Later, we’ll be joined by Vice President Mike Pence. The vice president chairs the National Space Council and is spearheading the administration’s effort to create a new branch of the U.S. military in space. In just a few minutes, the Washington Post’s Chris Mooney will lead the first discussion with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, Planetary Society CEO Bill Nye, and space scientist Heidi Hammel. Before we begin, I’d like to thank our supporting sponsor, the University of Virginia, and our partners for this event, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the Association of Space Explorers. I’d also like to thank our presenting sponsor, Boeing, for their support of today’s program. So please join me now in welcoming Boeing’s executive vice president of Government Operations, Tim Keating. [APPLAUSE] Thank you, Tim.
Content from Boeing:
Keating: Good morning, everyone. As you can see from my entrance, Boeing is on a roll these days. [LAUGHTER] But it is truly a pleasure to be here today and I’m just excited to talk about the growing field of space exploration. Boeing is proud to be today’s presenting sponsor and I would really like to thank The Washington Post team for their work in assembling what is an extraordinary agenda of leaders and innovators for today’s discussions. I know that we’re all looking forward to hearing from the vice president today. He’s leading a renewed national focus on American leadership in space. He’s doing it with passion, he’s doing it with courage, and he is a champion for us. As well as NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, space policy leaders from Congress and others in this room today.
I’m particularly excited that you’re going to be able to hear from Chris Ferguson, as Chris is retired from NASA after three space shuttle launches, including commanding the last space shuttle mission. I had a chance to catch up with Chris in the hallway just a few minutes ago and we had our board of directions down at the Cape just a few short months ago and one of our board directors is Caroline Kennedy and we were talking about Chris being on that runway with Caroline Kennedy. And it was just a moment that all of us recognized as being special. He’s an incredible individual and if you want to see how much passion the Boeing Company has about space, wait until you hear from Chris. Just talk to him about it.
In fact, all Boeing employees around the world strive every day to deliver on our purpose and our mission and that’s to connect, to protect, to explore, and to inspire the world through aerospace innovation. In that spirit, we’ve joined with NASA and the international partners in a shared mission through the course of decades have celebrated lunar footsteps, space shuttle launches, the assembly of an international space station and now, its daily operation and research.
Boeing and its heritage companies have been integral to every manned endeavor to escape the Earth’s gravity. We’re inspired; inspired by the challenges that space exploration presents and drive to explore the unknown is just plain woven into Boeing’s DNA. While proud of our past, we’re laser-focused on the future and we continue to innovate and to lead in every aspect of space. We at Boeing are very proud of our partnership with NASA in building Space Launch System, SLS. When completed, the SLS will be the largest and most powerful rocket ever built, propelling the Orion capsule and humanity further into the solar system than ever before. Our Starliner launched on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket, which I should state has a 100% mission success rate—will return American astronauts to space on an American-built capsule in 2019.
That’s months away, not years away. But none of this can happen automatically or easily and our collective success for this unprecedented journey requires all of us to remain committed to the mission. Everyone in this room; government, industry, academia alike, must be committed to advancing American leadership in space with all of the policies, resources, ideas, and cooperation to match. I’m inspired by the boundless opportunities that we have before us and I look forward to this morning’s discussions and again, want to thank The Washington Post for assembling this group of people. Enjoy the day. Thank you. [APPLAUSE]
Transformers Space: The new space age:
Mooney: Good morning. I’m Chris Mooney. I’m a climate change, energy, and environment reporter here at The Post. I’m really excited to kick off today’s panel. We have Dr. Heidi Hammel, planetary scientist and executive vice president of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. We have Bill Nye, the CEO of the Planetary Society. He informs me that he delivered The Washington Post. So from there to the stars.
Nye: It was some time ago.
Mooney: And, last but not least, NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine. So we have a great panel. Before we start, I want to let the audience know, you can tweet your questions at us using the #Transformers. Apparently, they will travel through space and I will then receive the questions on this iPad or that’s what they tell me. And I’ll work some of them into the discussion as we go. Oh, and one more thing. I told the panelists, “Interrupt each other. Let’s have a conversation.” So, Administrator Bridenstine, I’d like to ask you a question first. The United States was intensely focused on space in the ‘60s during the Apollo era. It was something that presented this unitary, shared vision for the entire country. What do you think it would take for us to see another golden age in space like that?
What would it look like? How would we know if we were in it?
Bridenstine: That’s a wonderful question and certainly, it’s something that we’re very interested in NASA and certainly something this administration is very interested in. The president recreated the National Space Council for the first time in 25 years when he became president and he put the vice president as chairman of the National Space Council. And in fact, when I leave here, I’m going to a National Space Council meeting. This administration is very focused on space on a whole lot of levels. But certainly, the very first space policy directive that came from the president was, “We’re going to go to the Moon.” He wants to do it very differently than we’ve ever done it before. This is not a recreation of the Apollo era that we all think so fondly of.
This is, in essence, creating a sustainable architecture between the Earth and the Moon, where we can go back and forth, over and over again, over a long period of time with landers, with robots, with rovers, and of course, with humans. And do it with commercial partners and do it with international partners, utilizing the resources of the Moon to keep the sustainable architecture in place.
Mooney: Let me just follow up on that. So one thing that I learned from NASA, actually, doing my research is that its budget during the Apollo era peaked at 5% of the entire federal budget. So the administration, as you said, wants to get to the Moon and beyond. But how do you do it and support the crucial science missions with so much less money proportionally?
Nye: Right now, it’s about 0.4%, right?
Bridenstine: Yeah, that’s right—
Nye: So it’s less than a tenth of what it was.
Mooney: It’s a very different time.
Bridenstine: Yeah, so the first thing the president did is he put out his budget request and his budget request actually took NASA’s budget up by one billion dollars. So when you have a $19 billion budget and you go up by a billion dollars, that’s a pretty significant increase and even before I got confirmed, we had an omnibus appropriation bill in the House that actually increased NASA’s budget by $1.7 billion. So we’re seeing bipartisan support and support from the administration for a budget increase. Now, I think it’s important to recognize that when you talk about NASA’s budget as a percentage of the federal budget, we have to remember that a lot of the federal budget has grown significantly and so while it may be a smaller percentage, it’s not necessarily because NASA shrunk; it’s because the rest of the government grew, if that makes sense.
Hammel: Before you move on, can I talk about the golden era and what that meant as a scientist—a space scientist. That era, I was just a kid when we landed on the Moon and I was one of those kids watching that black and white thing and not understanding what was happening, but understanding it was an amazing moment and I went on to be part of the space program to work on the Voyager mission, to fly by Uranus and Neptune. I went on to work with the Hubble Space Telescope. It has been a golden era of planetary exploration and what we do at the Planetary Society is an advocate for that.
We have revealed our solar system not to be points of light, but worlds. Where are we now, though? We are on the brink of a new golden era. We now know because of NASA’s telescopes and telescopes by the National Science Foundation that almost every star you see in the sky has a planetary system around it. So we have gone from just a few planets to thousands of planets. This is an amazing moment in science to be on the edge of exploring all of these worlds.
Mooney: But isn’t it different? And Bill, you grew up in the Apollo era and you’re a communicator. I want to bounce this off of you. Haven’t we become kind of space-distracted? There was one story; it was getting to the Moon. Sagan had one show, Cosmos. Everybody watched it.
Nye: Well, keep in mind, everybody, we went to the Moon on account of the Cold War. It was a Cold War effort and you could argue that it was successful. But then, the amazing science that spun off of that has led to the internet and mobile phones and global positioning and all of these other things. Because space exploration has become routine or in some aspects. And that’s nothing but great and to Heidi’s comment—what happened was I took one class from Carl Sagan when I was in engineering school and now, I’m the CEO. I left the room and there was a vote and now, I’m the CEO. But it was estimated that there were maybe a planet around every 100 stars. Well now, we think in order of magnitude, there are 10 planets around every star and this gets into the expression of billions and billions. It really is amazing how many planets there must be out there. And so as I always say, there are two questions we always ask. And if you meet somebody who hasn’t asked these questions, they’re lying to you.
Where did we come from and are we alone in the universe? And these are just deep fundamental questions and they’re within us and if you want to know the answers, you have to explore space. And everybody, I can’t—to Heidi’s point, it is very reasonable that we will find evidence of life in another world while we’re all still alive, which would be astonishing. First of all, what if there’s no evidence of all at life? That would mean, “Wow, we are unique in a way that’s literally hard to imagine.” But the other thing, it’s very reasonable that we’ll find life. Just think what it would mean. It would be like Copernicus or Galileo. It would be just fundamental. It would change the way everybody feels about being a living thing.
Bridenstine: To Bill’s point, because I think he’s right. Just in the six months, I’ve been the NASA administrator, we now know that methane cycles on Mars are perfectly in order with the seasons of Mars. We also know that there are complex organic compounds on the surface of Mars. This is just within the last six months. That doesn’t guarantee life. But it increases the probability that there is life. And it’s up to us to find it. Also, since I’ve been the NASA administrator, we now know that under the surface of Mars, about 1.5 kilometers under the surface, we have found liquid water. These are astonishing discoveries.
Nye: So everywhere there’s water on Earth, everywhere there’s dampness, there’s something alive. So just think if there’s Martian microbes. It would be astonishing. And we do that kind of exploration.
Mooney: That’s not the only place in the solar system.
[OVERLAPPING—INDISCERNIBLE]
Hammel: That’s right. Well, let’s talk about Europa, for example. Jupiter’s moon Europa, which is a little ice ball, but under that crust of ice, we believe there’s a liquid water ocean. And I want to tie this back to what Administrator Bridenstine was talking about, the Human Space Flight program. One way we’ve been able to track the plumes of water we think exist on Europa is using the Hubble Space Telescope and one reason the Hubble Space Telescope has been the most revolutionary tool in astrophysics for 28 years is because it was serviced by astronauts. It was launched on the shuttle program and the astronauts went up there. They took out old instruments. They put in new ones. They took out gyroscopes. They put in new gyroscopes, which are working again, in case you’re wondering. And we do hope to be back on sky with Hubble very soon. I’m very excited about it. So astronauts, the Human Space Flight program works hand-in-glove with the science side and I don’t ever want to separate them. We need them both.
Mooney: But that actually brings up something I wanted to ask about, which is the International Space Station. Administrator Bridenstine, you’ve hailed this new era of space flight and this involves shuttling on board commercially-designed craft to the station. But you’ve also talked about phasing out funding for this research hub and having the commercial sector eventually take over. So my question is: what happens if markets don’t evolve in the way that we think or hope and commercial entities don’t find it worthwhile to do the kinds of things that are happening there now?
Bridenstine: That’s a wonderful question and it’s an important question that we’re going to struggle with until we get the solution. The answer is this: we want to make sure we have zero gaps in human presence in low-Earth orbit and even beyond. We have had humans living and working in space now for 18 years straight and we want to make sure that never stops. So in order to do that, we need to see a very robust commercial marketplace develop in low-Earth orbit and we believe that that’s imminently possible and what the president’s budget request did is it said, “Hey, look. We need to start now very seriously considering how do we get to a day where commercialization happens in low-Earth orbit?”
Now, if you back in time to the Cold War, we came to the end of the Apollo program. We went right into Apollo–Soyuz, which was an international cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union at the time. So that demonstrated the success of the Apollo program, the fact that these two superpowers have decided that we’re going to collaborate and work together on space. That went forward with the Mir Program and the Shuttle Program, which were a collaboration as well, and then now the International Space Station, as you’ve identified.
Nye: It’s in NASA’s charter, international cooperation within—
Bridenstine: Absolutely.
Nye: So when international partners collaborate in space, the overall cost of whatever you’re going to do might go up. Exploring Europa, for example. But the cost per agency goes way down—significantly down. And whatever else the space station has done, it has been fantastic for diplomacy.
Hammel: Soft power.
Mooney: Do you agree? Does the Planetary Society agree that a commercialization fate is inevitable in the long run? Is that something that you’re—no?
Nye: So I’d like the administrator to comment on that. [LAUGHTER] Some disclosure, I applied to be an astronaut four times. [LAUGHTER] But it is not clear. Let’s go with that.
Bridenstine: Had I been the administrator, you would have been selected.
