay.
So I'm my mind, you tell me if I'm wrong.
I would then I would because not everybody's gonna follow that and you know that not everybody gets the original orientation to something.
I would and I don't know this, so I'm kind of making this b s up.
So take it just as a storyline.
Back in the year x, when we were using submarines or aircraft carriers, We got to a point that we knew as humans in order to create a military force that had sustainability for long duration activity in environments.
There was a clamor, there was a challenge of whether we took this what could be considered a technology that could destroy the oceans or destroy our environment.
We made the transition to nuclear power because it created a stable ongoing set of conditions that allowed individuals to thrive in the condition that they're in.
Would that be an r a storyline that you might propose?
Well, it would.
Let me give you another one from history that is monoclonal.
Yeah.
You've heard of the German battleship Bismarck.
Yes.
Yep.
You
know the you know the Bismarck was sunk Yep.
By the British in its harbor in its harbor.
They finally chased it down to its harbor.
You know the reason it had to get back to its harbor?
It needed to get fuel.
What?
It was out of coal.
Out of coal.
Yeah.
And it had to go back to the harbor to get coal.
That was its propellant.
The British made the the the giant leap of converting their ships to oil.
They have been cold, but they made the strategic decision to convert them to oil.
You know why?
They could refuel them at sea.
Yep.
Okay?
You know who made that decision in World War 1 or prior to World War 1?
I was not old enough.
I was not old enough to know to know him.
I I I wish I had met him, but I no.
I've never been introduced.
Well, it was the British secretary of the navy at the time.
You know what his name was?
Nope.
Winston Churchill.
Oh, really?
Yes.
Yes.
So the British, because they could refuel at sea, they were able to pursue the Bismarck all the way into its harbor and then destroy it.
Okay.
All because of the strategic decision of what was the ship's propellant.
And
so when I'm asking the question, just any of these questions, so you understand, I'm not looking I I'm looking in my mind for our team.
My job one of my jobs is to tell the story.
And I you've seen me on stage, 3 TED Talks on and on and on.
I've done I I focus very much on the human psychological adaptation and acceptance of ideation.
And in order to sometimes get family, friends, relatives, business associates, and people you're involved in projects to get them to a point, they need to be taken through a story.
And it's as old as sitting by the campfire that goes back, 100 of 1000 of years.
So the reason I was asking was because in order to be able to smooth that out, which you've given and I love the way you did it because then I can we could I can weave this with the Bismarck and with the aircraft carriers.
Do you know stories about aircraft carriers or how that came about?
Because that would be nice to know if you actually know.
Sure.
I'd love to hear it because I wanna I wanna weave that in to the storyline of the things that we're creating.
And this is just a small fraction of a small fraction of the project.
But it's it's important to add it's important to tell the story.
So what how would you go about it when we're talking about an aircraft carrier or a submarine?
Well, the the great story about the submarine that you can use is the submarine is what killed the whole idea of lunar basis in the sixties.
Really?
You know why?
No.
The US military was seriously considering putting nuclear rockets on the moon pointed to earth.
And the reason was if the Russians attacked us and blew up all our cities and all that kind of stuff, we'd be able to assure you know, we would be able to do mutually assured destruction because we launch our volley of nuclear rockets from the moon.
In 3 days later, they would impact the Soviet Union and blow it to smithereens.
Yeah.
And there was nothing the Russians could do about it.
And believe me, in the sixties, late sixties well, actually, early mid sixties, there was some serious thoughts about putting military bases on the moon.
But the concept of the nuclear submarine solved the problem.
The problem was how do you have a stealth launch system that the Russians cannot track that in the case of a large nuclear exchange would be able to do the 2nd volley or the response and destroy the enemy.
And that was the nuclear that was the nuclear boomers because they could stay at sea for almost almost forever.
Do you know who, when, how, what was the first that made that transition?
You mean the person?
No.
You you used the reason I'm saying is you used Winston Churchill and you used the Bismarck.
Yeah.
Well, it was it was, it was, admiral Rickover.
Rickover?
Yeah.
Rickover.
Because he was trying to he was trying to create a nuclear submarine fleet, and he had an argument that was irrefutable.
And that you could and that you could accomplish your mission at a fraction of the cost that it would take to put lunar bases on the moon with nuclear weapons.
And do you know what the first one was?
With the first nuclear, submarine?
Sub yeah.
Yeah.
It was the Nautilus.
Oh, really?
I think well, may maybe not.
I may be wrong.
I'll look I'll look it up, but, I thought the Nautilus was run by somebody else for 40,000 years under the sea.
Is that the same
new No.
No.
No.
No.
You're thinking of Jules Verne.
And by the way by the way, while we're on Jules Verne, let's have a let's have a little side conversation.
Because I've actually I've actually studied this data.
Okay.
I that's why I'm asking.
I've,
When I when I think when I have thought about all the people who've been inspired about space, about aviation space, I have and remember I was inspired by my teachers when I was young.
Yeah.
So I wanted to find out who what inspired these pioneers.
Who was it?
And honest to God, when you follow the thread all the way back to its inception, it was Jules Verne.
Jules Verne was the most translated author in western civilization history at one point in time.
In 10 years, he pumped out 4 what we would now call science fiction novels, and I think I can probably name them.
1 was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, 1 was Around the World in 80 Days.
What were some of the journey to the center of the earth?
There's another one, and there was a fourth one.
And he was the one that inspired the generation.
And by the way, he pumped those all out between about 18/69/18/79.
When I give when I give
I'm pulling them up to see.
We had 80 days journey to the center of those 20,000, the mysterious island from No.
What it went north.
To
Yeah.
That was the 4th one.
You know, the I I'm I'm smiling here and you can't see it because we have our one side of our messaging is how do you get the world word word out there.
So we have a whole team working on, we call it, Mearth Magic.
But it is responsible for AR, VR, digital twin, haptics, 3 d 40 gaming toys, books, bringing the not to talk about the moon, but to tell story lines that individuals can be inspired by the types of things that could happen within the ecosystems that we're talking about.
So because you can't go and change well, you and I spoke about this, but you don't change your, I haven't changed my wife, and I've been with her for 4,000,000,000 years.
And I don't think I ever will.
She has changed herself, and I haven't changed yet.
Many people will say they have changed their spouse, and they normally mean I'm on my 2nd or 3rd.
Yes.
It it's not that they've changed them.
They've physically changed them.
And that happens.
It's it's amazing how many times you'll say, well, you can't change your spouse.
And they say, oh, no.
Yeah.
I I have.
And it it always is.
I'm on my next version.
So, it's interesting because I didn't know this.
This Jules Verne, the story line that goes with it.
And I absolutely love the story line that ties together with the Bismarck, with the, the the evolution to submarines, I'm assuming aircraft carriers were very similar in terms of, you know, staying staying out on out in sea longer, being able to have readiness global because you can't always go to shore.
Look up Billy Mitchell.
Billy Mitchell was an army officer who was court martialed because he made the statement that airplanes would make the navy obsolete, and he demonstrated it by taking 3, big ships that were getting ready to be scrapped, putting them out off the coast in North Carolina, and in three biplane I mean, we're talking old.
We're talking a long time ago.
Bombers in front of a cash of journalists, they sunk all 3 of them.
And for that, he was court martialed.
So look up general Billy Mitchell.
Oh, I do.
I have it.
It was 19, born 1879, died 1936.
That's who the Mitchell bomber was named after, the b 25
So he was the he was the creation of the United States Air Force.
Well, no.
He he was the instigator.
Of Major role
in it, it says.
A major role in air force power, in the power in air power.
K?
And the it was the army air corps until after World War 2.
The air force wasn't established until 1947.
And Hap Arnold, who was a general in the Army Air Corps, was the first secretary of the air force.
So the first aircraft, nuclear aircraft, was when?
Well, we don't have a nuclear aircraft.
No.
We know.
You're talking about aircraft carrier?
Yes.
Yeah.
I don't know what the first carrier was, but, you you have to look that up.
I'm looking it up.
You'll probably when I say it, the USS Enterprise 1961.
Was that the first one?
The USS Enterprise was the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier in the world commissioned in 19 60 1.
It was the 8th ship to bear the name Enterprise, which is also named the Big E.
That's right.
And in order to assist the Project Mercury program, so it says the next one commissioned to to to Ordered to assist the Project Mercury program in February 1962.
She tracked and measured the flight of the first American orbital space flight, Friendship 7.
It's John Glenn.
That's right.
Mhmm.
Perfect.
This was very helpful.
Everything's been helpful.
But, It's amazing how the history of technology.
I told you early on in our podcast that my perspectives are informed by history.
Well, you and I already fought, so we're we're now at a point where we can talk with one another.
Yeah.
No.
I I it's not that you just we've had many guests who are informed, so I'm I'm not gonna put it in that category.
What I would say is the because I'm
not saying I'm not saying I'm informed.
I'm just saying that we're
using data.
We're informed by this.
You're also you're also coming at things that are also psychological.
You're coming out at physiologic, in a in a manner that works.
But so I'm not downplaying anybody who's who who we've had.
What I'm saying is I think that at this time, in this point, there's an intersectionality that when Greg said the 2 of us should talk, because Greg's on the team, he's trying to figure out how to help us answer some of these questions.
That's where it came to Andre.
Because if you and I if we had met 2 years ago, I wouldn't the orbit dynamics would not have been there.
So there the timing is perfect for the right questions, and this was extremely valuable for us to have this conversation even about the enterprise because now you have something and I have something about the the Friendship 7.
So very valuable.
Okay.
So what's what are we on to next?
We had are we still on Space Realities?
Or what was that?
Yeah.
What
Biomedical Constraints for Long Duration.
Biomedical Straints.
So let me
So let
me look here.
Oh, so the lot so we we jumped into power and propulsion.
Oh,
here.
Yeah.
Here.
Let's, let's go into, let's go back to the tyranny of the rocket equation because I need to I need to use an example so people understand the tyranny of the rocket equation.
Okay?
Yep.
And I and yes.
Help me understand.
Okay.
Let's and this is the example you can use.
Go to Apollo 17, which was the last mission to the moon.
Yeah.
Picture in your mind the massive Saturn 5 Rocket with the spacecraft perched on top.
Yep.
The the entire vehicle was a self contained lunar exploration system.
Everything you needed to get 3 men to the moon, 2 to the surface, and back was in that vehicle.
Fully fueled on the pad, it weighed £6,500,000.
That's almost 3,000,000 kilograms and stood as high as a 16 story building.
So as you know, David, we live at the bottom of a huge gravity well.
Yep.
And we have to expend a lot of energy to get out of to go anywhere in the solar system.
To get into earth orbit, the entire Apollo 17 vehicle had to accelerate from 0 miles an hour sitting on the pad to 17,500 miles an hour which is 5 miles a second in order to make earth orbit.
At the moment of engine ignition, it had 100% of 6.5000000 pound mass left.
K?
Yeah.
During the 8 minute ride uphill, it used massive amounts of propellant and jettisoned multiple spent stages.
You see the spent stages are discarded as they say to feed the gravity beast.
Yeah.
By the time Apollo 7 achieved earth orbit, less than 5% of the original mass remained.
So I'm gonna say it in another way just to make sure the cold hard physics of the rocket equation registers with everybody.
Yeah.