Nye: Careful what you wish for, yeah. [LAUGHTER] But it’s not clear that we can go to the Moon and to Mars and operate the International Space Station in the current budget, even with the increase in NASA’s budget. Those three things all going at once are tricky and the International Space Station is a national lab so come on down everybody and fly up there and conduct things the way we—conduct science the way we conduct science in other national labs. But this is the problem to be figured out. No matter what we do, no matter what the future is, I think we all agree we want to get beyond low-Earth orbit. So the old saying, “If you have a classroom globe”—which in English units would be 12 inches, 30-centimeter globe. Low-Earth orbit, it’s 3/8’s of an inch above the globe. It’s cool and I would love to go there and we have some astronauts coming up in a few minutes. But we want to go farther and deeper and you’re a scientist.
I love science. I’m kooky for science.
Hammel: You’re the science guy.
Nye: I am the science guy, but keep in mind that when humans go to a place, two things are going to happen. When you explore, just writ-large explore, two more things are going to happen. You’re going to make discoveries, whether it’s your backyard or Mars, you’re going to make discoveries. But the other thing is you’re going to have an adventure and that is what engages us in a way that is priceless. Now, everybody, you can ask the old question, “Should we pay teacher salaries, build a new baseball stadium, or explore space?” And if it was just a zero-sum thing, we’d pay teachers, okay? For crying out loud. But it’s not one or the other. You’ve got to do everything. And so the NASA budget is an extraordinary value. If you ask people around the world what they think of NASA, NASA is the best brand the United States has.
Hammel: But I’m going to interrupt and lob a softball to Administrator Bridenstine. Let me share with you a vision of why I think we ought to move beyond low-Earth orbit and get out there, away—like we’re not just an inch maybe to the Moon or beyond the Moon, maybe even Lagrange 2. The reason I would like to do that is because I’m imagining building with astronauts an amazingly large space telescope. Larger than James Webb. Something that maybe we have to assemble in orbit, perhaps. I don’t know. That would be amazing.
M: Or a symbol on the surface of the Moon, which is very quiet.
Hammel: Well, I don’t know if I would agree with that, sir.
Nye: See, this is cool. This is a real meeting. On the Moon, no. On the Moon to Mars. I’ve been in this world for 21 years.
Mooney: But on Earth, we’re struggling with the James Webb Telescope right now.
Nye: Well, it’s hard problem. No one has ever tried to build—
[OVERLAPPING—INDISCERNIBLE]
Hammel: We’ve never built a James Webb before. What I was saying before, you can’t buy a kit for the James Webb Telescope—
Mooney: And what is NASA’s outlook on that?
Bridenstine: And, of course, I’ve been on the Hill, of course, making sure that we are in compliance with the law and we have great support from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle for the James Webb. Let me just say this: with the James Webb Space Telescope, what we’re doing—we are inventing new things in order to put something on orbit that is not only see distances, but it’s going to see back in time to the very dawn of light in the universe, the very beginning of space and time. We’re going to be able to see that. The very first light in the universe. We have models over what that might look like. Bill Nye knows exactly what it looks like.
Nye: Oh, sure I do. [LAUGHTER]
Bridenstine: But what we know is that our models are not right and we’re going to learn a lot. We’re going to be able to see out to the very edge of the universe where in fact, the planets that we now know all of these stars have many planets around each star. We’re going to be able to not only see those planets, but we’re going to be able to characterize the atmosphere around those planets with the James Webb Space Telescope to determine if those planets could be inhabitable or not. So this is going to be transformative. It’s going to rewrite science books. Bill Nye is going to have a lot of work to do when this gets—
Nye: Bring it on.
Mooney: Worth a couple more years and a couple more—[OVERLAPPING]
Hammel: But just to be clear, we’ll be able to do that work if we are lucky and win the lottery twice over and find systems that are close enough to us that will be within the reach of James Webb Space Telescope. And we do have the test satellite, which is looking right now. Hopefully, it will find them. I don’t know if y’all bought your lottery tickets right now. It’s super high. So maybe we can do that. But the reason I was talking about a future space telescope is we want to really able to answer this question, yes or no: Do Earth-like planets around sun-like stars truly have the ability to be habitable? And we may not be able to answer that question with Webb. That’s why we need to move forward and you and I talked a little bit about this and you said, “Don’t say that, Heidi.” And I’m going to say it anyway because I think this audience understands this. Building a facility like Hubble or James Webb or some future space telescope takes time. You can’t do it a year or two or five or 10. You sometimes take 20 years to truly build a cutting-edge, revolutionary facility. And that’s true for many of NASA’s great missions and we have to understand that and take it as part of the reality that we work in.
Nye: And so for the politicians out there, when the NASA budget is uncertain when there’s a proposal to cut 5%. “No, let’s put back 10 trillion.” It’s very difficult for programs to count on the funding and then make adequate plans. So this leads to cost overruns.
Mooney: Let me go to Twitter. Dr. [OVERLAPPING] asks—I think this is directed at you. “How can NASA reach its goals when the destination; the Moon, Mars, et cetera, changes with every administration?”
Bridenstine: That’s a critically important question.
Nye: Yeah, you’ve been here six months.
Bridenstine: So here’s the thing and I think this is an important point to make. What we want to do at the Moon is prove capability, prove the technology, build this reusable architecture. So we want everything to be reusable. We talk about reusable rockets. We’ve seen what happens with reusable rockets: the cost goes down, access goes up. Well, we want the entire architecture between the Earth and the Moon to be reusable. We want tugs from Earth orbit to lunar to be reusable. We want a reusable command module in orbit around the Moon. We call it “Gateway.” Think of it as a reusable command module. It can be there for 15 years and we want reusable landers to go back and forth to the surface of the Moon with rovers and robots and humans. And in building this architecture with reusability, that is how we get sustainability for the long-term. And it’s ultimately this architecture can have American components, but it’s also open architecture.
So the way we do avionics, the way we do data, the way we do power and docking and all of the pieces that go into this overall architecture is going to be published on the internet. So if you’re a country out there and you want to build a tug or you want to build a lander, you can plug into the architecture. If you’re a private company out there and you want to invest in building your own lander, you can do that and the Gateway is going to be available. This reusable command module is going to be available for your activity as well. So we want international partners, we want commercial partners. And here’s the key to the whole thing: we want to prove everything is possible at the Moon where it’s a three-day journey home. We know what happens—if you look at Apollo 13, if something wrong happens on the way to the Moon. You can make it home.
If something like that were to happen on the way to Mars, you’re not going to make it. So we want to prove the technology, we want to reduce risk, retire risk, and then the first gateway, of course, is about a reusable command module at the Moon that has maneuverability. It can go to the L1 point and stay in that near rectilinear halo orbit as well. But ultimately, the second reusable command—the second gateway would be a deep space transporter. And that’s our path to Mars. Now, what we’re doing is both and we’re doing it at the same time. This is not Lucy and the football again. I’ve said that over and over again. Because we’ve had these programs before where we go to the Moon and then we stop. Go to the Moon, stop. And I know everybody says it: this time is different. We have commercial partners.
So far, since I’ve been the NASA administrator, I’ve met with 24 heads of space agencies, all of which are excited about our return to the Moon and eventually going to Mars.
Nye: So NASA is still three times bigger than any other space agency. It’s still the world’s leader in space but the other space agencies and the commercial companies around the world do amazing things also.
Hammel: Collaboration is the key here.
Nye: Collaboration is the key.
Mooney: So one of the longstanding and sort of potentially sad, wistful ideas about the search for life in space is this idea that Sagan popularized. It wasn’t originally his—that we might not find life because it has a way of burning up its own resources or wrecking its environment or just getting so technologically advanced that it—
Nye: Well, this was a clear war in the good old days.
Mooney: Or maybe it’s climate change and so that’s one sense in which it’s potentially tied; the two topics are tied, space and what’s happening on Earth and so I just want to ask on this topic, Administrator. You’ve changed your mind on climate change. You say it’s human-caused. What do you want to do now at NASA to help us better understand this? And I also want to talk about—I guess you guys have talked about this topic a lot together and I’d like to hear about that.
Bridenstine: So here’s what we know: we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and we know that we as humans have put more of it into the atmosphere than ever before and therefore, we are responsible for a lot of the warming that we’re seeing of the planet right now. We do not want NASA to get involved in telling politicians what the solutions to the problems are because if we do that, we become very partisan, very political.
Mooney: Scientists don’t like to do that, either.
Bridenstine: Right, we want to do dispassionate science. We want to build the sensors that are studying the Earth. We want to make all of that data and all of that information available to the public. We want people to do their own research on the data. We want researchers to test each other’s hypotheses and so NASA is committed to dispassionately providing the data and the science and letting policymakers determine what to do about what we learn.
Mooney: Including if they find something really bad, like it’s going a lot faster than we thought. There’s another feedback. They just let the chips fall where they may. That’s how it’s going to go?
Bridenstine: It’s up to the policymakers.
Mooney: No, I mean the researchers. NASA researchers can just—imagine they find another methane feedback in the Arctic or something like that?
Hammel: Well, speaking as a scientist, researchers are going to research. That’s what they do. And people who are keenly interested in those kinds of questions are going to pursue them with all of the passion that they have. Not only on Earth, but also trying to understand how Mars turned out the way Mars did and Venus turned out the way Venus did yet, they’re all in our solar system. So you’re not going to stop the researchers. They are going to passionately pursue these questions to try to understand how our Earth is changing, why is it changing, and looking towards planets out beyond ours, perhaps get an understanding of maybe how did we get here? Where are we going?
Nye: What happened to these other planets? So for me, of a certain age, it was a convergence of let’s say Carl Sagan and James Pollack writing a computer program saying, “What would happen if all these nuclear weapons went off at the same time?” You’d have a big cloud of darkness. People looking for oil off the coast of Mexico found this huge crater and principally, James Hansen was looking at Venus and realized the strength of the greenhouse effect on Venus and these three things came together in my lifetime. But it took a decade for people to realize that climate change was human-caused, climate change was happening. So it’s the slow-motion problem and NASA has a huge role in showing us what’s happening as the slow-motion speeds up.
So thank you, Administrator Bridenstine, for leading on this issue because the data, you have to respect the facts. That’s just very important. Studying other planets is how we found out what was going on on our planet.
Hammel: Yeah.
Nye: And the cost of exploring those planets is so low compared to what we learned. Comparing the climate of Mars to Venus, to Earth. It’s amazing.
Bridenstine: To that point, we also know because of work that NASA has done. We know that Mars used to have a really strong magnetosphere and it used to have a really thick atmosphere and it used to be covered. Two-thirds of it was covered in an ocean. Something happened.
Hammel: What happened?
Bridenstine: The question is what happened? Was it a billion years ago? Was it two billion years ago? And ultimately how did that happen and studying other planets helps us understand our own.
Nye: Yeah, so now, we’re calling Mars an “ex-ocean,” a former ocean planet because there’s so much evidence of waterflow—
Mooney: So space has long been a traditionally bipartisan space—
Nye: So people who don’t get along about anything else get along with space and that’s why—
Mooney: And the two of you, I guess, have not always seen eye-to-eye—
Nye: There are issues we might disagree on.
Mooney: But you’ve gotten along. [LAUGHTER] Bill, you’ve actually got criticized by some in the Planetary Science community for showing up at the State of the Union address.
Nye: Look, people, it’s bigger than I am. The administrator—
Bridenstine: Shame on you for having a dialogue with me, Bill. Shame on you.
Nye: So I went to his office, we hung out. We talked about fighter planes, among other things. We talked about his family and everybody, this is something else you learn in space exploration when you go around the world and meet people involved in it. People are more alike than they are different.
Bridenstine: I’ll tell you, I was saddened by the grief he took.
Nye: Oh, bring it on. [LAUGHTER] It’s the State of the Union. It’s a very important thing. It’s in the Constitution, as is the progress of science and useful arts. That’s in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. So science is a real word, everybody.
Hammel: But we all live under one sky.
M: It’s been around for several hundred years.
Bridenstine: I apologize for inviting him to the State of the Union because he took a lot of heat for it.
Nye: No, it’s fine. It’s progress. This is where congressmen and senators that don’t get along on anything else get along when it comes to space exploration and part of that is distributed around NASA centers around the country and everywhere you go—no, no, really. Everywhere you go, NASA is involved. NASA permeates our culture in virtually every zip code in the United States. But more than that, space brings out the best in us. Space exploration is where we solve problems that have never been solved before and I’m not just waxing poetic for the sake of oratory. Space is really unique in this regard. It brings out the best in us and we accomplish things that in my grandparents’ time were thought unthinkable.
Mooney: Well, we’re running out of time. I don’t know if you have any other final thoughts because we’ve got like 30 seconds. But it’s been a really good conversation. Otherwise, I think it’s a really nice note to end on.
Nye: Good. So just everybody, while you’re here, check out the Planetary Society. The world’s independent space organization and we are here, Mr. Administrator, to give you correct advice all the time.
Bridenstine: That’s good. I like correct advice. [APPLAUSE]
Hammel: Thank you.
Mooney: Well, thanks to the panel. It was great having you here. A great conversation and we’re on to the next part of our program.
Nye: Thanks.
Bridenstine: Thank you so much.
Hammel: Thank you.
Transformers Space: American leadership in space:
Jordan: Wow. It’s really nice to talk about bit things with smart people. I’m Mary Jordan. I’m a national correspondent for The Washington Post, and with me is Congressman Don Beyer. He is a Democrat from Virginia and a vice ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. And we have Dr. Ellen Stofan. She is the director of one of the greatest museums in the world, the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum that almost nine million people go through every single year. Amazing. From 2013 to 2016 she was the chief scientist at NASA. Also with us is Dr. Sandy Magnus. She is a retired astronaut who spent 157 days in space. [APPLAUSE] She flew the final mission of the U.S. Space Shuttle in 2011, and she is also the executive director emeritus of the American Institute of Aeronautics. And we are so delighted that you are here today.
I want to remind people in the audience and who are watching online that you can send messages—and I actually am going to get them—if you want, hashtag #Transformers. We’re talking about leadership in space. And we just saw in the clip John F. Kennedy. At that time in the Cold War it was very clear, Russia, the United States, and we felt we won. We were the leader. I think it’s kind of confusing now about who is leading. Who is leading the space war?
Beyer: Well, I think we’re still very clearly leading, but we’re not out there by ourselves anymore. I think part of the dilemma is we don’t exactly know what China is doing and even less so perhaps what Russia is. We are so transparent. All of NASA’s successes are in the newspaper and on TV every day. But to pile onto what Bill and Jim Bridenstine had said, it is one of those rare places in Congress where there is a lot of bipartisan support. And, in fact, I think the people that tend to volunteer for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee are the ones who are most excited about it. So they are the funnest hearings to go to actually.
Jordan: So that’s an important point especially these days. How bipartisan is it? I mean, is there support? I mean, don’t some people think, “Really? Do we want to throw billions of dollars into space when we could put a lot of kids to college?”
Beyer: You don’t get that much in Congress. In fact, I would say in the four years that I was on the committee the only real tensions have been over how much of the NASA budget should go for Earth planetary science, the role that NASA plays in overseeing and understanding climate change. So if you’re part of the subset on the committee that doesn’t think climate change is real or that we can do anything about it, they would rather have that $2 billion go to deep space. But we’ve been able to work reasonable compromises so far that keep at least some of NASA’s focus on, as Ellen has said, the most important planet there is, the one we live on.
Stofan: Yeah, and I’d like to also interject. We don’t actually spend that money in space. We spend it here in the United States in good jobs in technology and science. And to me an investment in NASA is an investment in the future.
Magnus: This is a really good topic. In the 22 years that I’ve been out giving talks about what’s been going on at NASA and in the space program, there is this perception that we’re spending—oh, my goodness—so much of the federal budget on space. And it’s just, “Why are we doing that when we can do all these other things that need to happen?” And then I explain to people that if you take a dollar that you’re going to pay in taxes and of that dollar when I started at NASA in 1996, seven tenths of a penny of that dollar was going to the NASA budget. Now it’s more like five tenths of a penny. And then people are like, “Oh, my gosh. We should be spending more in space,” because what we get out of our space program, to Ellen’s point, is amazing.
If you look at the daily lives that we lead and all of the convenience that we have and the technology advances that we’ve made, those have come from 50 years of government investment in space. And it’s all for five-to-seven tenths of a penny on a dollar. And that’s really not that much. And one could argue we should be spending more, with that kind of return for our future.
Jordan: Can you explain what it looks like as America leads but with Japan and Russian and private companies? What does that look like? And you bring up such an important point about the transparency of what other countries are doing. And right now we’re paying a huge amount of money for one seat on a Russian rocket. Right? Do we want to be doing that?
Magnus: No. [LAUGHTER] Absolutely. So we need to have our own launch capability. And I think when we decided to retire the shuttles there was a strategic decision made that was very intelligent in the sense that the shuttle was designed to operate and low Earth orbit. And it was getting old; it was working well beyond its design lifetime. And the thought was, “Okay, you know, we really need to focus on going beyond low Earth orbit, and this is a vehicle that we can’t do it.” So instead of spending money to refurbish the shuttle and stay in low Earth orbit the country made a decision, rightly so, that, “Okay, we’re going to make a new vehicle, and we’re going to make that vehicle that can go beyond.” And it was a really good plan.
Now, unfortunately the executions—you know, we got an A in strategy and we got an F in execution because ideally you don’t want to retire your operational vehicle until you have your next operational vehicle in service, and we didn’t plan accordingly for that. And so now we have this gap where we don’t have U.S. launch capability. And the Russians are very good capitalists, and they’ve been raising the price of the Soyuz seats over the years.
Jordan: How much does it cost, by the way?
Magnus: You know, I have been out of NASA for five years, so I don’t know. It was about $20 million or $30 million when I was—
Jordan: For one seat for one trip?
Magnus: —when I was an astronaut, and I’m not sure what the price is. You’ll have to ask NASA.
Jordan: And so, again, let’s go back to what it’s going to look like if there is a big push in the Trump administration to really be a leader. What does it look like with the private sector and other companies? And are we going to be really trading all information with Japan and China and Russia?
Beyer: I don’t know how much we’ll trade, but certainly we’ve always been transparent. But I think the really big difference is the incredible growth of the commercial space industry. I mean, just in Northern Virginia in the metropolitan D.C. area we have dozens of companies that are making their livings going out into space and not just with satellites. So you have deliveries to the Space Station. You know, Sierra Nevada, Orbital ATK which is now Northrop Grumman, the ULA launch, etcetera, etcetera. And this is really the great new frontier. It’s not just dependent on federal allocations but on people that can figure out how to make money off of space.
Stofan: And I think if you want to think about what the future is going to look like, look at the International Space Station right now where it’s a partnership between the Europeans, the Japanese, the Russians, the United States, and the Canadians. It’s being resupplied now by Orbital ATK, Northrop Grumman, and SpaceX. We’re going to be launching crews with Boeing and SpaceX. We’re going to have Sierra Nevada delivering. So there’s private companies involved; there’s other nations involved, and that’s how we’re going to get back to the Moon and on to Mars. It’s not going to be just the U.S. the way it was with Apollo. It’s going to be in partnership with other countries, and it’s going to be in partnership with the private sector, which is great.
Jordan: As someone whose life is on the line when you’re up there in space, are you okay with this? I mean, it sounds like a lot of ways that something—“Whoops, they forgot that,” and it’s some other country’s fault or some company’s fault. How do you feel about all these actors that go into a rocket launch?
Magnus: So let me tie that in with your previous question about leadership, because the way you show leadership is you set the vision and show everyone, “Hey, this is what we think we should be doing. This is a great vision. Everybody, let’s buy into this vision,” and then you figure out ways to build the collaborative partnerships to make that vision a reality. And I think we’re doing that. We’ve done that with the Space Station. Now to your question, I think what’s going on in the industry here in the U.S. is very important because after 50 years of government investment in space—it’s hard. We know it’s hard. It’s going to continue to be hard, and we’re going to continue to learn things, but after 50 years of investment in space we’re at this point where private industry is going, “Hey, maybe there’s something that I can do here independent of just government, and we can create a new economy.” And the government has said, “Okay, let’s try that experiment.” That’s leadership. Right? Trying that experiment.
And so now we’re working our way through that experiment. It started 10 or 15 years ago. It’s going to go on for another 10 or 15 years because space is hard; we’ve got to be patient. And, you know, go back to a person who is going to be potentially—well, I won’t be because I’m retired, but astronauts are going to be riding on it. I think we’re eager to engage new ways to get in space. We want more people to have access to space. We want a broader experience for people in space. You go to space; you change your ideas about what it’s like to be on the planet, and the more people the better. We’re going to learn a lot. We have to learn about safety. We have to learn about the intersection of safety and profit. We have to make sure that we don’t get complacent. And there’s a lot of smart people at work trying to do that.
Jordan: And, again, when we’re talking about leadership, nine million people go through your museum. That speaks, doesn’t it, that it has caught the imagination? I think the previous panel said, “Space is big. Space leads to other things. It’s the future.” So how do you get the public on board for this? Maybe what we need from you is to say why it matters. We talked a little bit about it, but where do you see the short-term goals for why we’re investing and want to lead in the space fight?
Stofan: Well, to me, it boils down to two things. And, granted, I’m biased because I’m a scientist. But when we think about why we want to send humans to Mars it’s because, as they were talking about in the last panel, we’re scientifically convinced that it’s likely that life evolved on Mars about three and half billion years ago. So there’s the scientific imperative to answer this question of are we alone in the solar system. So when you see us leading, you see us leading in finding extrasolar planets; you see us leading in going to the outer solar system and to Mars to look for life. And I think that’s really compelling to the public. People want to know the answers to these questions. And when you saw things like Scott Kelly’s year in space, when the public really got, “Wow, we’re actually practicing to get ready to go to Mars.” You saw a lot of public engagement and excitement. They want to know why, why are we doing this, what are we going to learn, what’s over that next hill, and I think there you engage the public.
Beyer: We also see just culturally the American people are so excited about the space outreach. So when you get The Martian, the book, the movie; or Interstellar; or now First Man, you know, the theaters are filled because it appeals to our deeper nature. And I really love the science piece of it because all biology and all chemistry is based on the physics. And so much of the important physics is going to be done in space. You know, the nice part about commercial is it has freed up NASA to do ever more science with the James Webb Space Telescope and hopefully with WFIRST, and understanding about dark energy and dark matter and the cosmological constant and things that will ultimately affect all of our lives.
Jordan: Right now if you have a lot of money and you’re just a regular person, even though Bill Nye said he was denied being an astronaut, you can go up in space now, if you have a lot of money, right?
Magnus: There’s a couple of companies that are going to be flying people suborbital, Virgin and Blue. And for several hundred thousand dollars, so it’s quite a bargain, you can have a suborbital experience where you would go up, you’d experience four or five minutes of microgravity, and you’d see the Earth, a beautiful view of the Earth, and then come back down. And so that’s sort of the low ticket price right now. And I believe those two companies are hoping to fly in the next year or so.
Jordan: When do you think we’ll see a lot of people and not just really rich people going to space?
Magnus: Oh, that’s really a hard question because it’s all about the launch costs. And there are several companies who are working on reusability to try and bring the launch cost down, but think about it; if you have to build your car every time you want to drive to the grocery store and then you throw your car away, and then to go to the grocery store the next day you build another car, that’s really not cheap. Right? And so we’re doing that with spacecraft. And so we really have to get—and I hesitate to use the word routine, but we have to get into a much more high rate of cadence of launches before costs come down, which would lower the price.
Jordan: I mean, are we going to see advertisement on the side of rockets to lower the cost?
Magnus: Well, that doesn’t lower the cost; that just provides money from some other avenue to help pay for it.
Stofan: You know, one of the things I think is important to reflect on this year, of all years, is as you see from some of the clips we’re celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Apollo Missions, just this last several weeks Apollo 7, Apollo 8 as we move towards Christmas. You know, we went in eight years from having not enough infrastructure, not knowing how to do it to putting humans on the Moon. So when we say, “How long is it going to take for space tourism?” I think it depends on the will and the investment and can we bring the cost down. I think it’s totally possible we could see it in the next couple of decades, if there is a will and if there is the investment. If we could put a man on the Moon in eight years, I would argue we can do anything we put our minds to.