In the in the first 8 minutes of the mission, our self contained lunar exploration system shed more than 95% of its original mass.
Yeah.
Now think think about that.
Yeah.
That's why Arthur c Clark made the famous statement that once you were in Earth orbit, you were basically halfway to almost anywhere in the solar system.
But it gets worse.
By the time the mission was on its way to the moon, it was only 1.6% of its original mass.
At lunar touchdown, the command module and the lunar lander together accounted for less than 1% of the original mass.
When the lunar lander was jettisoned just prior to entry interface on the way back, the command module was less than 1 half of 1% of the original mission mass.
And it splashed down in the Pacific, the command module, the 3 astronauts, and the lunar samples they brought back weighed less than 2 tenths of 1% of the original mass.
That's the tyranny of the rocket equation.
So when the reality of that tyranny fully dawned on me, and I was at NASA by that time, I realized I needed an expert to educate I didn't have to look any further than Dan Ademo.
Dan was one of the chief flight dynamics officers in Mission Control.
Is Dan still alive?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Very much so.
You'll introduce us?
Of course.
Okay.
Of course.
Yeah.
He's a very good friend of mine.
He met him I met him about 15 years ago at Johnson Space Center, and this is the clincher.
Prior to meeting, each one of us had independently come to the conclusion flight dynamics and bio astronautics would be the chief challenges to the upcoming deep space or interplanetary phase of human flight.
So immediately upon meeting, we began to eagerly tutor each other in our respective disciplines.
Over time, Dan and I became very good friends and frequent collaborators.
I'll send you a couple of the papers he and I have written.
Essentially, Dan and I became the blues brothers, if you will, of a new evidence based multidisciplinary approach to deep space long duration human activity.
I think
one of the Blues brothers died early.
Right?
Yeah.
John, I know.
I'm joking.
So don't don't follow that path.
Oh, no.
That's
what we did.
They actually they actually referred to us as the Blues Brothers.
So so people just don't like to call you Jim.
You're just you're just you're just a mess of a person, just so you know.
I'm just a mess.
Yeah.
There are a lot of people who would agree with that.
I I'm and I love you.
So thank you.
Okay.
So the you've got this equation, which I this this breaking down of the mass all the way down
The tyranny of the rocket.
The tyranny of the rocket equation.
Let's talk about the implications of such draconian weight and volume constraints.
Okay?
Yeah.
So, again, we start with history.
When European settlers first arrived on the East Coast in North America, they came in rickety, dangerous wooden ships propelled by the capriciousness of the wind.
They were fortunate to be able to haul the food and water they even needed for the voyage.
They were lucky they could do that, so they couldn't bring a lot of stuff.
So they only brought themselves, their knowledge, and some of their tools, and immediately they had to use their tools to fabricate more tools in order to utilize the resources they found locally to build their villages, towns, and farms.
Yep.
Had they been forced to bring with them every brick, every board, every nail they were gonna use along with every molecule of air they were gonna breathe, every morsel of food they were gonna eat, and every gallon of water they required, the new world would have never happened.
Mhmm.
That's a fact.
Likewise, on lunar Mars, we'll obviously have to bring some temporary structures basically to camp out, but then we'll have to use tools to make more tools and our knowledge to fabricate more tools to extract resources if they even exist to build the permanent structures we'll need to thrive and survive.
So, again, there is nothing new under the sun.
And and that's actually how we got to you because of the conversations that, Greg and I have been having.
So it it's tied together, and you know him well enough.
So.
Yep.
Okay.
I'm a big fan of Chris.
Yes.
He's a great guy.
So in terms of so now bring it forward.
Your, the implications.
Yep.
Yeah.
So with the implications we just talked about, you're gonna have to bring your tools and to make more tools to the local resources so you can harvest local resources to build your structures.
You cannot bring everything with you.
You cannot bring all the food that you need.
You cannot bring all the water that you need.
In fact, I've heard the argument made that early space pioneers will meet will be the most rabid conservationist in history.
No.
Not at all.
Because they'll have to recycle everything.
Oh, in terms of that, yes.
They will be recycling.
That's one of the values that's transportable back to Earth is the technology that will be necessary to sustain whomever on the moon will be dual purpose Right.
Right.
Which is part of our our proposals.
Okay.
Let's go be if we have time Yeah.
We have plenty of time.
There's there's no there's no end.
The longest we ever did in terms of a podcast was Brent and our that was 5 and a half hour.
So you just you just keep on going because we're just on I mean, we still have these are space the by.
We're still I don't know, we're 6, 7 biomedical constraints for long duration.
And then we've got implications and constraints for us.
So keep on going.
Yeah.
Let's go to potential bioastronautics and bioengineering showstoppers.
Okay.
Yeah.
So these are the, you know, these these are the ones, and they are regolith, radiation, and hypogravity.
K?
But before we do that, let's do a little paragraph on the human conundrum.
You and I talked about this when we had our conversation, and that is, what is the role of humans in space exploration?
But what was it?
So just run you had regolith radiation.
What was the third
one?
Hypogravity.
Weightless.
Yep.
Oh, I just I I couldn't write long enough.
You were speaking quickly.
Okay.
Weightless.
Yep.
So going what's your question?
So the human conundrum is, what's the role of humans in space exploration?
Is it science?
Is it settlement in a community, if you will?
Yep.
That's a better word.
Or is it just theater?
Because if it's science, and that's a legitimate answer.
If if the purpose of space exploration is science, that's a very legitimate answer, and the experience is and the facts are you don't need humans.
Right.
You could be completely robotic.
There's never needs to be a human going up.
You don't need humans for science.
Correct.
And we're not about science research in that way.
So yes.
Exactly.
I agree with you.
Or is it community?
You need you need humans if you're gonna make a human community.
Yeah.
But you have to be able to do the basic science to basically empower, human communities in the first place, and so far we haven't done that.
That's the reason I said things are we're woefully inadequate in the preparation for the deep space phase of human space.
Why?
Because NASA doesn't see it as their prerogative.
Yeah.
They don't wanna do that.
They have no interest in it.
See, human settlement is a vision.
NASA does vehicles.
Vehicles need engineers.
Vehicles need projects.
Projects need programs.
Programs need contractors, and contractors need money.
So it's basically turned into a jobs program.
Now let me be clear.
I have nothing against jobs program.
Mhmm.
Jobs programs, I mean, that pays the bills.
It enables families to eat and and send kids to college.
I have no problem with it.
But if you're spending that kind of money, why not do something relevant as opposed to just theater?
And the type of things that NASA is considering in the human area is basically just theater.
It's a redo of the flags and footprints mission that they did in the sixties, only this time it's 3 times more expensive.
You don't know our 4 phases.
I thought you heard them.
But our 4 phases are the moon that we were named, then it becomes, then it becomes Industrial Park, which is a lot of things you're talking about being able to do the things on the moon.
Then it is extended stay, being able to stay there longer.
And and then the last one is community.
So it's the evolution of community.
So you're using the exact same terms without even knowing, and I'm not the most creative.
So those were the names that when we sat down, when I was describing what we should do, it was those 4 phases.
Those names are fine because they're subscript they're Right.
Scripted.
That's what
they were because I didn't know enough.
So yes.
And you just mentioned another reason to have nuclear power.
Yes.
Oh, absolutely.
And and we we knew it
from Show me any industrial park in the world that's powered by solar power.
Any Yeah.
No.
It doesn't.
And many of the countries have
is because you can't do that.
Right.
You can't.
Solar power cannot provide baseload power for industry.
It does not work.
And so what happened was the the story was what do we need first?
And that's why I was asking you story because I was sitting across the table, and I I more or less said, hey.
Look.
You wanna really go to the moon.
Let me explain what you have to do, and I didn't know you.
And I said, the first thing we need to do is put a box of the roof on the moon.
Now the reason I said box of the roof, it's not about settlement.
It's not about colonization.
Those are bad words around the word because it's sales, not settlement, colonization.
It's not science, research, and exploration.
We have to put a bit and my inside was a box of the roof is a home.
So we're now our directive is to establish a home on the moon, not an outpost, not a base, but a home.
There's a very big difference between setting up a home and a base and outpost.
They're they have different they have different psychological perspectives.
Then it was, hey.
We have to be able to get to the moon, do work on the moon.
We need to be able to build in, constructions.
We have an industrial park that will enable us to create, build work, but it'll also label us to have an economic condition, selling to and from the moon.
Then the next one was extended stay, which meant we will stay there longer.
We will have solved some of the challenges so that we do have that tenacity, that capability to do more, be more people.
And then we go to community.
So we we end up with 5 8 people, 90 people, 578, 1,644 over time.
And that becomes a community.
So what we're building is kind of what you've been talking about, which is in parallel.
Not exactly.
But it's interesting that you've gone to this community side because I I was hoping you would that saying he's not gonna go with theater because this is not theater.
There's a story and a messaging like we did with nuclear power, but the story has to be that someone sees the evolution of the idea.
So I love it.
Love it.
And so I I think as you're talking, I'm sitting here thinking about Polaris Dull.
And I'm remember I told you, I thought it was a big deal.
Mhmm.
And the reason it's a big deal is because it had nothing to do with NASA.
It didn't get a penny from NASA.
It didn't get any equipment from NASA.
It wasn't launched by NASA.
The suits were built by NASA.
NASA is irrelevant to Polaris Dawn, and it was a huge success.
So the saga of Polaris Dawn has made me a lot more optimistic that the private sector will get out of the theater business.
Yep.
Things like tourism.
That's theater.
That's all theater.
Mhmm.
I mean, you know, the aviation analog for tourism was the barnstorming era after World War 1.
It was about 10 years in which these pilots went to every county fair with a biplane and sold rides.
Okay?
That was barnstorming.
In the entire barnstorming era, there were no advances in aviation, period.
And and we are not even because we're not visible, a lot of people in the Beyond Earth ecosystem like to go out and tell everybody what they're doing.
We're gonna have 700 people a month going to a Van Braun wheel, and they're going to be doing space tourism.
You don't hear us out there in that in any sense of that tone.
Ours is really to do the hard work to create a a Mearth ecosystem and a Mearth economy.
So, yes, I this is it.
Now I'm gonna toss something out again.
You know anybody connected with, Polaris?
You want anybody who might wanna hear or be in the podcast?
We'll go over later, but I'd like you to think about it.
So okay.
So let's take the, we just went over.
We're taking science community info.
No.
We went over the we went over the tyranny of the rocket
So we got we've got show, showstoppers of biomedical is where we are.
Yeah.
So the first one is regolith.
Yep.
K.
And regolith is, oh, and by let me go back.
I didn't finish the human conundrum because my point is if if the goal isn't settlement for whatever reason, if it's not settlement, you don't need astronauts.
You don't need the Johnson Space Center.
You don't need flight surgeons.
Okay?
You don't need these big boosters.
The the whole human NASA program can go away if settlement isn't the goal.
NASA has already gone on record saying settlement isn't its goal.
So in my mind, that makes NASA completely and totally irrelevant, and the only thing they're doing is a jobs program.
And I have nothing against jobs program, but somebody else can do that jobs program and we can do something relevant with it and promote your vision or the vision of like minded people that really have settlement or community as the goal.
Getting people off the planet, permanent, in decent numbers.
Because remember, that's one of the causative tests.
Mhmm.