Magnus: Yeah, I agree.
Beyer: One little measure is the number of people that volunteered for the one-way trip to Mars, which is really remarkable. [LAUGHTER]
Jordan: Anyone in your district?
Beyer: Actually, yeah.
F: I don’t recommend that. Just saying.
Beyer: Well, one woman. And she was married, and she had stepchildren. We figured she probably didn’t have a good relationship with her step kids. [LAUGHTER]
Jordan: So it takes about six months to get to Mars, one-way trip, is that right?
Stofan: With the right launch conditions, yeah.
Magnus: Yeah.
Jordan: And it takes how long to get to the Moon?
Stofan: Three days.
Magnus: Three days.
Jordan: Three days? Okay, so we have been ping-ponging back as a country kind of. First we were fixated on the Moon. It’s a fairly short trip. Then it was Mars, right? Under Obama it was Mars. Then now it’s back to the Moon.
Beyer: And then Mars.
Jordan: And then Mars, right. So are we at the right place now, and how jarring is it when you have these long-term programs and you’re supposed to lead it? How do you fix this so it doesn’t really matter who is the director of the Space Agency or who is the president, that as a country we can kind of say, “We’re in it for the long haul”?
Magnus: So let me speak as an operator. As someone who has flown in space and uses the equipment, it makes much more sense to test it in your backyard, i.e. the Moon, before you commit to a journey across the ocean, or to Mars. So want to make sure the life support equipment is working well, want to make sure the operational scenarios are working well, want to make sure we have just a good set of tools before we send people on a six-month journey with a minimum amount of abort to a safe place kind of thing. So for me it always made sense that the path to Mars—and Mars is a good horizon goal because as Ellen mentioned there are very interesting things to go there and discover—goes through the Moon, you test it out, and then go beyond.
Now, given where we are today with industry’s interest, the question is, “How can you go to the Moon and make sure that the government stays focused on going to Mars but yet leave enough infrastructure and dynamics and energy in the vicinity of the Moon so that industry can fill that void?” So think about it. I use an expanding bubble, you know, with the government on the leading edge of the bubble taking us farther and farther away from the planet and industry kind of filling in behind. So you can build a good strategy to do that, and that is leadership.
Jordan: So the Moon essentially has a lot of water, so it has hydrogen, oxygen; it has rocket fuel, right? So, I mean, this is what the vision is, is that it’s going to become a gas station for space? Is that the idea?
Beyer: I think so. At least that’s the primary justification, I think, that we’ve talked about at least on the committee. But to the larger picture, you know, the phrase that keeps coming up is constancy of purpose. So from a NASA leadership standpoint it’s, “What’s that big picture?” Jim’s predecessor talked about science first and Mars second. And then from the congressional perspective it’s getting away from these awful continuing resolutions where you never know what the NASA budget is going to be until late in the year. And I’m hoping that that’s where the bipartisanship leaders on Congress really is, is stable increasing budgets.
Jordan: And how can you fix that? How can you kind of say, “Space is big. This is bigger than us,” as they said, “And in this case we’re going to safeguard this through bipartisanship, through different presidents”?
Beyer: I haven’t figured that out yet. [LAUGHTER]
Jordan: But it is a goal?
Beyer: It is a goal, but actually that runs all across Congress because everyone complains about the continuing resolutions and the budget uncertainty. And it’s difficult to pull NASA out and give it budget certainty while no one else has it, but that should be a major national goal, this among many other reasons.
Jordan: On the Hill now when people heard, your colleagues heard about the space force, what was the reaction to that?
Beyer: At first a great deal of skepticism, at least from the Democratic side. And I think most people were taking, at least on the Democratic side, a wait-and-see attitude recognizing that Russia and China are doing lots of things in space, lots of things we don’t know about; some of them may have military aspects; how secure are our satellites. So there’s a sense of let’s move cautiously, thoughtfully forward in order to make sure that we are making sure we’re securing our assets. We don’t want to accelerate the militarization of space at all, but we also don’t want other people to do that while we’re sitting helpless.
Jordan: How much of the safety factor, the military factor goes into our new focus on leading this fight? How worried are you as scientists that there is a big danger here of weaponizing space?
Stofan: I think one of the things that we can do at the museum is to sort of put this in its historical perspective, which is that we’ve always had a military presence in space. Being able to observe the world from space is an important vantage point. And that’s long been the history. So we’ve always had a civilian side and a military side of space. And I think what all of us are certainly committed to is that we continue a strong, vigorous, science-based, civilian space program moving humans to the Moon and on to Mars and that the military continues to do what it needs to do in space to keep us all safe.
Magnus: I would just comment that it’s important, I think. And you think about leadership and the importance of leadership in space in general is, “What are the behavioral norms that you want to establish for how human beings engage in a new frontier or in a new environment?” And that’s how I think the military piece comes in, because if you’re not showing up and you’re not engaging, how can you help set those behavioral norms?
Jordan: Maybe we could just end with each of you very quickly talking to people that don’t think about the space program all the time. You know, they’re busy; they’re right now bringing their kids to school. I think that the country in the ’60s, when we saw that clip, was very focused on it. Right? And there was just this kind of a national pride in it. Why would you say it’s important now to just an ordinary American?
Stofan: Well, you know, one of the things that we like to talk about at the museum is the fact that most of you probably got her today based on space. Every time you pick up your phone, whether it’s the high-resolution camera on your phone or the GPS that helped you find your way here today, space is in your life every day even if you don’t know it. From agriculture to communications to navigation, space data help us live a safer, healthier life, and hopefully will help us learn how to take care of this planet better as we continue to move outward. So I think a lot of it is trying to get the public to realize how critical space is to their everyday lives.
Magnus: I will comment again, as I’ve talked with the public over the last 22 years, people are interested in space. They are very excited. I remember after STS-135 when we were running around the country talking about that mission a lot of people were very upset because they thought NASA was closing. So that really disturbed them because they take pride in our space program. It’s funny because they’re all very enthusiastic and they’re very passionate, but they’re not very well informed. And I think it goes back to your point where people have busy lives and they’re trying to live their lives. But there is a lot of pride in our country about our space program, and people do care about it. I don’t know if they really realize on a day-to-day basis, as Ellen pointed out, how much it touches them, but the interest is out there and it’s still out there. People are very proud of what we’re doing.
Beyer: And I’d just offer two thoughts. One, I think it goes to the very core of what it means to be a human being, that we are always exploring, trying to reach beyond our limits using our imagination. It’s essential for us to be able to grow. This other piece is that the insight into special and general relativity, the insight into quantum mechanics just to begin with, is affecting now every part of our lives. As we see, there was a piece the other day that said, “Half of the jobs on the planet right now could be replaced by thinking machines.” What are we going to do? We also discovered the World Economic Forum had a report last week that shows that it is this commitment to science and technology that creates all the jobs that we’re going to be doing in the future, and NASA leads the way.
Jordan: Only 12 people have been on the Moon, 12 Americans. Is that right?
F: Mm-hmm.
Jordan: So only 12, right? All men, actually, right?
F: Yes.
Jordan: Okay, so you’re one of the few people on this stage that’s been into space. And you haven’t hit the Moon, but I highly recommend it by the way. [LAUGHTER] Can you just tell us, since I don’t get to talk to astronauts every day, what does that feel like? Especially very soon we’re going to have a conversation about space tourism, would just like to hear from you.
Magnus: Oh, gosh. I could go on for hours. So a lot of astronauts when they go to space—and you’ll hear that probably later with the astronaut panel is our perception of the world changes because we’re outside of it and we’re above it and we’re down and we’re looking in. And what you see is you see the planet and you see it as a spaceship. It’s a closed system. It’s a spaceship, just like the Space Station is a space ship. There is an air system; there is a re-filtration system; there’s a water system. So our planet has all that. It’s our spaceship. We are all crewmates on the same spaceship. And we’re all connected to each other. And when astronauts talk about not seeing borders, that’s what we mean, because it’s just one planet; we’re all members of that planet. And so it really changes your perception on what’s important, how we all should be working together, what should we be focused on, how we need to take care of our spaceship because, “Oh, by the way, it looks very fragile,” and so that’s what when you hear astronauts talk about the view from space, that’s what we’re all trying to articulate in our own language. And it’s absolutely magical. And the more people who see that, the better we’ll be as a species. So I look forward to having more and more people get into space, even if it’s just for five minutes, to get this view and really understand and value our planet and not take it for granted. So that’s my comment.
Jordan: So from up there you don’t see red America and blue America? [LAUGHTER]
Magnus: No.
Jordan: And that in itself might be a lovely thing.
Magnus: Yeah, we could have another conversation about that, but we probably ought not. Yeah.
Jordan: A lovely thing, yeah.
Beyer: I think the first person on Mars should be woman.
F: Definitely. [LAUGHTER]
[APPLAUSE]
Magnus: I’ll go.
Beyer: I’m so grateful you let me be on this panel too.
Jordan: Well, it’s been a delight, as I say, to talk about things. It’s very interesting about bipartisanship. I’ll just end with this one thing. We’re going to talk about this next. What is the support for the Space Council on the Hill?
Beyer: We’ve not had any votes on it, but I think in general it’s going to be very supportive, that space continues to be a priority. As I mentioned earlier, it’s one of those rare places where there’s a lot of support on both sides. So I think it’ll probably move forward.
Jordan: Terrific. Well, thank you very much for a terrific conversation. And now we’ll move on. Thanks.
Beyer: Great. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mary.
[APPLAUSE]
Fred Ryan: Well, The Washington Post Space Summit is off to a terrific start. We’ve had some terrific conversations this morning. And now it’s my pleasure to introduce our special guest, Vice President Mike Pence. As we just saw, the vice president is leading the administration’s effort to develop America’s interest in space. He serves as chairman of the National Space Council. He’s supporting the creation of a national Space Force and advises the president on our space policy and strategy.
In a recent speech, the vice president described these efforts as an opportunity to, quote, “Carry the cause of liberty and peace into the next great American frontier.” In his conversation with Robert Costa, we’re looking forward to hearing from him about how the plans for the Space Force are coming together. Now please join me in welcoming the Vice President of the United States Mike Pence.
[APPLAUSE]
Vice President Mike Pence's full interview with The Washington Post:
Costa: Mr. Vice President, it’s a pleasure to have you here at The Washington Post for our Space Summit. We really appreciate you taking the time—
Pence: Thank you, Bob.
Costa: —off the campaign trail, just a few weeks before the midterm elections, to talk about space, to talk about what’s next with Space Force. But before we get into that, I have so many questions on Space Force. I know everyone’s so interested in that. I wanted to talk, just for a couple minutes, about Jamal Khashoggi, our colleague here at The Washington Post.
Pence: Right. Well, thank you, Bob. Thank you for hosting this forum on a topic of great importance to the life of the nation and to American leadership. Thank you, also, for giving me the opportunity to address the tragic murder of your colleague Jamal Khashoggi. The brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Turkey was a tragedy for his family, for his loved ones, and for your colleagues here at The Washington Post. It was also an assault on a free and independent press. And our administration is determined to use all means at our disposal to get to the bottom of it.
President Trump has already expressed his concern that there have been lies, there’s been deception. He dispatched the secretary of state to the region early on and the director of the CIA is there in Turkey now, reviewing the evidence. And we’re going to follow the facts. We’re going to demand that those responsible are held accountable. Once we have all the facts, President Trump will make the decision based upon the values of the American people and our vital national interest. But allow me to express my personal sympathies to his fiancée, to his loved ones, his family, and all the colleagues here at The Washington Post who admired and cherished the life and example of Jamal Khashoggi.
Costa: What’s your response, Mr. Vice President, to President Erdogan’s report this morning?
Pence: Well, the word from President Erdogan this morning, that is brutal murder was premeditated, preplanned days in advance, flies in the face of earlier assertions that had been made by the Saudi regime. And again, it underscores the determination of our administration to find out what happened here. The world is watching. The American people want answers and we’ll demand that those answers are forthcoming.
We’ll also—as we go forward, as we demand that those who are responsible are held accountable for this barbaric act, we will also do so in the light and in the context of America’s vital natural interest in the region. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia goes back some 60 years, since shortly after World War II. It represents an enormously important alliance in the region, and particularly under President Trump’s leadership, we’ve forged renewed ties with Saudi Arabia and with other countries across the Middle East to confront the leading state sponsor of terrorism in Iran.
So we’ll look for ways to hold those accountable that are accountable. We’ll make sure that the world has the facts, that the American people have the facts about what happened here. But we’ll also do so in the context of our vital national interests and the important and more than half-century-long relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, which is truly essential to our nation’s security and prosperity.
Costa: Speaking of holding those accountable, have you seen any intelligence linking Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to this crime?
Pence: Well, I don’t want to speak about any intelligence that I’ve seen, Bob, as appropriate. I know that when the CIA director returns, she’ll be briefing the president, myself, and our entire team on what the Turks have assembled. But, look, I want to assure all of your colleagues here, I want to assure the American people, we’re going to get to the bottom of it. This brutal murder of a journalist, of an innocent man, of a dissident will not go without an American response. And I expect without an international response.
But we want to find out what happened, and President Trump has made it very clear that the full resources of our intelligence community, working with the intelligence officials in Turkey, in our interactions with Saudi Arabia, and also with other countries around the world, it’s going to follow the facts and then decisions will be made.
Costa: The final question on this, then we’ll turn to Space Force, does that mean you’re open to sanctions on the Saudi royal family?
Pence: Well, whether or not there are sanctions imposed, whether there’s other actions taken, will be a decision for the president of the United States. And what President Trump has made clear, Bob, is that we want to know what happened. We’re going to follow the facts. We’re going to get all of the evidence. Then the president will make a decision that reflects the values and the interest of the American people. We’ll do what’s best for the American people. We’ll also make sure that the world knows the truth of what happened. And that’s a promise to the family of Jamal Khashoggi, a promise to all of those who worked with him here at The Washington Post, all who cherish his example around the world.
Costa: Turning to Space Force, big question is, what will Space Force do?
Pence: Well, first, let me commend The Washington Post for bringing attention to this issue. Along the campaign trail in 2016, shortly after I was added to the ticket, the president and I had a conversation about his interest in really reviving American leadership in space, and particularly when it came to human space exploration. He told me then that he wanted to relaunch what’s known as the “National Space Council,” which had lain dormant for some 25 years. And he asked if I’d be interested in chairing it, as previous vice presidents had done in American history.
To be honest with you, Bob, I jumped at the chance. When I was elected to the Congress, when we first met, the one committee that I requested to be a part of was the NASA Subcommittee of the Science Committee because I have been a space enthusiast all my life. And it turns out, the president of the United States shares that same passion. And we both shared a concern that, while America continues to be dominant in space, in terms of technology, in terms of our accomplishments, that we were losing momentum in recent years, that America had essentially been consigned to low-Earth orbit. We’d actually off-lined our own platforms when we grounded the shuttle program.
Many Americans didn’t even realize at the time that we’ve had to pay the Russians to fly American astronauts into space now, for a number of years. Some $80 million a seat on Russian space craft. The president saw all of that as intolerable. And not just the fact that we’d become focused on low-Earth orbit, but that we’d really lost a vision for leading mankind into the outer reaches of space.
In his inaugural address he spoke about that. He spoke about American leadership in the vast expanse of space. And shortly after the advent of the administration, we relaunched the National Space Council. And while its initial work focused on reviving NASA, bringing about the kind of changes through a series of presidential policy directives that have cleared away regulatory barriers to space launch by private industry, and also made a recommitment to NASA’s civilian mission. Along the way it became very clear to us that it’s absolutely essential that America remain as dominant in space from a national security perspective as we are on the Earth.
And that’s where the president conceived of the idea of a Space Force and tasked the National Space Council to begin to examine how that might best be formatted. It would be in June of this year, at the last meeting of the National Space Council, that the president the Pentagon to formulate a plan. They have done so, submitted that plan in August, on the very day after I addressed the Pentagon. Today, later at the War College, we’ll be laying out a series of recommended policy directives for the president to put into effect. What will ultimately result in the launch of a sixth branch of our armed forces, the United States Space Force.
The purpose of the Space Force will be to secure our vital national interest in space.
Costa: Does that mean adding weapons to space?
Pence: Well, what it means, Bob, is that we’re going to protect American interest in space. I mean, to understand American defense today is to understand the inner-relationship between our satellite technology and our aircraft, our ships at sea, submarines under the sea. Our war fighters on the ground regularly rely on information that is obtained, images that are captured by satellite technology.
And so the first order of business is ensuring that the infrastructure of our satellite technology is protected. The reality is, the more we look at our competitors in space, chiefly among them are China and Russia, we see the deployment of technologies by both of those countries, anti-satellite technologies. China, not long ago, actually tested a missile that took out one of their own satellites. We’re seeing the deployment of additional new anti-satellite technology that’s placed into orbit, literally satellites that are able to move in proximity to existing satellites.
All of this informs the fact that we have to have to capacity to protect our existing infrastructure in space. But also, what the president’s vision is, is that we stand up a Space Force that, very much similar to the way that the Air Force was launched after World War II, will evolve into ensuring that America remains as dominant in outer space militarily as we are here on Earth. That’ll be the project of the Space Force going forward. And there are a number of steps that will be launched in the very short-term, but that will ultimately lead to the launch of a department of the United States Space Force in the next National Defense Authorization Act.
Costa: What about the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which governs international space law. It bans weapons of mass destruction in space.
Pence: It does.
Costa: President Trump, as we know, likes to cut his own deals. Is this administration thinking about renegotiating that treaty?
Pence: Well, first and foremost, that treaty, which I think was signed in 1967, does ban weapons of mass destruction in outer space, but it doesn’t ban military activity. It actually is—it gives nations a fair amount of flexibility in operating for their security interests in outer space. And at this time, we don’t see any need to amend the treaty. But, you know, as time goes forward, the hope that we could continue to see outer space a domain where peace will reign, it will require military presence. But we’ll continue to aspire to President Kennedy’s vision of a sea of peace, as opposed to a terrifying domain of war.
Costa: On that, do you think that nuclear weapons should be banned from space?
Pence: Well, they are now.
Costa: Should the always be banned from space?
Pence: Well, look, I think that what we need to do is make sure that we provide for the common defense of the people of the United States of America. And that’s the president’s determination here. I think it’s in the interest of every nation to continue to ban the use of nuclear weapons in space. But what we want to do is continue to advance the principle that peace comes through strength. And we truly do believe the best pathway toward advancing human exploration in space, which the president’s already announced we’re going back to the Moon, and then after that, to Mars.
The way we develop more commercial enterprise in space, and we see the incredible innovation—I visited the Mojave Desert and I saw a number of companies that are operating, even as we speak, to be able to carry commercial enterprises, space tourism, space mining.
Costa: What’s our deadline for going back to the Moon?
Pence: Well, we’re working through that right now. And Jim Bridenstine being a part of this program today, I’m sure spoke to that with great specificity. You know, I serve with a president that wants everything yesterday. And I can assure you that our determination is to see American’s back on the Moon in the very near future, but shortly thereafter, on our way to Mars. And not in an event horizon of 10 and 20 and 30 years, which is the way NASA spoke for much of the last two decades, but also an event horizon that says, “We’re going to get there. We’re going to get there soon. We’re going to get there quickly.”
You know, once Americans set their mind to something, we’ve already demonstrated throughout our history, there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.
Costa: Do you worry at all about an arms race—you mentioned Russia and China—with Space Force?
Pence: Well, look, let’s be very clear. There’s this whole talk about militarizing space. And what the American people deserve to know is that, from the time Sputnik was launched into orbit, we’ve militarized space. That, in a very real sense, space is a war-fighting domain. Whether it’s China, Russia, other nations in the world, there are security investments being made, not just satellite technology, but also that anti-satellite technology that I talked about. We really do believe that it’s absolutely essential that we meet that moment with American strength, that we meet that moment with American leadership.
And that we also recognize that in 2015, China essentially stood up its own space force. Russia, in the very same year, assigned a part of its aerospace division to a space force. And so, what President Trump has initiated here, in a very real sense, while America continues to lead in technology and in innovation and in military strength, in terms of organizational structure, this is what our competitors are already doing. And the president’s determined to make sure that America leads in space, as well, from a military standpoint.
Costa: Who goes to the Moon or to Mars for the United States, moving forward? Is it people NASA, astronauts, or is it people like your son, a naval aviator, who may want to go to space?
Pence: Well, what I can say is that—and thanks for mentioning my son.
Costa: Michael Pence, first lieutenant?
Pence: First lieutenant, just got his wings as a Marine naval aviator two weeks ago. And we couldn’t be more proud, but thank you. Thank you for that. [APPLAUSE]
Look, human space exploration is a civilian operation by NASA. That’s what we want it to be. Obviously, as I said at the Pentagon, back in August, a great number of our astronauts have also, in their prior lives, worn the uniform of the United States, and we’re proud of their service then.
But human space exploration is at the very center of what President Trump wants to see us accomplish. Making sure that we have the security in space to advance human space exploration is the underpinning of the Space Force, protecting our interest on Earth, protecting, providing for the common defense here for the American people and our interest around the world. But also, creating a domain where we can lead mankind into the outer reaches of space. But that’ll be a civilian effort. It’ll be American boots back on the Moon. I look forward to seeing that day. And to seeing Americans land on Mars.
Costa: Your tone here, Mr. Vice President, is very measured. You’re talking about Space Force as a national project. But President Trump is talking a lot about it on the campaign trail. It’s a talking point at his political rallies. Does that risk making Space Force something that has a partisan sheen?
Pence: Well, no. I actually think there’s broad bipartisan support for Space Force. In fact, in the last national defense bill, there was language for what would be called the “Space Corps,” that had broad bipartisan support. This is actually an issue, Bob, that Republicans and Democrats have spoken about for some time. But President Trump has essentially seized on it. And as he does with so many other issues, he’s been able to communicate that in a way that’s captured the imagination of the American people.
And I can tell you, as I’ve traveled around the campaign during these midterm elections, as well, there’s a lot of enthusiasm for Space Force. I actually don’t think it’s so much partisan as it’s just—I think there’s many Americans, you know, my age and older, who remember those glory days of the 1960s. I remember huddled around a little black and white television in our basement, watching Neil Armstrong step onto the Moon. “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” The pride that I felt as an American.
When I became a member of Congress, I actually attended three different shuttle launches. It was the most incredible thing I ever witnessed in my life, to see so much power contained, lifting those brave Americans into space. But I think millions of Americans, whatever their politics, would agree that somewhere along the way we lost our vision and our passion for leadership in space. The president’s call for a renewal of our commitment to human space exploration, a return to the Moon, reaching out at Mars, the establishment of a Space Force, I think that taps into that American aspiration that we are, in a very real sense, a nation of pioneers.
We’ve always, throughout our history, been pushing the outer envelope. We’ve been pushing into the undiscovered country. The American people are excited to just do that again.
Costa: Mr. Vice President, though, you’re selling it hard.
Pence: I am.
Costa: But does Congress agree with you? Congress has to authorize this.
Pence: Right.
Costa: Do we expect the Trump administration to making getting an authorization vote on Space Force a priority by the end of 2019?
Pence: The short answer to that is “yes.” The president’s made it very clear, in the next National Defense Authorization Act that he wants language that authorizes the establishment of the United States Space Force, and a department as the sixth branch of the service. But we’re taking steps even before that. As we’ll announce today, when I go over to the War College, the National Space Council is making recommendations to the president to essentially begin with establishing a unified space command, much in the way that we established a Special Forces command.
We all remember the Iran hostage crisis during the Carter administration and the disaster in the desert that took place. Shortly after that was when the United States made the decision to establish a unified Special Forces command. So now, special forces, in all different branches of the service, operate under a unified command, so that when special forces are deployed, it’s fully coordinated. And what the president’s envisioned here is let’s begin by brining everyone under a unified command. Let’s stand up a space development agency so we can establish the authorities necessary, the chain of command, promote the technologies.
I mean, we roughly have about 60,000 people in all the different branches of the service and our intelligence community who work in and around space security today. We haven’t been neglectful of this, we just haven’t brought it all together in one place. And that’s what the president purposes to do with the United States Space Force and the department that will establish it.