And that's the 4th one.
And so NASA hasn't done anything anything to facilitate that test.
And and we're that is not our that is not our planning, that it is a NASA.
It's a global initiative.
We have people from New Zealand and Singapore.
We have people from, Italy, people from Netherlands, people from Germany.
We have individuals from Macedonia, from Hungary.
We have people I mean, from all go down South Africa.
We have them in Colombia.
We have them Canada, US.
Just named countries, and they're all helping us in different capacities.
So we look at it more, and I think in the line that you are.
Let me run an idea by
you.
Sure.
Instead of a hu instead of a NASA human program, and I'm not talking about eliminating NASA, keep the science, keep the rovers, keep the cosmology, keep the planetary defense.
I mean, NASA does a lot of good stuff.
Yes.
They do.
Just not just not in the human program.
But that's a different plan.
That's okay.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
That's right.
That's right.
So instead of a human program, let's get rid of that, save a lot of money, and instead, let's form a what I'll call a national space development administration.
And this would be grants that would be awarded for work toward the vision of making permanent communities in space.
So and to to some degree so I don't know, we, there there's some language things, but I understand the construct of using that type of framework is that we became of nonprofit, and individuals and organizations that are in the Beyond Earth ecosystem already are helping us.
They're not public, but they they wanna be a part of this future that we're building.
So we're building I'm gonna bad word, but coalition consortium of individuals and organizations who are working with us like Mike Lookes, and Greg, and all of these individuals are coming together.
A National Space Development Authority.
Well, we the challenges for this is we're not we could have
a national.
But let's talk about that because I'd love to be able to collaborate on how we can make something happen that ties with the initiatives that we've got in place.
So, yes, I've got it marked down as an idea that you and I will follow-up on.
And the the challenge is everybody's going in all different directions for different types of initiatives.
We need to have and I don't say we need to have, because everybody could do their own thing.
But wouldn't it be great if enough people had enough synergy towards something that has a directive that works?
And that's why someone like Greg, after 14 hours of calls, he said, I wanna work with Project Moon Hut.
And so, yes, I I think that this would be great, and I'd love to talk about it.
Let's get back to this regolith.
Where are you going with regolith?
And I've got it noted.
It started and everything.
What about the regolith?
Okay.
Regolith.
Gene Cernan was a friend of mine.
He was head of the contractor group that worked the, mutual buoyancy lab where I was the, co medical director of that, so I knew him pretty well.
I liked him a lot.
He and I had several conversations about the lunar regolith.
And by the way, he was not a big fan of the moon.
He told me several times he would not go back.
He said the lunar dust was a pain in the you know what.
Mhmm.
I'm quoting here.
He said, we found it everywhere.
Coatings, seals, gaskets, filters, switches, windows, lens.
It got into our nose, eyes, and lungs.
Okay?
So, it was a big, big problem.
He told me that they would have been it would have been on multiple occasions, he told me emphatically that 4th lunar moonwalk, they did 3 in Apollo 17, would have been impossible because the spacesuit, quote, had been rendered nonfunctional by lunar dust.
The joints grind to a halt.
The seals have partially failed.
The faceplate was irreparably scratched.
He said that the lunar dust adhered to the outside of the faceplate and he and Jack Schmidt would reflexively use their gloved hand to try to wipe off the dust, but it merely scratched the faceplate which impaired their visual acuity with each wipe.
He said it had a very odd smell.
He said it smelled like burnt gunpowder.
That's the only thing he felt like he could compare it to.
Inside the lunar lander, it seemed electrostatic, meaning it stuck to everything especially electronic components, wiring, switches, and it overheated many of the systems.
So lunar dust, best case, is an onerous environmental nuisance and in worst case a significant biological hazard.
A significant fraction of lunar dust is small enough to be inhaled all the way to the alveoli, which is a unit of respiration.
Lunar soil is very complex.
There's nothing like it on Earth.
These tiny dust particles are agglutinates that have huge surface to volume ratios.
And the reason is they haven't been weathered.
They haven't been touched by water or wind in 4000000000 years.
And for the life science professionals, a huge service to volume ratio means lots of highly reactive surfaces.
There've been at least 2 reactions termed hay fever to lunar dust by Apollo astronauts and at least one reaction by a flight surgeon who entered the command module after the mission.
There are a number of terrestrial dust to analog disease states that are due in large part to a combination of very small particle size and intense reaction by the body.
Examples include things like, asbestosis, silicosis, Grinder's disease, volcanic ash, 911 syndrome, and possibly even agent orange syndrome.
The edge surface has a lot of hot bonds that react with biological molecules.
So think of all those surfaces on these really tiny particles with magic fingers
Mhmm.
Pointing up trying to find something to react to.
They're not inert to the body like stainless steel.
So these are like hot bonds of active fingers looking to react with anything biological.
Like I said, lunar dust hadn't seen oxygen or water in several 1000000000 years but has been constantly irradiated at least at the top levels for at least that long.
Plus, if that weren't enough, these small dust particles contain manophase iron, extremely small particles of elemental iron with a valence of 0, not the plus 2 or plus 3 forms we're used to seeing on a highly oxidized earth.
In the aqueous environment of the lung these nanoparticles will most likely be absorbed directly into the bloodstream and may, if man made nanoparticles are any guide, be able to migrate directly into the brain via tiny passages surrounding the olfactory neurons in the nose and therefore bypass the blood brain barrier completely.
How would the human body respond?
We don't have a clue.
Mhmm.
The respiratory damage mechanisms can be caused directly or indirectly via free radicals or so called reactogen oxygen species and your reactive nitrogen species.
What we're worried about is the possibility of the syndrome like silicosis.
What used to be called stonegrinder's disease first came to widespread public attention during the great depression when 100 of miners drilling the hawks nest tunnel through the Cawley Mountain, West Virginia died within half a decade of breathing fine quartz dust kicked into the air by dry drilling even though they'd only been exposed for a few months.
It was one of the largest occupational health disasters in US history.
Plus, we don't know what the inhalation toxicity status of lunar dust is.
Where is activated lunar dust on the toxicity scale?
What pulmonary changes are irreversible or progressive?
Are there any mutagenic issues like, like inducing cancers?
What are the pulmonary clearance mechanisms, if any, for these particles?
Because the villi microvilli that line the trachea and the bronchioles, you don't have those in the alveoli.
Mhmm.
So there's no way to get rid of this stuff.
And can we trust studies on activated simulant?
You know, you can get simulant you can buy simulant from a vendor, which simulates the chemical composition it does.
But to activate it, you have to grind it into smaller and smaller pieces.
Now there was a recent there were reports of an extensive study recently, and this was several years ago, by researchers at Stony Brook School of Medicine looking at the effect of immunoregolith simulants on mammalian cell death and DNA damage in neuronal and cell lung lines.
And the results were very sobering.
Activated stimulus, whether it was increasing the surface area per unit volume by grinding, was much more effective in producing cell death and DNA damage than standard stimulant obtained from the dendritic.
Furthermore, the degree of cytotoxicity that is damaged direct damage to cells was not correlated with either detectable DNA lesions or production of reaction reactive oxygen species suggesting that we were simulant has a direct cytotoxic and genotoxic effect on mammalian DNA and lung cell lines through some mechanism we don't understand yet.
Have you have you ever been in a mine?
Yes.
I have.
I I ran a rock quarry, the largest rock quarry that supplied New York City with stone, and, they my car didn't have a windshield.
And at the end of every day, my nose was caked, my ears were caked, even though I wear goggles.
And I'd have to go home and shower and, you know, flush out of each nose trying to clean out the the stone that got every and even in your hair, you would try to put your hand through your hair.
I I mean, I wear a hard hat.
I was I was dropping 22,000 ton of stone a day, which is 250 semis and 24 scows down the river.
So we were 92% of stone in New York, and it was just everywhere.
It didn't matter what you touched, and that is nothing in terms of electrostatic.
This is just stone.
Well and it was wetted.
Yeah.
It was weathered.
Correct.
Wetted.
And it was weathered.
So I can imagine how it got everywhere where we were.
I mean, you you walked into a desk.
It was covered.
You were on the on the primary, the secondary, the tools that we had covered constantly.
And and it was challenging.
Unbelievably challenging.
So I'm trying to imagine this is a factor of, 20 or 30 or 40, but it's even worse because it's charged and it is unweathered.
So now you've got sharp
And you've got nano phase on it.
And and you've got nano phase.
So we're we're adding a a a factorial of an unbelievable number of complications biologically as well as operationally to the equation.
And that's the reason one of the reasons that NASA will never do a lunar base.
I will say that categorically.
They aren't capable of doing a lunar base.
They love talking about it.
But between the tyranny of the rocket equation and the regolith hazard, it'll never happen, not like NASA is envisioned.
So you guys who wanna set up community, you'll be the ones that'll have to solve this problem.
It's a
I I would call yes.
I I like the word challenge better.
We're we're working on the challenge, but that's why we call you.
Come on.
Okay.
So you don't you
don't you didn't you didn't get it?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
No.
No.
I definitely got it.
So let me and let me give you another perspective.
Pete Conrad landed Apollo 12 within walking distance from surveyor 3.
It was about 600 feet.
They did a moonwalk, and they retrieved hardware for analysis from surveyor 3.
They found that it was intensely scoured.
Results suggested that during the Apollo 12 lunar descent descent, the lunar fines were accelerated to velocities that in theory could propel them around the entire lunar globe.
So there's gonna every time you land, there's gonna be a lot of dust particles hovering above the moon.
We've had conversations about this big time.
Yeah.
Now the, let's talk about the most tragic planet in the solar system.
The one that never ever fails to disappoint.
You know which one that is?
No.
Mars.
Oh, okay.
Planet light dust storms on Mars can be active for months.
I've got a NASA JPL, Caltech generated rendition of what midday would currently look like from the perspective of the Mars rover opportunity.
And the last panel is dated June 18 June of 2018, and that is a big problem.
They have also found chlorinated hydrocarbons called chlorates.
They've been found by 4 Mars rovers including curiosity.
Perchlorates compromise a whopping half to 1% of Martian soil everywhere on the planet.
Its discovery by the Phoenix lander in May of 2008 was a complete and total surprise.
Some microbes on earth use perchlorates as an energy source by reducing oxidized chlorine down to chloride and using the resulting energy for their for their metabolites.
But perchlorates are very toxic to humans.
So that means you would have to if you were gonna do agriculture on Mars, you'd have to scrub the dust, you'd have to scrub the soil.
Otherwise, the stuff would get into the plants.
And if that weren't enough, hexavalent chromium, a very potent carcinogen, has been found in lower doses that's still widely widely disseminated.
So and there's more heartbreak from Mars that was made public in the last couple of years.
Remember all the business about terraforming?
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Here at all time.
People like Bob Zubin, Elon Musk, and space cadets for decades.
Well, a study determined there isn't enough c o two on Mars for so called terraforming.
So that darling myth is gone.
So the soil of Mars is beginning to look like 1 giant contaminated stew mixed for billions of years by dust devils seen in space and by the rovers.
There were some recent reports, I've read this in the newspaper paper from the Netherlands looking at growing crops in martian simulant, but of course that was all without prochlorates or hexavalent chromium and of course souped up by the addition of earth like nutrients and fertilizers.