But going to the Congress, asking the Congress for that authorizing legislation is something the president has made it clear is a priority. And we’ll be working when we re-elect these Republican majorities on Capitol Hill. We’ll be working with re-elected Republican majorities to do just that.
Costa: One final thing on Space Force, then I want to talk for a minute about the midterms. You mentioned your time in the U.S. House. You were a firebrand conservative back then in the House, challenging leadership. I covered that. But they care about spending billions of dollars. And an Air Force memo shows that Space Force may need 3 billion in its first year, 13 billion in its first five years.
Pence: Right.
Costa: You know, that’s a hard sell. One, do you agree? Is that really the numbers we’re expecting for Space Force, that Air Force memo from a couple months ago? And two, will House conservatives and other conservatives in Congress really want to sign onto something that’s that big a spending project?
Pence: Well, we think the numbers—I know that the secretary of the Air Force has produced some of those numbers. And great, great respect for Secretary Wilson. But I would just ask my old colleagues in the Congress, “What price, freedom? What is the price tag that you place on the security of the United States of America?” I think the reason why the American people are so enthusiastic about Space Force is because they understand that for us to continue to provide for the common defense, to protect America’s interest, to stand for freedom in the world, that we have to continue to extend American strength into the outer reaches of space.
Now, the good news is, an awful lot of what we’re going to do is going to be consolidating. As I mentioned, there’s roughly 60,000 people today that work in space security, in a variety of different agencies. And so this will not be—it will not, in the first instance, look like other branches of the service that were stood up. It will be a consolidation, we believe. And from there, future Congresses and future administrations can grow and expand and nurture the department of the Space Force as they see fit.
Costa: We’ll be following the National Space Council closely. Just to finish on the midterms, you’re going to be heading out on the campaign trail soon.
Pence: I am.
Costa: Immigration’s become a major issue. The president keeps talking about this migrant caravan. And he references Middle Easterners that are part of this caravan, without evidence. Why is that and where is the evidence, if any?
Pence: Well, it’s inconceivable that there are not people of Middle Eastern descent in a crowd of more than 7,000 people advancing toward our border.
Costa: Inconceivable?
Pence: And the truth is—well, let me—there’s statistics on this. I mean, in the last fiscal year, we apprehended more than 10 terrorists or suspected terrorists per day at our southern border, from countries that are referred to in the lexicon as “other than Mexico.” That means from the Middle East region. I mean, the idea that they would not be in this large throng that was—what the president of Honduras told me—was organized by leftist groups in Honduras, financed by Venezuela, and sent north to challenge our sovereignty and challenge our border.
And now it’s grown. The president had me reach out to President Hernandez in Honduras, to President Morales in Guatemala. We’ve been working very closely with Mexico. We’re going to do everything in our power to prevent this caravan from coming north and violating our border. But ultimately, it is an issue in this election because what human traffickers are doing, what criminal gang members are doing in this instance—and frankly, in literally every day of the week, where they take cash to bring people up the peninsula in the hopes of them either making a claim for asylum or simply crossing our border illegally to be apprehended—is they’re taking advantage of not only our poorest border, but loopholes in our laws. Our “catch and release” program, are all used and exploited by human traffickers who have no regard for human life.
When I spoke to the president of Guatemala, he told me how, at that point, they were already beginning to bus some people back to Honduras, elderly, vulnerable children who’d simply been left by the side of the road by the organizers of this caravan. I mean, the truth of the matter is, nearly—far beyond this caravan—nearly 40% of young girls that make their way into our country, at the hands of human traffickers, are sexually abused. We determined they’ve been sexually abused on their way north. This is—it is unconscionable for us to continue to allow this to occur.
But the way we can end it, as the president’s made clear, is to have a Congress that is willing to not only fund a wall, secure our border, but to close the loopholes the human traffickers and violent gang members use to entice people to make the long and dangerous journey up the peninsula. We really do believe that we’ve crisis at our southern border. But the only way we’re going to deal with that crisis in the long term is by bringing about changes in the law. And the American people have a very clear choice to make.
The Democratic Party today supports catch and release. They have opposed the wall. They have opposed efforts for additional internal enforcement and the kind of reforms that, frankly, we’ve been talking about for more than a decade. The Republican Party is committed to building a wall, committing to closing the loopholes, ending catch and release, reforming a broken immigration system. And it’s very much, very much an issue on the minds of people everywhere I go across the country.
Costa: Vice President Pence, we’ve gone way over time. Appreciate you coming to The Washington Post today to discuss Space Force and other issues. Thank you so much.
Pence: Thank you, Bob. Great to be with you.
[APPLAUSE]
Transformers Space: The Future of human spaceflight:
Rothschild: Hi, everyone.
Stott: Hi.
Rothschild: I’m Anna Rothschild. I’m a science reporter and the host of Science Magic Show Hooray!, which is a science series for kids, and also just the young at heart, produced here at The Washington Post. I am so happy to be with you all today, and I’d like to send a special shout-out to our audience watching across Post platforms including on Twitch. So, the vice president is a hard act to follow.
Stott: Yeah.
Rothschild: But we have a very special panel for you guys today. I am delighted to welcome this accomplished group of astronauts. So, first off, we have Leland Melvin and Nicole Stott. They are both retired astronauts from the shuttle era, and I think between the two of them, they’ve spent over 120 days in space. Then, we have Victor Glover. He’ll be among the first to fly on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon. And finally, we have Chris Ferguson, who will be on the first flight of Boeing’s commercial craft the Starliner.
So, the U.S. hasn’t sent anyone to space from U.S. soil in about seven years, and I’m wondering what, in your perspective, the sort of American perspective of astronauts is, and sort of our space exploration in general is, and how do you think these new missions are going to change that sort of public perception? Nicole, do you want to start?
Stott: Sure, I think I’m really excited to get astronauts launching again from U.S. soil. I’m really excited to see these two gentlemen make their way to space on those vehicles, and I think that one of the things that’s happened as a result of this seven year between that last shuttle flight that Chris commanded and now, is that in a thankful way—because I think we should have kept flying the space shuttle, myself—is that there’s an awareness that’s been revitalized. We went through a little bit of a slump where I think Sandy said, in the earlier platform, what are you guys doing now that NASA shut down? NASA being associated with the space shuttle, and I like that there’s this resurgence, there’s this awareness, and that we are, again, considering that not only as U.S. astronauts, but our international community. We have, for the last 20 years, been circling this planet 16 times a day on the International Space Station, peacefully, quietly, successfully, doing one of, if not the, most complex things we’ve ever done.
And I think even as we look at launching again from U.S. soil, we are looking at doing that as a mix of this international community that’s going to continue to take us even further into space together.
Rothschild: Space has been this very sort of international, communal effort, for a long time now, and how do you see these new launches from U.S. soil potentially changing that or enhancing that? Leland, do you want to take it?
Melvin: I think the biggest part of it is we’re going to look at this commercial entity that’s bringing up SpaceX and Boeing, and all of these vehicles going up, where kids are now looking at not just working for NASA anymore, but working for this private sector. When Elon launched his Tesla Roadster to space, you saw how many tweets and follows had happened with that, and I think it’s a way that we’ll get more people looking at the space program, and more kids thinking about science, and being an entrepreneur and an inventor and doing these things. So, I think it’s going to really revolutionize the way that we can get more scientists in the mix, in the future.
Rothschild: Do you think that—do any of you sort of see these new missions as a play for American dominance, as well?
Stott: No. I think there’s always going to be a mix of that. I would like to think of it as a leadership, a way forward for all of us to continue working together. I think about the partnership that we have in place, that’s so wonderful. We had a lot of people saying, “Why are we launching with the Russians on the Soyuz spacecraft?” We’ve been doing that in parallel with shuttle for years, and so it just became public knowledge, I guess, when the shuttle retired. And I think that’s what it is. Maybe I’m naïve. I don’t like to think of it as a dominance thing; I like to think of it as a leadership thing, as an active participant in what we are doing for humanity to move forward.
Melvin: I think this is essential, really. We witnessed a couple weeks ago the Russian’s Soyuz had an incident where they safely recovered a crew, but they didn’t make it to orbit. It’s very important we have global redundancy to get back and forth to the International Space Station. We’ve been without it for seven years, and here’s a chance not only to enjoy this resurgence in human space flight from the United States of America, but to do it in a commercial fashion; do it sort of a fee for service. And what happened in space—what would happen successfully to the airlines over 100 years eventually will happen in space. We’ll be able to safely go back and forth, and bring the cost down, and what will this all mean 50 years from now?
Rothschild: Right, and how cool is it that, Victor, I think you, on your flight, are looking at not just going as U.S. astronauts, but potentially having international astronauts on that flight with you when you go your first time to space on one of our new commercial vehicles.
Glover: Absolutely, and to reference the question that you asked earlier, I think it’s going to reemphasize what we do, and what we’ve been doing. Since the shuttle retired in 2011, NASA has not been sitting on our hands at all. We’ve been working with these two partners to develop this capability, and we’ve been also developing Orion and SLS, our capability that once we do successfully commercialize low earth orbit as our national leadership has asked us to do for several years, we can move beyond, into the vicinity of the Moon, and the gateway, and then eventually onto Mars. And so, it’s getting the awareness that we are doing those things, though. When the launch happens in your backyard, I think we hit people in the heart, and we encourage them to go fill their heads with the details of what we’re doing, and that’s what I think is going to change.
Rothschild: So, I would love to ask you a little bit about how you’re feeling in preparation for your very first time in space. What are the emotions going through your head? And how have your colleagues here, even on stage, helped to kind of boost you up and prepare you for this trip?
Glover: Actually, I’m glad you said it that way. So, to watch what they’ve done, I was very inspired, and again, that inspirational piece is a very important part of this. And so, to see what they were doing and the inspiration that it gave me to pursue this career field, it’s great to just sit up here with them and to commune with these veterans. And then just being assigned to my first mission period was amazing, and then to add to it, I’m a test pilot. In the Navy, I flew the Hornet and the Super Hornet, and got to test out software and hardware, and so to fly a new spaceship is just—that also is a dream.
And so, to combine them, I kind of feel like I’m getting more than my fair share, but it’s awesome. Training for space is great and flying on and off of a carrier is one of the most amazing things I’ve done in my professional life, so I really hope that launching into low earth orbit beats that.
Rothschild: Excellent. Chris, you have this sort of unique position of having trained for missions in two different ways, and I’m wondering how your current training is different from the training that you did for the shuttle era?
Ferguson: So, of course, I have a couple shuttle flights under my belt with a few of these esteemed individuals, and about seven years ago, I made a big shift over to the Boeing company, and the premise was, hey, we’d love to have you come over and maybe parlay some of your experience you had in shuttle. We’re developing this new commercial crewed spacecraft, and—dot, dot, dot—we’d love to have you fly it. So, as you can imagine, a guy who really enjoys the challenge associated with space flight, to not only have a chance to fly a new one, but also to be engaged at the ground level in the development of it—so to speak, have my fingerprints, in addition to, of course, this great Boeing team that’s been putting this vehicle together for the last seven years, and it’s wonderful.
And now, we’re back in training again. I sort of am back in my old stomping grounds in Houston, Texas, spending time with—matter of fact, one of the individuals I’m going to fly with—Eric Boe—we flew together on STS-126, so even though I’ve been separated for about seven years, it’s great to be back in the fold again, and it’s a badge-less world. We’re all in training; we’re all there to accomplish a single objective. I may happen to wear a Boeing badge, Victor wears a NASA badge, but really, the end of objective is to safely get back and forth to space and re-establish America’s presence as a launch provider.
Rothschild: Can you actually talk a little bit more about what the collaboration between Boeing and SpaceX and NASA are like? And sort of what role NASA plays in this relationship?
Ferguson: I don’t know. Victor, if you want to start and give the SpaceX part.
Glover: Absolutely. So, the company is designing the vehicle and building the vehicle, but we as the operator, the user, and eventually, the risk-taker when we get to launch day, we give input. And as the rookie in the group, I give less input, but the veterans that are a part of this, they give their input from their experience, and that helps influence the design. And so, it is a good partnership. I think SpaceX’s culture and NASA’s culture are different, and when we get to launch day, I think we will have both moved toward this center and learned from each other and appreciated the best that each of the entity’s brings to the table.