So talking about misinformation, now there was a breathless story from the university from the University of Netherland that they had grown food in Martian soil, and it was all bogus.
Oh, really?
What about they grew it in a martian simulant that they that they upgraded with fertilizers, and it didn't include the prochlorates or the hexavalochromia?
K?
So Mars is the very last place I would propose sending humans, especially to establish settlements.
So Mars is out biologically.
Biologically.
Yep.
Biologically, it's out.
Okay.
Now let's talk about the biggie, and the biggie is ionizing radiation.
Instead of a benign nothingness, space is seething undulating cauldron of dangerous ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation in contrast to non ionizing radiation has enough energy to destroy molecular bonds and strip electrons off of the atoms creating free ions.
In space, there are 2 major sources of ionizing radiation, galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind.
We now know that they're not rays at all, but particles, ions actually, mostly protons with some heavy nuclei mixed in.
These are elementary particles that penetrate spacecraft, pressure vessels, and space suits, as well as the organs, cells, and DNA of human occupants, generating shrapnel like secondary radiation called sphalation in the process.
In biological systems, these ions and secondary radiation induce degenerative changes usually associated with aging, including extracellular matrix remodeling, persistent inflammation, oxidative damage, cataracts, and cumulative deterioration of the central nervous system including cognitive decline.
Damage to DNA results in increased mutation rates, instability of the genome, induction of cancer, and activation of plate tumors.
Here's how it works.
These highly energetic particles slam into the atmosphere at nearly the speed of light.
They generally penetrate down to about 60,000 to 80,000 feet before they crash into an air molecule.
This collision knocks off a proton or a neutron or 2 and unleashes a shower of high energy gamma rays and the rest of the atmosphere serves as a sponge to absorb the shrapnel at this initial collision.
Now, I heard NASA engineers all the time dismiss galactic cosmic radiation by saying, well, you can't shield against cosmic rays, but that's not true.
Our atmosphere shields us very effective.
There's over a kilogram of air above every square centimeter on the planet.
So you and I and all the creatures on earth benefit from a natural, passive, and constant 1,030 grams per square centimeter radiation tube.
I want you to remember that number, 1,030 grams per square centimeter.
Yep.
That's a kilogram per square cent over a kilogram per square centimeter.
To a lesser extent, the earth's magnetosphere protects us but only at low latitudes.
So what the engineers actually mean is that from the earth's perspective, it's impractical to shield for GCR because of the increased weight in volume associated with passive shielding.
Now I've talked to everybody I know at NASA, and as far as I know, there's never been a single recorded case of the space life science life scientist telling an engineer, escape velocity is impractical.
Okay.
So the Earth's natural radiation shield is damned good.
The average annual radiation dose for all passengers on spaceship Earth is, depending on the elevation, upholstery 300 milligram a year.
That's the same as a couple of chest X rays.
But outside of the atmosphere in pre in free space, cosmic ray bombardment is relentless.
According to astrophysicist Eugene Parker, for which the Parker solar probe was named, approximately 1 proton or much heavier nucleus would pass through your fingernail every second.
Wow.
5000 ions would rip through your body like a machine gun every second.
Each one leaving a trail of broken chemical bonds and triggering the same cascade that occurs in the atmosphere.
Now the few heavier nuclei do as much or more damage than proteins because of their ability to break chemical bonds is proportional to their charge.
An iron an iron nucleus, for example, does 676 times more biological damage than a proton.
One third of the DNA in your body would be sliced by cosmic rays each and every year you spend in interplanetary space.
Now we know the sun too can unleash horrendous bursts of protons and heavy nuclei at nearly the speed of light without much warning.
These coronal mass ejections or solar particle events can deliver an excess of a couple of 100 rem over an hour or so, a potentially lethal dose for an astronaut.
So even on short duration sorting missions you can get fried by a massive solar particle event if you're unlucky enough to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now radiation was not an operational concern during the Apollo flights to the moon because mission durations were short and because of one other very important factor.
Can I I wanna before you get that, I wanna bring back because I think it came from you, but I'm not sure, and I'm trying to remember where it came from?
Above our atmosphere, if you just to add the data piece, if you compressed all the water that starts at in our atmosphere to a singular source, it would end up being about 10 meters, 30 me me 30 feet of water.
And the water is one of the protective shields in that discussion or the the way you were describing how we're protected.
Is that data something that you would say?
Well, I I don't understand what you mean
by water.
If you compress the water if you compress the water above every human from the begin the top of the atmosphere down and took all the water that's within it, it would
excellent radiation protection meter.
Outstanding because it has a lot of hydrogen.
Okay?
So, it's you could one of the concepts that Dan Adama and I have, we call it Aquarius.
It's a nuclear thermal propulsion craft, remember, that uses water as a propellant and radiation sheet.
Yes.
So so when you get to your destination, in our case, it was one of the Martian moons, Demos, because it it's not worth going to the Mars surface.
That's too deadly.
You in order to do capture at the Mars system, you would burn your radiation sheet.
Mhmm.
But you'd only be exposed for about 3 or 4 days.
So water is a very, very good radiation sheet.
Okay.
Yeah.
And it was just the the the I think it might have been Greg that there's 30 feet of water if you go from surface to the extent of our atmosphere.
There's 30 feet of water if you compress that.
That that I have never heard.
And 30 feet of water in all directions.
No.
Yes.
It was.
That's what I had heard.
So, again, remember, everybody's everybody's sharing different data.
I'm asking a question.
That doesn't sound feasible to me.
Okay.
I'm That's
a that's a huge
That's a huge amount of water, but it was something that was tossed out as a reason why you can't be on the surface of the moon.
Well, you you Because
you don't you can't create that.
Surface of the moon long long term.
That's right.
And so, eventually, I'll get down to the punch line on that.
There is there is a workaround.
Okay?
So, talking about solar flares, remember they were Yep.
NASA lucked out.
Yep.
Because I had guys say to me, doc, we went to the moon 6 times and never had to deal with radiation.
It's just not a problem.
Well, my rebuttal was to always show them a chart which showed that all the flares happened at the precise time that there was not an Apollo mission to the moon going on.
However, in the late summer of 1972, there was a tremendous solar flare, a real biggie.
It's often referred to as a granddaddy flare.
Had the Apollo 17 crew been on their way to the moon in August of 72 rather than December or worse, if James Cernan and Jack Schmitt had been in the lunar lander, the equivalent of only 5 grams per centimeter radiation protection.
What did I tell you the atmosphere provided?
Pop quiz.
Oh, I gotta go back.
I don't remember.
Let's see.
I have a Oh, that was a grams.
1,032 grams per square cent.
1 30 yep.
Okay.
The lunar lander had 5 5 grams per square centimeter.
They would have received enough radiation to cause nausea, vomiting, cataracts, internal bleeding, fatigue, bacterial infection, fever, and perhaps even death due to sepsis.
So these large solar flares are the tsunamis of space.
These large tidal waves aren't all that rare, and there isn't much warning.
They can be incredibly distracting, even lethal.
And remember, these solar flares occur on top of the baseline GCR exposures.
Are you aware of the x class the x forty class flare that happened in July of 2012?
No.
No.
I am not.
Well, the reason you aren't is because had it happened 1 week earlier, earth would have taken a direct hit.
Minimal estimates of the damage to the electrical grid of the planet according to a national academy study was in the neighborhood of about $2,000,000,000,000 with millions of people being without electricity for months to years.
Okay?
This one was at least as big as the Carrington event of 18 59.
Wow.
The largest flare ever observed by human beings.
There's even been talk of establishing a z class flare category that would be beyond the x class, which, like an f 5 tornado, would be generally considered the finger of God.
This kind of a thing would be catastrophic
Oh my god.
Like a human space mission.
Okay.
Now let's get into a little bit
of And I did see that chart, by the way.
I did see that chart of where the, how the astronauts had been inside of the parameters, the the low time that they didn't hit any of those flares.
So I I did yeah.
I saw it.
Mhmm.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm sure Greg probably sent that too.
Yes.
Okay.
Now NASA and the National Council on Radiation Protection in acquiescence to the fact that space is a high radiation environment adopted the reed concept.
Reid is an acronym, r e I d, which stands for risk of exposure induced death.
It's a statistical approach pegged to a single radiation effect that is death from cancer directly directly attributable to the exposure, not to aging, not to chronic disease like Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, cognitive decline, or systems performance, or musculoskeletal or bone.
In 1989, NASA accepted the NCRP recommendation of career dose limits to a lifetime increase of 3% in cancer mortality.
So NASA permits its astronauts to be exposed to enough radiation that its chances of dying from cancer is 3% more than it is on the baseline, which is about 25%.
Okay?
So in 2 in the year 2000, NCRP kept this kept the same 3% recommendation, but reduced by almost half the dose expected to reach the 3% lifetime risk.
So I'll give you some examples.
Mhmm.
For a 45 year old male astronaut, the 10 year 3% career limit went from 325 grand in 1989 to only a 150 grand in the year 2000.
A 35 year old female astronaut, 10 year 3 percent crew limit went from a 175 grand in 1989 to 60 grand in the year 2000.
Now this is not a more conservative standard because in each case, it resulted in a 3 year, increase in death from cancer due to exposure in the career of the astronaut.
It was a realization that radiation is more harmful than initially predicted.
And that was because of the basic surge that was done in the 11 years between 1989 and the year 2000.
So what my friend, Dan Anemo, and I did was set up a new radiation protection scale.
Instead of talking about grams percent, we talk about, that you're it was normalized to earth protection.
So in other words, radiation protection 100%, which is rp100, is the same radiation protection that earth provides its ceiling.
In other words, it's a 10 30 grams per square centimeter radiation shield equivalent or a 100%.
Rp50 is the radiation shield equivalent to 18,000 feet.
Because at 18,000 feet, half the atmosphere is above you, half the atmosphere is below you.
You know what the best locations on the ISS is?
I I I couldn't tell you.
R p 2.
Oh, really?
2% Earth's protection.
The radiation protection of the Apollo lunar lunar lander, I've already given That's 1 half of 1%.
Yeah.
And the radiation protection equivalent of the space suit is 1 10th of 1 percent Earth equivalent.
So, really, what we have here is a radiation perfect storm because permissible exposure limits continue to plummet as the result of cumulative evidence, and GCR radiation exposure levels are increasing to levels never seen before in the space age because there's an 80 year glitzberg cycle.
Every 80 years, galactic cosmic radiation goes up.
Now we've been expecting deep space exposure limits for about 5 years now from NASA.
But so far, all we've heard is crickets.
We have exposures for low earth orbit.
Well, because why do you why do you think there are crickets?
Because they're ignoring the problem.
They're they're are they ignoring it, or they've decided to to keep it quiet so that there's no pushback?
No.
They've pivoted from radiation protection, which is what they ought to be doing to protect their astronauts to are you ready for it?
Informed consent.
I'm serious.
I'm dead serious.
I I know you are.
I'm just it it's it's like the, we have one of our team yeah.
We have one of our team members who's in a lawsuit with somebody, and they they ended up with mold because the neighbor did something that did 3, $400,000 of mold.
And the neighbor said they didn't do it, and the person said that they're fighting a legal battle.
And it was the the insurance company said, well, that's what happens when you have neighbors, and they're not paying it.
So they're suing.
Like, okay.
That was not the way the plan was supposed to work when you buy your insurance.
So kind of pushing it on to the individual.
It's informed consent.
Therefore, you understand the the risks and go forward.
Yeah.
Here, astronaut, you wanna be on a mission to Mars Right.
Here's the form.
Yep.
Informed consent.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
Crazy.
Yeah.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
So instead of as low as reasonable, achievable, radiation exposure, they have hunted to inform consent rather than rather than, addressing the problem.
Okay.
Let's talk about the actual dose flux in deep space.
Dose flux?
Those flux of radiation.
GCR radiation exposure in deep space.
So these are not my numbers.
These are numbers that were developed by the Mars Science Laboratory radiation assessment detector inside the curiosity rover on a 253 day 560,000,000 kilometer journey to Mars.
So are you ready?
Yeah.
The average daily dose rate is a whopping 1.8 millisieverts per day.
That's 200 times the average sea level radiation dose of all sources except medical.
It's 2 1,000 times Earth's daily GCR dose.
This is like getting a whole body CT scan every 5 to 6 days.
95% of the dose, at least when curiosity flew to Mars, was from GCR.
Only 5% of it was from solar radiation.
So the average daily Mars surface dose is 0.67 millisieverts a day, 75 times the average earth dose and 744 times the earth daily GCR dose.
The maximal daily dose limit for human embryo and fetuses is delivered every 13 minutes in deep space and every 34 minutes on the surface of Mars.
I'll let that sink in.
No.
We I can't mention the person because he's very well known.
We were on a call, and he was doing a calculate he did his calculations about the Starship and going to Mars with the expectation.
And I'm just sharing what he had said.
He said, okay.
The expectation is a 100 people will go to Mars.
He said there is no way a 100 people can get into that starship and survive on life support systems.
But even he believes that 6 people would be only in enough that if it could survive would, and most likely they wouldn't make it.
Well, let me give you the numbers.
For a Mars mission that is 240 days out, 470 days on the surface waiting for the next great launch window for Earth return, and 240 days back, the cumulative dose would be 1.2 sievers or 120 rem, not milliamp.
Yeah.
It's more more radiation in 950 days than you would get in 370 years on earth, and that's just for a single mission.
Imagine the cumulative doses if you settled on the surface permanently like the space cadets won't do.
Now this single mission exposure, believe it or not, is within the current career limits for a 45 year old male, but more than double the limit for a 35 year old female.
Clearly, something has to give.
So here's my statement.
If human beings ever live on the surface of the moon or Mars, they'll have to live like ants, earthworms, or moles.
Which yes.
They'll have to lead a subterranean distance.
Back in the maybe about 10 years ago, there was a retired Apollo astronaut in the audience, and he came not recognized him.
He came up to me after the talk, and he said, quote, dig a hole.
Yeah.
Well, good luck with that.
My response, going Logan on him, was, look, any intelligent species capable of traveling 560,000,000 kilometers to another planet and is either unwilling or unable to, quote, dig a hole, end quote, once they get there, doesn't deserve to be there in the first place.
He had no answer to that comment.
Okay?
So here are the numbers.
Here are the numbers that would enable you to live subterranean existence on the moon, Mars, or Deimos and be able to generate r p 100.
In other words, the same shielding that you would get on the earth's surface.
And that's based on the density of the regolith of each place.
So for the moon, you'd have to bury yourself in 4.12 meters of lunar regolith or 13.5 feet.
For Mars, there there is a little bit of protection in its thin atmosphere and I've included that protection which is small in these numbers.
For Mars, you'd have to Mars soil is 3.75 grams per cubic centimeter, that's the density.
But for the meters, you'd have to be 2.65 meters below the surface or 8.7 feet.
For demos, you'd have to be 7 feet 7 meters below the surface or almost 23 feet.
So you are not gonna see I see all the time these beautiful PowerPoint slides with these half design contests and all that kind of stuff.
But, you know, when I look at them, the walls don't look 9 feet thick, and and they're not there needs to be no windows and no rovers and no repetitive EVA by the same crew.
Now this is very complex and complicated, but it's not our first rodeo.
So let me give you an example from history.
Paleolithic men men, homo sapiens, exiting Africa when they got to the Red Sea, I'm sure they noticed real quickly that it was saltwater, and saltwater is a poison.
If you drink it, you die.
You can get hypothermic, and you can drown in it.
So their choice was if they wanted to leave Africa, they had to develop the technology to isolate themselves from a hazard.
What was that technology?
For I don't know.
I couldn't tell you what.
Boats.
Boats.
Oh, really?
Boats.
They had to isolate themselves from the hazard.
Otherwise, they wanted to cross the Red Sea.
Otherwise, they drowned or get hypothermic.
Oh, you mean just the just the s?
Just to be able to not be in contact.
Yes.
No.
Yeah.
Okay.
So simple.
That's the story on radiation.
Radiation is the showstamp for deep space human, habitation.
You're gonna have to fit in the way that we did it with our Aquarius concept was we figured you needed at least, r p 5 on in transit and then r p 100 at your destination.
So that was our that was our requirement that my friend Dan Adam and I developed.
So one of the I've been listening for a while to taking the data in.
I can hear you eat.
I just my wife just handed me something because I have not literally left my desk since 9 AM since 9 AM.
I know the feeling.
I've been fed the entire day at my desk.
I feel your pain.
So the question that I have is you've got to have shared this before.
I sure you are not you're not
a period with everybody who will listen to
right.
So given that you've shared it, and my first time hearing about you, it wasn't, hey.
You gotta speak to this guy, Jim.
He's gonna give you the data.
He's gonna tell you what he hears and sees, and you can also make your own, decisions.
And why why the loss of traction?
And I understand the cadets.
Why that loss of traction?
I'll tell you why.
When I do something like the space show, do you know David Levinson?
You ever heard of him?
Yeah.
I've heard the name.
Yeah.
But I don't know.
Yeah.
He does he does the space show, and I've done multiple space shows for
Oh, yes.
I know him.
And, the the the feedback that I get, it's funny because nobody takes issues with my facts because my facts are irrefutable.
Right?
The thing they the thing they really recoil against is my tongue.
They call me they call me too negative.
You know, I I don't care.
Essentially, when you say I don't care.
Why the reason I've been quiet for the past few minutes is I'm saying plans I don't care.
If your plans are bad, the plans are bad, period.
It's not a matter of, well, maybe I'll try to make it work.
The 17 SDGs come to mind.
They'll never work by 2030.
And I we had an someone from, I think it was Austria, one of the senior people there said, well, we we have to use it.
We have nothing else, and we have to give people hope.
And I said, well, a plan that's terrible is a plan that's terrible.
Don't give people hope about something that won't work.
In the case, what I've been what's been going through my mind is how do we project Muna?
How does our team adapt to the challenges that you're tossing out?
We have to, I'm not gonna say verify, but I'm not gonna go out and do all the homework that you've done.
Obviously, we've had enough conversation in that regard.
But I'm I'm I'm struggling, I have windows in front of me or to the side.
And I'm looking out, and I'm I'm pondering what types of activities.
Now, you know, we're talking with Greg.
You know, we're talking with some of these other people that I I I think you respect even just the way you reacted to when I said the names.
And we're we're trying to make this work.
And and these numbers I've never heard before.
I don't listen to David's podcast.
That's not a slap against him.
He has a lot of podcasts.
He has a lot of people on.
And I our approach is we bring you on once, you're on once.
We're not gonna bring you on multiple times.
Give us what you know, help us out, and then join the party.
He'll join our team and help us move forward.
So mine is not a reaction that's negative, which I can understand that people say your tone is negative.
I don't care.
Mine is, okay.
What types of things can we adapt to that we've already got working or in the works?
Or what types of changes have to happen?
How would we be able to bring someone like yourself into the into the mix and still make sure our story works, the activities that we're engaged in, because we've got a lot of different activities that are not just space related.
It's innovation related.
There's, techno there's, patents, trademarks, copyrights, a lot of things that we're working on.
So mine is, I'm just absolutely baffled that this if you've been sharing this, which I can't believe you wouldn't be, that this just wouldn't have been, you know, one of the you think of the movies where the person just throws everything on someone's desk and says, read this before you do anything.
And it's
Well, I used to give all through the 20 tens.
Every year, I gave talks at ISDC, at New World's, multiple conferences, and the attendance at my presentations was always standing remote, always standing remote.
Mhmm.
And the sponsors always asked me to come back because they knew my presentations would be filled.
But after about 8 years of this, David, I realized I was getting no traction.
Yeah.
And I was I was going back to these meetings and hearing the same old space cadet deja move that I had always heard.
In other words, none of it stuck.
And so I one of our our challenges on our and I wanna continue on.
One of our challenges that you and I had in a rich an original conversation was that in my head, I am saying how do you adjust plans and how do you address story lines?
How do you get people I can
tell you how you adjust
my Well, I I that's my point is because I don't wanna continue with this and you give it in a second, but you're giving the raw data, which is great.
Oh, a guy pops to mind.
When I was a young kid, there was an orthopedic surgeon.
He was the best in town.
And when you would go to him, he would do the exact same thing.
And everybody warned you.
He would give you 3 options.
He would say, let's say you have a a broken collarbone or something.
He'd say, first thing is, you can have surgery, first thing is you can have surgery.
You could have it repaired.
It'll take 6 months.
You'll heal.
It'll be painful, and you'll come out the other side with 80% mobility.
Second thing is we can wait a few weeks, then do a surgery, and you'll get about 60% of your mobility back.
It won't be as painful, and you'll be able to do whatever you want in about 4 to 5 weeks.
The third one is, we can do nothing.
And you will be in pain for the rest of your life and probably die in the process.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and
everybody warned everybody when they went in that they were going to get this horrific set of options.
And then he would say, what do you want to do?
The first thing I would do is get a second opinion.
Oh, he was he was he was very good.
So I'm not gonna argue with that.
I guess you get a second opinion.
Well, one of the reasons he he was so direct is that he was very good.
You know, he could afford to be direct.
Mhmm.
So, you know, I I kind of if you know, I have medical issues just like everybody my age, and I appreciate the doctor tells it gives it to me straight.
Yeah.
But not not every the the world politics, finance, storytelling, there are different mechanisms to get there.
I understand a
lot.
So all I'm when I'm thinking of you, and I am, you know, I'm thinking about how would you how could we make you a part of the team when we we're growing every single week.
We just brought on 40 people in Europe, and we're simultaneously doing projects along the way.
I'm asking myself, how do we take what you've given and move it to a place where it becomes knowledge that is people can bite into it.
And I just received from one of our previous podcast guests from 2 years ago, 3 years ago.
She said, I listened to all of them.
They're great.
So I think this this dynamic is working, but I love this content.
I mean, I'm I'm sitting here digesting it, trying to figure out what it means, but in no way, shape, or form am I saying, oh, no.
This guy is full of it.
I'm I'm I'm contemplating moves, if that makes sense
to you.
Nobody nobody ever accused me of being full of it.
What they didn't like was that I was negative.
I don't care if you're negative or not.
That's my my job is to figure out what to do
with it.
Just telling you that what they didn't like was my truth.
That's what they did.
No.
It's not the truth completely.
And so you can hear it from somebody on the other end of the line.
You have a delivery style that is methodical.