Ferguson: And from a Boeing perspective, so NASA—or Victor talks about sort of the provider. Well, we are the provider, so this is an interesting thing in that we have—we’ve been instrumental in putting the design together, and getting ready to fly it, and then we will actually have some skin in the game, so to speak, by having a Boeing person on board. And the question is really, I think Boeing wants to—they want to emphasize that, hey, it’s a Boeing product. It’s got a Boeing name on the side; we’re going to put a Boeing test pilot in there to prove, in fact, that we’re in the ground level of what hopefully will be a resurgence in commercial transportation for people and cargo, back and forth to low earth orbit.
Rothschild: Great.
Stott: What’s really interesting to me about this, too, is that when you look at—and there’s kind of this difference happening now, and whether it’s in the way the contracting is done with NASA—fixed price versus cost plus and things—and in the end, the SpaceX and Boeing, it’s their vehicle. They’re developing it, NASA will be customers utilizing it, and then the market will hopefully open up for more, but it becomes the Boeing and the SpaceX vehicle, whereas before, the space shuttle, the space station were NASA’s vehicle. And the thing that’s interesting to me is we’ve always used commercial companies to do this. It’s just a little bit of a twist on the ownership in the end, kind of the relationship between the two organizations and then—
Glover: The name on the rocket.
Stott: The name on the rocket. So, the partnership, I think, is just like with our international partners, I think the way this is growing and developing is really, really a positive and mutually beneficial thing.
Rothschild: Great. One of the things that’s coming from this partnership is that there’s likely going to be more space tourism, and I would love to hear your thoughts on space tourism, both from in terms of thinking about how it might broaden people’s perspectives on earth, but also thinking about what new opportunities there are for science in space.
Melvin: I think the tourism piece is critical to ensure that—Sandy talked about this perspective shift that we get as astronauts when we look back at the planet at 17,500 miles per hour, going around every 90 minutes, and how, when I went to space, I thought my a-ha moment would be when I installed the Columbus laboratory from the European space agency. But that paled in comparison to when we broke bread with Russians and Germans, and people we used to fight against, and the first female commander. It was like a Benetton commercial where we’re floating there, having our meal, and that piece showed me that it’s about people coming together as one civilization, working as a team, and if you can get more people up there that are not professional astronauts, that are going to be bringing this experience back down to their communities, to their hometowns, that will help influence the science, and the future scientists, and inspire that next generation.
And I think that’s what the beauty of bringing these other people that are not military test pilots—no hate there, right—but bringing everyone on board to get that experience is really important. Absolutely.
Rothschild: Do you think that there’s also sort of perspective shift that happens when you are that far above earth, looking down on it, as well? How does it change what you think about the major issues here?
Stott: Oh my gosh. Absolutely. I think even—I look at three of us as retired NASA astronauts, and our active friend here—
Rothschild: Our rookie.
Stott: And our Boeing guy who’s going to be like, we want to be in their pockets, of course, to go back with them, if we could get that miniaturization technology, that would be awesome. But I think that all of us feel like—obligation is kind of a weird word, but this—it’s like I feel like it’s my mission now to share that experience, to bring that back to earth, and really, we talk about it all the time. Leland and I, we talk about it all the time, about there’s really—I kind of sum it up like there’s three lessons I learned from flying in space.
And they are so super simple, and I wish everybody that leaves here today would be thinking about them every day, in some way. It’s that we live on a planet; we’re all earthlings; and the only border that matters is the thin blue line that blankets us all. And if we consider ourselves in that way—
Melvin: And we’re earthlings.
Stott: When we look at that—we’re earthlings, yeah—it’s like—it changes everything you think about.
Melvin: And you talked about science, and from a scientific standpoint, if we don’t work together as one race—the human race—we will falter. And it’s not that the earth is fragile; we’re the fragile ones. The earth will keep doing its thing, going around the planet every year, but we’re going to be the ones that are going to be burped out. And so, I think that we need to make sure that we look at these systems—these ecosystems, these relationships, these things are happening on the planet, to ensure that we are here in the next 50 years. And when you think about December 24th of 1968 was when this picture was taken by Bill Anders from Apollo VIII called Earth Rise, and we’re at the inflection point right now.
We’re at the 50th anniversary of that, December 24th of 2018. What is the next 50 years going to be like? And what are we going to do collectively to ensure that we’re still here?
Rothschild: I’m sure you’re asked all the time what advice you have for kids who want to get this super cool job. I’m going to ask a similar question but with a little bit of a twist. What’s something outside of the classroom that you guys did that helped prepare you for this job, since I know you are constantly learning all the time? So, what’s something else?
Ferguson: Music. It’s interesting because you get—we all get approached. What’s the secret sauce? How do you become an astronaut?
Stott: Where’s the checklist?
Ferguson: And what I tell everybody is, have an interest. Have some other interest that doesn’t involve science, technology, space. Have an interest, have a passion in life. I don’t care whether it’s skydiving or playing the drums or going to Patagonia. You’ve got to have another passion someplace else because that’s what makes you uniquely different than everybody else who is incredibly intelligent that applies for these sorts of programs. So, that’s my share.
Glover: Yeah, I would say that—well, I have a general three-point message that I take to schools when I go talk to kids, and it’s to be gritty—not stopping in the face of challenges; to be a lifelong learner, both inside and out the classroom; and to be a good person and teammate. And I really emphasize in that last one team sports was a big part of that for me, and then going into the military and serving, but finding something bigger than you to serve, and to be a part of, and working on yourself, and making sure that you’re taken care of, so that you can have the capacity to take care of someone else.
And the missions that we’re training for now, the low earth orbit environment or the space station is a great place to find out what space does to our bodies, and then as we go further into our solar system, we’re going to spend more time away from the comfort of earth. And so, we live with each other in a confined space for an extended period of time, and it’s important that we have our things taken care of, so that we can take care of one another. So, being a good teammate, I think, is a huge part of that.
Stott: Yeah, ditto. No, there is. I think there’s a real element to the creativity, curiosity side of it, and like the continuing to learn. And that is outside the classroom, and I love when I see students that have teachers that are engaging them outside of the classroom with what they’re learning in the classroom. And I think as we become adults, we want to do that more and more, too; the experiential side of it is really important. And yeah, have a passion for something that it is not a checklist. NASA has some very defined criteria, but I love—I got a picture in my class that we were chosen in 2000; there’s 17 of us, and not one of the people in that picture got there the same way. Not one.
We all wanted to be astronauts, decided that at some point, and were fortunate enough to get in the seat in that picture, but there is not one—the story is not the same for anybody in that picture, and I think that’s such a wonderful thing because when you fly in space, further from earth in these more—you want a diverse group of people that are bringing the different strengths and the passions, and are going to make it not only professionally successful, but going to have some personality behind it, too.
Melvin: Yeah, when I was interviewing to become an astronaut, I think—Fergie, we were in the same week, weren’t we?
Ferguson: Uh-huh.
Melvin: And we have to write an essay, and there’s an hour-long interview, and all these things. And I remember in my essay, I remembered something from my dad. He said to make sure that you have fun and you share the ball. I played a lot of sports and things, and I think we sometimes try to be the top and the number one, and we don’t always have the ability to share. And so, sharing the ball and making sure that everyone is included in the journey and in the mission, and to again, lifelong learning—experiential learning is so important. Put the phone down for a minute and build something, create something, design something. But it’s sharing the ball and having a good time.
Rothschild: On that note, in the spirit of sharing, and sort of inspired a little bit by Hidden Figures, I would love if each of you could maybe mention one person you admire who helped you get to space, who is not actually an astronaut. And it could be a job title, or it could be a particular person who has really helped you along the way.
Glover: I’ll—my family. My family unit. My wife and my kids. It’s like, oh, you have to say that, but it’s true. We’ve been—this year is our 20th year of being a Navy family, and so we’ve moved all over the world in service to our country, and they serve just as much as we do, and so, they have been a great support structure, and a great motivation. And one of the great things about this job is that we get to share; the first time I put on the space suit and went underwater to learn how to spacewalk, my kids were right there as I got lowered in the water, and that is—I can’t tell you—that alone would make this a dream a job.
Stott: That is it. It really is, because there are teachers, there are professional mentors. I know I would not have this suit on without that, but when I look at it ultimately—yeah, right, I bought it from the—but really, that—I love that you had your family there. And what I found to be the key in my own personal readiness, but I think for my family, as a whole, was really encouraging them to be part of my crew, to meet the people I was training with, to be at those events, to really and truly feel like they were part of my crew, so they understood what was going on before I went, before I got home, knew what was going to be happening when I got home, and they were just an integral part of what I was experiencing every day, while I was there.
Rothschild: In the last few minutes of this program, and I’m sorry to cut off Leland and Chris, we actually asked our audience to send in questions from kids, so kids from all around the world have sent in some questions for these astronauts. Hopefully they’re watching the livestream right now. The first one comes from Sienna, who attends an international school in Bangkok, Thailand. She actually asked a bunch of questions, so her question ends a little abruptly, because we just picked one of them.
F: How many days do astronauts stay in space?
Stott: There was a stream. You could tell there was a stream, and that’s awesome.
Rothschild: There were about seven questions. So, yeah.
Stott: And we get to see them.
Rothschild: If only one of you could answer each one, that would be great. So, Leland, do you want to answer that?
Melvin: 23 days in space.
Stott: 104 days in space.
Melvin: Chris?
Ferguson: 44 total, I think.
Rothschild: And, soon to be—
Glover: Training for a six-month mission. We’ll see.
Rothschild: Great. Okay, our next question comes from Braithe, who lives in Baltimore.
M: My name is Braithe Ortensi, and is it possible to get from galaxy to galaxy?
Rothschild: Is it possible to get from galaxy to galaxy, Braithe asks.
Stott: Thank you, dude.
Ferguson: I’m glad he’s thinking big. We’re going to have to master this whole light speed thing, I think, before we get galaxy to galaxy. If you think about it, the nearest star is about 2—like, one-point light years away, and it would take practically forever, even at today’s speed, just to reach our nearest star. Galaxy to galaxy, it’s out there on the horizon.
Stott: But think about it: somebody in one of the earlier panels said something about how we have to really honor our imagination. Think about in the last 60 years what we’ve done, and what was really unimaginable back then, and how we’re sitting here talking to you about multiple different kinds of vehicles going to a space station, back to the Moon, onto Mars. We just have to figure out how to do it.
Glover: So, his question was, is it possible?
Rothschild: Is it possible, yeah?
Stott: It’s possible.
Melvin: Anything is possible.
Rothschild: Maybe one day.
Glover: He’ll develop the technology to do it.
Rothschild: Exactly.
Stott: Please take us. Take us with you.
Glover: It’s on your, brother.
Rothschild: All right, our next question is maybe a little tricky. It’s from Mia who lives in San Francisco.
F: How do they make the fuel tanks balance so when they launch the rocket, it does not tip over?
Rothschild: This girl is going to be an engineer, for sure.
Stott: Digging the shirt, too.
Rothschild: Yeah.
Glover: First, send us a resume. They fuel those rockets very carefully. The pressures and temperatures that they have to match when they fuel those rockets are very carefully controlled, so I would say that very carefully. And there are also some structures out there—the framework that is next to the rockets when they fuel them also provides support, but wow. That is a great question, and she’s clearly thinking in the direction our NASA engineers do, so send us a resume.
Stott: The mom math answer—or mom answer is math. But one of the cool things about the space shuttle is—and I always thought it was so interesting. It’s on the launch pad, and you’ve got the orbiter—the white orbiter, and the two solid rocket boosters, and the tank, and the orbiter is hanging off the tank, and then the tank is attached to the two boosters. And the whole thing is attached to the launch platform by eight bolts, four of them at the base of each booster. And one of the super cool things about after you fly on a space shuttle is they present you—each crew member—with one of those bolts that has pyrotechnically blown to get you to space, and they make bookends out of it. It’s really cool.
Rothschild: Really? That’s awesome. I really like our next question. It’s from Josh, from Connecticut.
M: Do you ever feel disconnected from earth? Do you ever miss anyone in space?