And, and it doesn't allow for absorption of content in a way that someone can digest it.
Because it's like a rapid fire machine gun.
Well, that's because I'm going through it once.
I understand that.
I love it.
I love it.
I'm not
complaining.
So, again, I'm going back to why why why why 10 years and you for first time I'm hearing.
Let me give you some suggestions.
Sure.
First of all, one of the things that you could do is to basically have 2 parallel designs.
One design in one path is reality oriented, and the other one is marketing.
And, you know, you there's a lot of cross fertilization between each of them.
That's doable.
The other thing is I'm I'm at the age now where the most valuable resource that I have is time, and I'm not interested in getting involved in projects.
I'm just not.
What I could do is if you will serve up a few young people to me, I can mentor them.
I can train them.
I I I
don't know where it'll go.
What I'm saying still is and we don't have 2 different paths.
What we have to do is, 1, create the the we have options for paths for construction.
But what I mean is inside of them, they all have to have stories no matter what they are to get people engaged and excited.
And and the age of infant is one of them.
You are
you're a guest 64, 65, something in there.
This is a different style.
People who listen to the podcast say it's a very different style than anything they've done before.
So I I love it.
I love it.
And we can figure that out, but I wanna continue with the David Wilkinson.
I wanna continue with the content.
I just it's it's the fact I accept the facts.
I don't have a challenge with that whatsoever.
So we've got on here implementation
for Interplanetary human space flight.
Interplanetary human space flight, zombies and way forward.
So let's take let's
jump let's let's go through hypogravity because that's the next showstalk.
Okay.
Hypogravity.
Yep.
Alright.
We have to finish that.
And, we'll we'll go through this fast even though I could keep you busy.
No.
No.
No.
I I don't want you
to go through it fast.
You're never gonna be on again.
And anybody who's listening to this should be hearing I should be hearing what I need to hear whether I like it or not.
So it's not fast that I prefer.
I'd prefer thorough.
Okay.
Well, for hypogravity, there are several main physiological problems in spaceflight.
There are a number of them.
Muscle loss, normal demineralization, radiation exposure, fluid shift from the lower body to the upper body, motion sickness, and theemia increased red cell destruction.
Sunita Williams is going through there right now in the ISS, and there is there is some concern in some circles that she's destroying red blood cells faster than she's making.
Wow.
Historically, what has happened is a lot of these changes it's a it's a classic example of adaptation.
And so it depends on your language.
If you're talking adaptation to space flight, then you can use the word adaptation.
If you're comparing it to the deconditioning of earth physiology, you can phrase it that way, but it's the same phenomenon.
And so what happens, there are changes in which when you're immediately exposed to weightlessness, for instance, there's a massive fluid shift from the lower body to the upper body.
And you see this in the photographs.
The astronauts look like they pulled an all nighter.
They had puffy faces.
And so what happens is hydrostatic pressure is pulling down on us when we're here at Earth, normal gravity, and blood is pooling in the large veins in our lower extremities.
When you rocket into space and all of a sudden there's no gravity, there's nothing to counteract the elastic recoil of the lower extremities.
And like squeezing a toothpaste tube, it forces all that fluid that has been in the lower extremities up into the central blood volume.
Right.
And there are reflexes in the right atrium called the Henrik Gower reflexes that sense that the atrium is stretched.
And so the Henry Gower reflexes sends a message to the brain that basically says, oh my god, fluid overload.
And the brain says, no problem.
I can take care of that And the brain sends a message to the kidneys that says, diurese like crazy.
And so the first 24 hours that the astronauts are in space, they can't even float by the restroom without having to pee.
Really?
Yeah.
And so what they do is they pee off about about 2 liters of fluid, and then they reach a new steady state
Ah, yeah.
Which is the new steady state to weightlessness.
So a lot of the changes happen that way, but there are couple of them, maybe about 3 systems that is not like that.
They don't de adapt and then reach a new city state and then stay there until you come home.
One of them is the radiation dose.
The radiation dose for reasons that I've talked about ad nauseam Yep.
Continue to increase throughout the mission.
For the bones, the bones immediately start to lose calcium when you're exposed to weightlessness.
And so the bones lose calcium and you become hypercalcemic, meaning the calcium level in your blood goes up.
And then your kidneys filter it out, you become hypercalciric, increase calcium in your urine, and that's a setup for kidney stones.
So there are certain conditions that you're more likely to get in weightlessness than you would on the ground.
Excuse me.
Kidney stones is lava.
Them.
So your muscle your bone continues to lose mineral throughout the duration of the mission.
And I could give you the numbers.
They're very sobering, and they don't wanna saturate you.
No.
No.
I'm I'm okay
with it, but my question I I transitioned to the moon.
How would that with the one six gravity?
Well, the answer is we don't know.
Okay.
But the but the my prediction is that it won't make any difference.
And here's the reason.
You gotta realize I come at this through the perspective of an evolutionary biologist.
So on earth, all life on earth evolved and persisted under the constant influence of one gravity.
In the course of geologic time, there were huge changes.
I mean, the atmosphere has changed, the oceans changed, the climate whipsawed back and forth between tropical earth and snowball earth.
Even the continents changed and took up new positions.
Mountains were thrust up and then dissolved back into the sea, but there was one thing and one thing only that never freaking changed, gravity.
Evolution has superbly crafted us to be gravity dependent creatures.
This is especially true with reproduction, organogenesis, fetal development, gestation, and early developmental milestones.
As a former evolutionary biologist, I think it's wildly naive to think we and the plants and animals we subsist on can make a single evolutionary leap to weightless civilization.
No engineer worth their salt would send people into space without air.
Right.
No engineer worth their salt would send people into space without water or without food.
Okay?
Like it or not, say this again, like it or not gravity needs to be on the list.
Gravity is the law.
We don't call it the law of gravity for nothing.
So are you saying that the only way to do this is if you're in a Van Braun or some type of structure that is in motion.
The only way we know how to create pseudo gravity is gravity by rotation.
Right.
That's what I'm saying.
So, yes, if you want earth normal gravity and remember I said it was naive to think that we were gonna be able to get by now we may be able to get by on maybe 90% of earth gravity, maybe 85%, but 1 6th earth gravity, no.
I'll bet every single penny I have that it won't work.
Now what it may do is it may slightly retard the rate of deconditioning, but it won't make up for the lack of gravity.
And so and and look, have you ever, David, have you ever experienced lunar gravity yourself?
No.
I have many times.
I did that on the bomb at on the k c 135, and I'll tell you, lunar gravity is not all that much fun.
There's even not there's not even enough gravity to walk.
You have to you have to bunny hop.
You have to hop.
You have to bunny hop.
K?
And that's that's 1 6th g.
So
are you are are you professing that we should have on the moon some type of rotational device?
Or are you saying
that the moon is not an option?
Here's what we don't have.
We have 63 years of human spaceflight experience, and we still don't know what the gravity prescription is.
We don't know the dose.
We don't know the frequency, and we don't know the side effects, and there will be side effects.
And it's an indictment of the space life sciences community and senior NASA management that we don't have the gravity prescription after 63 years of human space.
Now it it doesn't necessarily have to be an all or nothing thing because for a lot of these physiologic changes, we have countermeasures.
In other words, for muscle de adaptation, muscle atrophy, we have them lift weights.
K.
We have special pulley arrangements.
They can they can, you know, lift the equivalent of of mass.
You know, they can curl it or press it or whatever, and that helps retard the rate of deconditioning.
For the bone demineralization, we have them run on a treadmill.
Yeah.
And every time you come down on your heel, if you have the bungeenies appropriately adjusted, you're transmitting quite a bit of force through your heel and it does result in in a decreased rate of decondition, but it doesn't prevent.
One of the one of the dirty little secrets of all these countermeasures is that they really don't work because we have a countermeasure for each problem.
And so the real countermeasure to microgravity is ready?
Drumroll.
Mhmm.
Gravity.
Okay.
That's the countermeasure.
Yeah.
Of course.
Gravity.
Okay?
What we don't know is how much gravity, how frequent, and what are the side effects.
You know, there are ways you can generate intermittent gravity.
There at Johnson Space Center, the, there was a contractor that put together a little mini centrifuge that you would lay down in and it would whirl you around and it would spin you so that you had one g at your heart, and I think it was 2 g's at your feet and, of course, less than 1 g at your head.
And they put people at bed rest, which is the analog to weightlessness.
We do we used to do a lot of bed rest days, and they had 2 groups.
There was 1 group that they didn't do intermittent gravity and another group, that was the control group and the experimental group, they spent an hour a day in this centrifuge.
Oh,
wow.
And they found that muscle atrophy was was considerably reduced.
So it's possible to do intermittent gravity.
What you can't do intermediate intermittent gravity for is something like pregnancy.
Mhmm.
So you ask if the moon was if you could cross I mean, look.
If we do the studies once we have people on the moon or let's say we have a variable g research facility in earth orbit.
A lot of a lot of people have talked about those.
In fact, my input to the agency was the ISS should have been a variable gravity research facility where you could generate a variable amount of gravity.
You could generate lunar gravity or you could generate Mars.
The only study you'd have to do is Mars gravity because if Mars gravity didn't work, you can blow off lunar gravity.
That's not gonna work.
So Mars gravity is 1 6 g, and by the way, I've experienced a lot of Mars gravity too.
Mars gravity is wonderful.
Mars gravity is just enough gravity where you can walk, albeit slowly, but you could still walk.
What are the numbers?
Because you were you said you don't wanna give I wanna hear the numbers.
I'd have to look them up.
Oh, I thought you had them.
So that's why I was asking.
No.
I mean, I have them somewhere.
I can tell you that in the trochanter for bone demineralization, we've had crews lose up to 25% of their bone mineral in the trochanter.
We've had space we've had space station astronauts after they spend 6 months in space break their leg when they get back down to earth.
And by the way, it looks like there are 2 kinds of bone.
There's cortical bone, which is the surface bone, and there's trabecular bone, which is the matrix on the inside of the bone.
Mhmm.
Yep.
And it's the matrix that gives you the strength.
And what the deal is is it looks like cortical bone, you can replenish after the mission by re by rehabilitation.
It looks like the trabecular bone that you lose in space, you pretty much lose forever.
Wow.
That's what it looks like.
Okay?
So I always terms of radiation and microgravity, what I've concluded is that space is an accelerated aging environment.
The radiation artificially ages you and the weightlessness artificially ages you.
I'm telling you, I know a lot about the physiological issues in spaceflight.
You wouldn't you couldn't talk me into spending a year on the ISS if you promised me $1,000,000.
I wouldn't do it.
My health is too important, and I can tell you for a fact, although I won't name names, that the people who come back after spending as little as 6 months on the ISS or a year on the ISS, they are not happy campers.
I have been the first one into the space shuttle when it lands in, back when we were flying the shuttle missions, and back when the missions are reasonably short, 7 to 10 days.
And I can tell you when I would walk in, the flight surgeon would be the one to walk into the vehicle before the crew ever walked out.
Because the flight surgeon has checked the crew out.
And there are a lot of times I would walk in and see these people that look like they were 80 years old after a short shuttle flight, and mostly it was because of dehydration.
Mhmm.
And I would or or their muscles had atrophied, and I would tell them when they were in the white room there.
I'd say, you gotta walk around.
You know, you gotta just keep walking.
Keep walking in circles.
You gotta get your balance back, you gotta get some of your strength back, and you gotta drink this fluid.
We fluid loaded them prior to entry interface anyway, and I knew these guys real well and gals.
So they were friends of mine.
Right?
And they would give me a smart, like, remark.
Right?
And I would say, hey.
No problem with me.
If you wanna be the first one to fall down the stairs on national TV, be my guest.
And, of course, then they'd get up and start walking around.
So it's very sober.
Physiology of space flight is extremely sober.
So And we're going to have to take our gravity with us, period.
End of story.
Okay.
Now for the moon for the moon, it might be a great community, but you're not gonna have you're not gonna have children on the moon Yep.
Because you need gravity for the developmental milestones.
Yes.
Especially while they're building bone and all that kind of stuff.
But adults, adults who go up there probably for a while, especially if we figure out a gravity prescription that's in some way, shape, or form includes intermittent gravity.
I can think of a number of ways to do that, but we don't even we haven't even done the studies, David.
Mhmm.
And this is year 63 of human space flight.
And the reason is NASA doesn't wanna do the studies.
Oh.
Because NASA doesn't wanna do communities.
They only wanna do theater.
And and and and I again, I'm,
I'm not tied to NASA.
It doesn't that's not the intention of our project.
So I'm I'm listening.
I'm just telling you the history.
I know.
I I agree.
I'm I I'm I'm no challenge with it.
What I'm saying is I'm you know, when you have that look out the window type thing, I keep on looking out the window and saying, how do we impactfully do what we're trying to accomplish that we will accomplish?
We're just gonna figure out how.
And if you heard the narrative of what we're proposing, there are phases of development over time.
So the types of things you can learn along the way, obviously, are building blocks.
But we're also we've never proposed Mars because too far away.
A lot of risk.
A lot of people we spoke to.
But it it didn't even start that way.
The moon is 3 days away by the technology we have today.
Moon the moon is the place to go.
And that's it's been it's been since the beginning, since the very first day.
And the reason I say it is you started talking about having children and the entire thing.
Everything that started Project Moon was I was told, you know, that NASA is working on what would happen if a woman gets pregnant on the moon.
And we're studying that.
NASA's not working on.
Well, this is not working on.
That's what I was told.
Again, we just have to go with what I was.
NASA, the NASA approach is to prevent pregnancy.
So what I said well, I was told to do that.
So maybe the one hand isn't watching the other, meaning they're telling one thing and not telling them to tell something else.
But what happened was I I looked to the person and I we were in restaurant night, signal to come closer.
And I said, I can solve that for you.
And he looked at me like, what are you talking about?
And my words were send her the f home.
We don't know if the cells will divide.
We don't know if the cells will divide properly.
We don't know how they will grow up and develop.
We don't know anything about what would happen to this child.
And by the way, we have technology today.
It's not complicated.
It stops a woman from getting pregnant.
The first thing we should not we should not be working on that today.
We should be working on how do we get to the moon and say that we have the ability to stop that so that that's not an issue today.
I agree.
And that's that was quite I was a little bit more, colorful, but I was quiet.
And then I leaned back and you I said, do you wanna know how to get to the moon?
And that's where you wanna you need to start with the box of the roof.
That's the whole that is actually what happens.
So when you're tossing out these, I'm not gonna say realizations, when you're talking out these talking points, I'm traveling back and saying, okay.
So we had some things.
Right?
We have other things we're missing.
But I I I I think it's, I don't know why I'm told other stories by other people about things that can happen.
And then Ask
him for citations.
Next time somebody says something like that, ask him for citations.
Ask him where it's published in literature.
Look at it.
I'm I'm a pain in the butt enough.
I don't need to, you know, pry them with a knife.
No.
Just ask them just ask them pleasantly.
What's the where is that?
Citation.
Yeah.
And so I the intermittent gravity, I'm asking myself.
You just said, under your breath a little bit, it wasn't too loud, but you said that you have a few ideas for intermittent gravity on the moon.
So let's assume let's assume that project moon at 4 phase development of the moon with the phases that we've got, we've got to get people to be able to stay there.
Part of the evolutionary progression that you've talked about from the beginning of the conversation, that to become an interplanetary species, if that's the end game.
Our game is to, that's that's after us.
I mean, I there's almost, I'm not gonna say I'm dying because I'm not.
But I our plan is 40 years.
Let there'll be other people who can work on that.
So if we were gonna do just the moon, just the moon, what are your ideas for intermittent gravity?
Well, that's a separate discussion.
Well, you oh, okay.
So we we we'll have a separate discussion to go over what your ideas are for their because you you said it under your breath, and I wasn't sure why you were holding it back.
Yeah.
The only the only way the only way to do that is by some kind of rotation.
It's the only way we know.
There is no magic switch that you can throw that gives yourself partial gravity.
The only way we know how to do it is pseudo gravity through through rotational acceleration.
That's it.
So I don't have any
So so it's it's either, it's I'm trying to think, is it kind of like you have a hamster wheel that, people can run on.
No.
Because what you're talking about, a lot of people think about that.
That's the that's the 2,001 syndrome.
Well, I'm I'm just trying to toss out at what what is besides if he said you just gotta spin them.
You just spin them.
But you don't spin them while they're moving.
You spin them while they're while they're still while they're while they're lying.
And so you're talking, an hour a day.
You an hour a day, you have to jump into it.
Yeah.
Okay.
That's not complicated.
I mean, it's complicated, but it's not complicated.
But it will probably only address certain, issues and not others.
Such as and such as?
Well, it might it might address bone demineralization to a degree because you are putting accelerated force down the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Yeah.
So you could predict, you could hypothesize that you will retard bone demineralization to some degree to be determined.
Yeah.
Right?
And that's probably a function of how fast you spin somebody.
When you spin somebody at a decent speed, you have to you have to basically you can't you can't let them move their head because if they're rotating fast in one plane and they look to the left or look to the right, look up or look down, they'll be overcome with overwhelming vertigo.
Yep.
Okay.
So I remember the last time you wrote a Tilter World?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, then you know what I'm talking.
So So, there are there are ways to look at it, but what has to happen is the basic research has to be done, David.
You can't immediately leap into an operational.
I I understand.
I'm I'm actually not going to operational.
I'm going to I'm
going That's
what that's what years into the future in my head because
That's what NASA has refused to do.
Why I'm not going to We're 40 years.
We're 40 years.
And I'm asking myself, in those 40 years, where do we start this?
And in my head, I just came up with and I this is just making it up.
It's a, it's a stacked set of cyclonic devices that spin, and there are a certain dimension because if you have x amount of people and they have to be in the device x amount of time, so then what you do is you get the individual into this carousel, this, the spin, and they don't need a tremendous amount of space.
And I'm not saying you sandwich them in, but you almost have a stacked set of circles.
So you can use
What what you'd have is a radial.
You have, like, your axis of rotation.
Yeah.
And extending from that perpendicularly, you'd have a series of litters.
Yeah.
Little little beds, little stretchers, And, people would be immobilized.
So Yeah.
Correct.
And you would rotate this thing as for a certain prescription.
Yeah.
That's what yeah.
I'm thinking I'm say thinking that it it could right.
It doesn't have to be one person.
You could have a series of beds in this one condition.
You show up at 4 o'clock or whatever the time is in there.
The hot bunk.
Right.
For the bunk.
You you you lay down.
You're gonna be there for an hour.
There are 8 beds, but that's floor 1, which is, you know, a meter high.
But there's another one, a meter, another one underneath it, and another one on top, and another one on top of that.
So you can have, depending on the volume of people, I'm thinking of, you know, not having 4 people.
But you have a volume of people that are there.
And you you could be able to create a system that allows for those individuals to spend once a day.
So that's what all I'm go that's what's spinning through my head as spinning.
That's a bad way to say it.
It was part of the experimental design every other day.
Do you counter rotate?
Yeah.
Or do you rotate in the same direction?
Interesting.
Yep.
Counter rotation.
I hadn't thought about that.
So, yes.
Which in which I do you do that?
And and maybe maybe you alternate on speeds.
Maybe it's one day, it's one speed.
Another next day, it's another because there's a value to, a or the speeding of slows down to a speed, goes to a speed, goes back to a speed.
So there could be all sorts of different calculations that are made.
All all part of a potential radio gravity prescription.
Okay.
Makes sense.
And I'm so I'm trying to adapt to what you're saying and say what types of innovations might be necessary to make it happen.
So what do we have?
Let's, let's move on here quickly.
Yeah.
That's what I was gonna say.
Are we next one?
Dinner plans I have to do.
Yep.
So, let's talk about let's go down to the NASA standard approach.
And so, really, what you have is that NASA has a standard approach to its deep space exploration program.
Okay?
And it's in my mind, it's precise precisely the wrong way to go.
So the standard NASA approach are chemical propellants, minimal radiation shielding, frequent repetitive EVAs, no ISRU.
There was insight to resource utilization other than sunlight, microgravity.
K?
Then there was no artificial gravity, and that's the standard approach.
And so not only is it insufficient for interplanetary human space flight, it's downright dangerous, and it's usually reverse engineered.
What NASA does is decide what it wants to do and then reverse engineer the thought process to get it to what it wants to do.
They don't design by first principle.
Now they may design the vehicles by that, the stresses on the vehicles and all that kind of stuff, but with the humans, they reverse engineer what they wanna do.
I saw it many, many times.
So that's the standard approach.
The correct approach is everything opposite to that.
Advanced advanced propulsion, adequate radiation shielding, no repetitive EVAs, and all be done by teleoperated EVA robots Mhmm.
Controlled from inside a radiation protected habitat.
Some kind of artificial gravity or at least intermittent gravity.
Alright?
And, that would be the Logan deep space approach, precisely the opposite of what NASA
You had 5 points.
You had chemical use, minimal,
creation shielding, no repetitive EVAs, ISRU.
There you go.
On the ISAU.
Okay.
And some, artificial gravity or some gravity prescription Yeah.
To be determined.
Okay?
So that that covers that.
So let's move on.
Okay.
Let's talk about radiation protection on the human element.
Because basically what you have to do is you gotta think of ways to radically slow the radiation clock, which is ticking up to a career limit of 3% risk of induced death dose that I described earlier.
Yep.
Right?
Yes.
So you have to redesign the human part of the vehicle to leverage all infrastructures including propellant for radiation protection.
So starship is precisely the wrong shape for an interplanetary vehicle.
If you look at the starship, you see up at the top, there are windows.
There are windows.
Maybe people are are seated there like you are in an airplane looking out the window.
Well, Starship has your the the crew, the passengers are just exposed in the nose of the spacecraft because that's the notional view of what a spacecraft is supposed to be, and it has to be that shape in order to get into earth orbit, get through the atmosphere.
Mhmm.
That's not the shape you wanna do going between one orbit and another orbit.
Let's say earth orbit to Mars.
What you want is a spherical spacecraft that looks like a big beach ball.
And where's the crew?
Right in the center of mass of that beach ball.
So you line all the propellant, you put all the equipment, all the stowage around the crew.
Why?
Because the more mass shielding you have, the less exposed to radiation they are during an 8 month transit.
That makes sense?
Yep.
It makes perfect sense.
Okay.
Would you do the same thing for the moon?
No.
Because it's a short journey.
Okay.
I'm just I'm just asking.
Okay.
I would agree with you, but I because we we are really
3 days versus 8 months.
No.
And and the only reason I said is you've more or less discounted the the Mars completely in in the beginning.
So I didn't realize you were going back to that.
So that's why I came back to moon and saying, okay.
Are you using a similar methodology?
I wouldn't think you would need to.
No.
Okay.
No.
But but what you do need is you need probably r p five radiation protection in transit, and that's the equivalent of 51.5 grams per square centimeter in transit.
Okay.
Yep.
That's r p 5.
R p 5.
I got it.
And, anything you could do to decrease your transit times, you would do that because that decreases exposure.
But when you get to your habitat, you must provide r p 100 radiation protection.
You must provide the same kind of radiation protection that they have on.
The equivalent of a 1,032 grams per square centimeter, passive 24 hours a day radiation protection.
Okay.
Okay.
Alright.
So let's go down.
We're almost done.
Oh, this did this really amazing.
You you remember the movie, The Martian?
Yes.
Okay.
Go watch the Martian again and look at the Mars transit spacecraft in that Ridley Scott movie, the Martian.
And based on what we've been talking about, it'll make you laugh.
And the reason it'll make you laugh is this design actually came from NASA.
So what it is, it looks like a big pencil with the crew up in the in the nose, and that's exactly the opposite kind of structure you would want for an air planetary vehicle.
In fact, the prototype, the prototype perfect shape Yeah.
I see it.
For a deep space interplanetary vehicle is the one that was used in the movie 2,001 to take people from Earth orbit to to the surface of the moon.
And I forget what it was called.
I have a picture of it.
I'm looking at it right now, but it's it's basically a sphere with 4 engines at the bottom and hydraulic 4 hydraulic legs.
The difference is the crew wouldn't be up at the top looking out of windows.
They'd be right in the center.
They would be right in the center.
Yeah.
I've I'm looking at the, the pictures also.
Yeah.
And so that's the perfect shape for a deep space interplanetary vehicle.
The other perfect shape is, the discovery spacecraft in 2001 that had the big sphere with the with the big spoke Yep.
With the engines at the back.
And, again, the crew isn't looking out windows here in the front.
The crew would be in the center.
Yeah.
Just protecting them.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so remember I talked about the concept of multiuse propellant Mhmm.
Using the same substance as a consumable, as a propellant, and as radiation shielding.
And you could do that with water.
And with water, you can use water as the fuel for nuclear thermal propulsion provided we can solve the problem of how to how do you burn water at about 3,000 degrees centigrade without the oxygen ions decimating the inside of the reaction vessel.
That's that's a materials problem.
K?
So that's a problem you'd have
to solve.
And we do have a materials team that are working on certain things.
So
Okay.
Okay.
So so the way forward for NASA would to reboot for the Deep Space Hero would be to revamp the entire organizational structure and culture to reflect the known and expected hazards.
In other words, and this is the showstopper, they'll never do this.
Life sciences must be a co leader.
Right now, there are probably NASA's probably, the engineering is probably 90% aerospace engineers and 5% life sciences people.
It needs to be at least 5050 because the problems for the deep space era are biologic problems, the gravity prescription, advanced propulsion, spacecraft redesign, that kind of stuff.
So and and they'll never do that because they don't like life sciences pieces.
So I I I I'm patting ourselves on the back.
I just pulled up our budgeting.
The first person on our list was life support.
The one of those people on the team is human factors.
We have individuals that cover everything from psychology to architecture to in terms of human capabilities, even planetary biologists to be able to understand the human side.
So we have, I wouldn't say it's 50%, but we incorporated into the design, of the teams who are looking to build.
We were looking at those things.
And I'm going back because I'm trying to figure out when did when did this list come about, but this list has been this way for quite some time.
So the first person on there was Life.
K.
Alright.
So let's talk about, let's talk about zombie ideas.
I was gonna say zombies is an interesting one.
I've been waiting to hear what you're gonna say for zombies.
I'm kinda
zombie ideas.
You know, let's first of all, let's define zombie ideas.
Zombie ideas are ideas that repeatedly get legend to death by analysis and evidence, but then rise from the dead to roam the countryside infecting others.
That's that's the definition of the zombie idea.
Okay.
I love the rise to infect others.
That's right.
They rise from the dead and roam the countryside infecting others.
K?
The 2 biggest zombie ideas are skinny, thin, aluminum, cylindrical space habitats.
That's been debunked for almost a generation now.
And the other one are, you know, pin pin shaped sleek rocket ships too.
So those are 2 zombie ideas that we have to bludgeon to death over and over.
Okay.
Yes.
Based upon what you've said, I understand exactly what you're talking about.
Okay.
So that's that's really
That's all there are for zombie ideas?
There's nothing else?
Oh, there's a lot of zombie ideas.
Give me give me 5.
Give me 5 off the top of your head.
You don't have to go crazy.
You you eliminate those 2, and I'll give you the other 3.
Toss out 3 more.
You've got them on the top of
your head.
No.
You gotta eliminate the first 2.
So no no skinny thin aluminum cylindrical space habitats and no pin shaped sleek rocket ships.
Those are the those are the
big ones.
Hell, I was just And
and the other one the other one is, you know, no, no ISRU, you know, it's just goes to the standard approach.
Minimal radiation shielding, that's a zombie idea.
We have the data to show that that's not what you should do.
So alright.
Let's go to my conclusion.
Yeah.
Look.
If we are to make the giant leap from a terrestrial to a celestial civilization, we're gonna have to think outside the box.
I'm an I'm an evolutionary biologist.
To me, it's all just a cosmic intelligence test.
The essential question is, do we as a species have the right stuff or not?
If someday our ruins are found by an intelligent species who succeeded in making the leap, They'll just shrug their shoulders if they have shoulders, and note that ours was just another initially promising species that could have been a contender, but in the end just couldn't go the distance.
It may be that most intelligent species don't make the cut.
Perhaps they destroy themselves or their planet as soon as they're able.
Maybe that's the ultimate answer to the Fermi Paradox.
If we don't make the leap, we'll go extinct.
A mere footnote in galactic history because single planet intelligent species don't survive.
So there's a long list of formidable problems to overcome.
Some of which seem almost impossible from our present vantage point.
We are humans In all our complex, chaotic craziness, that's what we do.
In my heart and soul, I'll always be a part of Gene Kranz's flight control team.
Failure is not an option.
Maybe Mark Watney in the movie The Martian was right.
Quote, faced with overwhelming odds, we have no choice.
We're gonna have to science the shit out of this.
Yes.
I remember.
So let's get on with it, shall we?
There's not a moment to lose.
We can do this.
One thing I promise with a 100% certainty, if we do choose to rise to a greater destiny, our adventure is just beginning.
That's it.
Okay.
Well, I have thoroughly enjoyed this.
We've had amazing guests and, in on for where I sit, I learned a tremendous amount from every individuals that helped us make micro and macro steps forward, and I appreciate the time you put into this.
So thank you, Jim, for being a part of the project in terms of helping us with the the podcast and as well as I I know there'll be future things that we can pursue together.
And I thoroughly enjoyed it myself, David, and I apologize if my native frustration No.
You are actually, trust me.
I've been frequently surfaced.
No.
My personality is very direct, but it's not direct in a mean way.
Mine is just hey.
Just when I get into a mode, it's there.
And so the thing I appreciated, again, when I said to my wife, hey.
We had a good call because we're pushing at each other.
And you know more about this category, and I know more about other things.
We all bring things to the ideas and information, everything to the table.
So this was absolutely fantastic.
I I what number am I on?
I took, not a lot of pages and notes, 32.
So I don't think anybody's I don't think anybody in history has taken 32 pages during one of my presentations.
Well, I just took 32 because my head is down.
One reason we don't have the cameras on is, as I said, there's a psychological component of being able to not have to look at you, listen to the words you say, identify if they are clear enough for me or us, but I'm gonna say me, to be able to interpret them and use them afterwards.
And so there was I mean, I I was with you.
I'm with you.
It doesn't mean that I agreed with everything.
That's okay.
Because I still have to get my mind around it.
But what the thing was I
I would have I would have no respect for you if you agreed with everything I
said.
Yeah.
What my job when I'm learning from somebody is to learn from them.
And once I learn from them, whatever perspective it is, then I can pursue other avenues.
We make we make journeys of getting to destinations are often through a series of interconnected conditions.
It might mean that the, people on on many teams have owned over 20 businesses.
So why are you wasting time with that person?
Well, because with that person, they know another person.
And the reason I met you is you were 4th generation off of someone I met.
I have to meet people, experience with them, and grow with them.
When it comes to the podcast, I'm present.
I mean, the only thing I did have to have something to eat because I I haven't eaten since 10 AM.
But I I was present with you.
That's what I was.
I was present with you, what you were working on, so I get my mind around the angle that you're coming from because everybody's got different perceptions.
And then bring that together into a holistic view.
So again, this was absolutely fantastic.
You could put it down in your record book that someone actually took a lot of notes and paid attention to you.
So, so Who
could who could ask for more?
Who could ask
for more?
So Certainly not.
Let's do this.
Wazu and I will talk after this for just a few moments.
I wanna thank you for taking the time, everybody out there for listening in.
I do hope that you learn something today that will make a difference in your life and the lives of others.
The Project Moon House Foundation where we look to establish a box of the roof and the door on the moon to the accelerate development on earth, the space based ecosystem, and then turning those innovations in the paradigm shifting thinking from the endeavor back on earth to improve how we live on earth for all species.
Just imagine we have the numbers we've talked about, the 8, the 90, the 5,71,644.
There still will be 10,000,000,000 people on this planet, including friends, relatives, and everybody else.
We've shown throughout history that the innovations that we've developed beyond earth for beyond earth, not at beyond earth, but for beyond earth are used ubiquitously through our lives every day, and we wouldn't have our lifestyle the way we have it without them.
So we're pursuing that.
There are if you go to our website, wwwprojectmoonhot.org, you scroll down, there are 3 videos on the bottom.
The first two, I recommend if you wanna talk to me.
Watch them.
You'll get a sense of some of the things we're talking about, then you and I can have a conversation, and we can move forward with an amazing group of people who are helping us worldwide.
So, Jim, I'd like to ask you, is there a single best way to connect to you?
Probably the best way is to use the LinkedIn.
I'm on LinkedIn.
Okay.
That's simple.
And, easy name.
So there's probably 4,000,000,000 of them there, but it's still yeah.
You you have such a you have such a unique name that I know if I put it in, I'm not gonna find anybody else with it.
So you can go to LinkedIn.
For, if you love to connect to us or David Goldsmith, so, david@moonhot.org.
You can connect to at project moonhot or at goldsmith on Twitter.
LinkedIn, David Goldsmith, Project Moon Hut Foundation.
You can you'll be able to find us there.
Facebook, Instagram, it's mister David Goldsmith at the moment.
And that said, I'm David Goldsmith, and thank you for listening.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}An Ex-NASA Flight Surgeon Ponders Humanity's Long Term Prospects in Space w/ Jim Logan #64

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

An Ex-NASA Flight Surgeon Ponders Humanity's Long Term Prospects in Space w/ Jim Logan #64

On Purpose with Jay Shetty