Ferguson: There’s so many ways in low earth—in the space station to keep in touch. We have internet now. You think about it, you could make a phone call if you had to. Think about John Glenn making a phone call from space 60 years ago. That was just something that didn’t exist. So, there are great ways to stay in touch. You can watch your family. Now, we need to start thinking about this, however, when we reach out to Mars, where the time difference could be—you can’t talk real time because you’re 20 or 40 minutes, depending on which side of the sun you’re on, so this whole idea of long-term separation from family is something real.
We have to deal with human emotions, and our next step is going to be out to a place called the gateway, on the other side of the Moon, and that’s going to be interesting because it’s days away instead of just hours away in low earth orbit. So, I’m pretty excited about this next step that we will take on our way to Mars.
Stott: And when you don’t see Earth anymore out the window. One of the advantages we have in the missions we’ve done so far is that beautiful planet is there. And quite honestly, you are separated from it, you’re missing it, but you’re—I don’t know about the rest of you, but I felt more connected to everything and everyone on that place than I sometimes do when I’m right down here in the middle of it, and that’s what I think about. Imagine that point where you’re traveling and you just—you don’t have sight of that anymore. That’ll be an interesting time.
Melvin: I watched my family eat my birthday cake while I did flips in space, with no birthday cake. That was not cool, but—
Stott: You guys brought me birthday cake.
Melvin: We did bring you birthday cake.
Stott: You did.
Glover: So, birthday cake, that’s it.
Rothschild: So, you just missed the birthday cake. Unfortunately, the time is almost out, but I would love to invite everyone to give our astronauts a round of applause. They are true American heroes.
Stott: Thank you.
Rothschild: Thank you all.
Glover: Thanks.
Transformers Space: Companies in the cosmos:
Davenport: Good morning. My name is Chris Davenport, and it’s my pleasure to be here for the last panel of the day. I’m a Space & Defense Industries Reporter here at The Post. I am so glad to be joined here once again by George Whitesides, the CEO of Virgin Galactic. We just saw his boss on the screen, Richard Branson; they’re building a space plane that will be air launched and will be taking tourists—ordinary people—to the edge of space and back. So, thank you so much for being with us.
Whitesides: Nice to be with you.
Davenport: So, Richard recently said that you are tantalizingly close to getting to space. We’ve been waiting a long time and watching with great anticipation. So, where are you? Give us a sense of where the program is.
Whitesides: We’re at a very exciting point in our test flight program. We’ve been doing powered test flights this year, as you know, and got up to about 170,000 feet, so an order of magnitude five or six times the altitude of what an airliner goes to. And we’re about to get into the next phase of our test flight program, which will be higher altitude and longer-duration burns. That’s really one of the final phases before we go into commercial service. So, you know, it’s been a long effort.
I think all of these companies that are working on human space flight—you know, you hear some of the other folks talk about the challenges of putting together a human space flight vehicle, and it’s heard, but I think we’re nearly there, and that’s an exciting point for us.
Davenport: So, you think actual commercial operations out of spaceport America sometime next year, perhaps?
Whitesides: Yeah, we’re getting real close to that. I mean, the interesting thing is that the United States has been without human space flight for several years, since the retirement of the Space Shuttle, and within the space of a year, probably, we’re going to go from zero to as many as four—three or four different human space flight vehicles. What an exciting time to be in space, to have that profusion of different concepts coming out and for the United States—you know, the United States is already the leader in launch, broadly speaking, but to sort of recapture the leadership in human space flight will be really great.
Davenport: It’s interesting, too, because we just had all these NASA astronauts on stage, flying in commercial vehicles with Boeing and SpaceX under a NASA program, but it’s entirely possible that the people who restore human space flight from human soil could be Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin, which is also trying to do it. I think that kind of tells us where we are, don’t you?
Whitesides: Yeah, I mean, I think time will tell. Obviously, every flight that we do is crude, you know, and so that means that every flight that we do, if it gets up so space altitude will have humans on board. Our vehicle is piloted, right? And two pilots in every spaceship flight. So, that’s an interesting thing, and we’re looking forward to getting to that stage in our test flight program.
Davenport: So, let’s just talk a minute about safety, right? Because you had the accident in 2014 that killed one of the pilots, Michael Alsbury. You’re talking about taking not these sort of best-of-the-best who’ve been through all the NASA training that we just had here up on stage, but more ordinary people. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about what you’ve done since the accident and what you tell your customers about safety and what you’re doing.
Whitesides: Sure. Well, I think all of us in the human spaceflight business know that we won’t have a business if we don’t have a safe vehicle. And that’s why we’re spending so much effort in the test flight program, when we can work through many of the challenges that we have, so that when we get to commercial operations we have a vehicle that we can really believe in.
Our accident, we had to put in sort of a check to make sure that the pilots didn’t make a certain action during a phase of flight, which we’ve done. And then we’ve done a few other improvements on our vehicle which we call unity, and so we’re feeling really good. As you know, Chris, I’m a customer. I was a customer before I was an executive, so I bought a couple of tickets for my wife and I, and we’re looking forward to riding on board as soon as it’s ready to go.
Davenport: I just want to remind people who are watching online, if you want to tweet any questions to George you can do that using the hashtag #Transformers.
So, the cost now is $250,000 a ticket; I think it started out at $200,000 a ticket. Ultimately, I think the goal—and I’ve heard Richard say this—is to bring that down if you’re flying more. But, what does that look like? Is it going to go up? Is it going to go down? If so, what’s the sort of timeline there? Do you have any sense of that?
Whitesides: Well, I think that the long-term goal is, no question, to bring the cost down. Right? I mean, if you look at the earliest trips across the Atlantic in air travel on a sort of a real-dollar basis, those were $100,000, sometimes $150,000, $200,000 tickets. So, it’s not uncommon for this kind of experience to start up relatively expensive and then come down. Now, I think actually it’s possible that the cost goes up for a bit just because we and others probably need to amortize our development costs. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if you see the cost rise a bit for a while. But then over time, I think you’ll see that decline.
I have this long-term goal of the sort of the SUV barrier, which is like, if you can get it as affordable as a car or something, then a lot of people, I think millions of people, would do it at that price.
Davenport: So, talk a little bit about what the experience will be like in terms of, you’re at Spaceport America; I’ve got my ticket. Do I show up a week in advance for training? A couple days? Walk me through—to the extent that you can—what that experience will be like.
Whitesides: Sure. So, going to space is an exciting experience, and we want people to be ready for it. How many people here would go to space? Have you already asked this question? Would go to space if money and safety were no issue? D.C. is a relatively conservative crowd, but I think I see a bunch of hands out there. So, that’s terrific.
What we’re going to be doing is three days of training before you start your actual flight. So, you’ll come down to Spaceport America in southern New Mexico, which is this beautiful building built by Sir Norman Foster down there, and then you’ll go through a few days of training where you understand the ship and you understand how you move around on the ship. And you think a little bit about what you’re going to do in space, right? Because that’s—some people are going to have the desire to just look out at the planet and just soak it in and have that peak experience. Other people are going to have the desire to sort of play in zero gravity, and our customers will be able to get out of their seats, and sort of play and do thing. And other people want to do to other stuff.
So, we want them to think about that. And then on the morning of, we’ll have this really neat ceremony where people sort of walk out to their awaiting space ship—you know, sort of like that Right Stuff moment.
Davenport: Steak and eggs for breakfasts?
Whitesides: Whatever they want. Whatever they want. They’re paying $250,000, so whatever they would like. But it really—almost a theatrical moment where many of these folks are going to be bringing their families, or dozens—some have even said they might bring hundreds of people down to experience this moment. Which, many people have been waiting for decades for. We have this amazing lady in our customer group named Wally Funk, and she was actually one of the first astronauts that was sort of—female astronauts and was picked for NASA in the 60s. She never flew because it wasn’t sort of like made official as a NASA program—but she’s been waiting to fly for like 50 years, you know? More than 50 years. And so, she’s like, she’s going to fly. And so that moment, when—but you know, she’s an extreme example, but there are people who’ve been waiting, wanting to go to space for their whole life, and it’s such a blessing to be able to actually bring that into reality, to create something with our incredible group of engineers that can actually make that a reality at a price point that is—when you think about it, NASA’s getting charged—I don’ t know what the latest is, but over $70 million by the Russians per seat, right?
And so, our product is about $250,000, and so you look at that—that’s a factor of what? Hundreds less, right? And so that’s a radical change, and that’s what we need to open the space frontier, is to have those orders of magnitude change. Now, admittedly, it’s a different project, right, going to space station versus suborbital flight. Different things. But the idea that you could access space for 300 times less than what the going price is, is what’s going to change humanity’s relationship with space.
Davenport: So, we have a question from Twitter. Michael asks, “If the cost does come down, how long is the waiting list? Do you have to do anything else to qualify?” And it kind of feeds into a question I wanted to ask as well. I think you have a list of about 600, 700 people who have signed up. I’m sure aside from the raise your hands that you just did in the room you’ve done market research. What does that show in terms of the demand from people to go?
Whitesides: There’s a huge demand for people going into space. I mean, most of the places that I go to, if money’s not an issue, you get 80-90% of people who would love to go. Not everybody’s a first adopter, right? So, we have over 600 people who’ve signed up. These are essentially the first adopters, people who really want to make it happen by putting that money down and contributing to the future.
But there’s a much bigger pool of people. So, that pool of people at the current price point is in the millions, and I think it goes up to tens of millions when you have a lower price point.
Davenport: Wow. So, you guys have a plan to take tourists to the edge of space and then come back down. You know, Richard’s always looking at the next frontier, and he has some ideas to sort of merge maybe Virgin Galactic and a Virgin Atlantic-type experience, where you go to space, but then land in another city, so you’re going from New York to Singapore in a couple of hours. Where does that stand? Talk to us a little bit about that vision.
Whitesides: Well, of course, Richard after the music business made the next part of his fortune in airlines, and he has always I think been like many of us, frustrated by this idea that we’re stuck at Mach .85 and have been for 50 years, other than the bit about the Concorde. So, I think that we believe that it’s not going to be Spaceship 2, which is our current vehicle, but a Spaceship 3-type vehicle could be built to have a longer cross range, rocket-powered, and because we have wings, we can integrate into national airspace systems so that you could actually eventually land at an airport, like a major airport, and that would be the most convenient thing.
Our vision is to start off with a network of spaceports around the globe—not many of them, maybe three, four, five—and you would fly between those spaceports to start, right? So, you’d fly down to New Mexico if you’re on the west coast, or someplace on the east coast, and then you would get a vehicle ride that would take you across the ocean in an hour or two, and then you’d have to get on a feeder flight over there. But all in all, you would save half of your journey time or more. And what’s exciting is that we’re actually seeing that interest internationally, as well, so we’re talking, obviously, with Italy and various other places about potentially setting up spaceports abroad. We will start, and our headquarters will remain, in New Mexico, in the United States, but there is this idea of establishing the start of a network out there.
Davenport: I’m sure there are technological challenges that you’re working on now, but also regulatory ones when you’re—whether it’s the FAA here in the U.S. or going into a foreign country. What are some of the hurdles that you’re facing that you would have to clear before you are able to sort of do that point-to-point transportation?
Whitesides: Well, space technology is restricted under this thing called the ITAR, so we have to obey those laws, and generally speaking we have very good relations with our regulators. I think the important thing to recognize form a policy perspective is that we’re no longer alone in advanced space technology. Space technology is now permeating around the planet. And so, intelligent policy-making has to happen as it pertains to exports, right?
I mean, the Chinese are building vehicles. They’ve announced that they’re building a suborbital vehicle. The Russians are talking about a suborbital vehicle. Obviously, there’s a wide range of competition internationally. Many of those firms are subsidized essentially by their national governments. And so, I think we need to have an openness to providing an export out of the country for some of this technology, or else they’re just going to buy it from somebody else.
The other thing that I would say is—and just to make a plug on another D.C. policy issue—is that Congress really should get the U.S. export/import bank up to full speed, because there are deals that I have right now that could be done if the bank could actually do deals above $10 million, and it is really hurting American aerospace to not have the bank at full strength. And I would just urge anybody who has any ability to affect that to work on it, because we have hundreds of jobs, thousands of jobs—hundreds of jobs for us, thousands of jobs for other firms—that are dependent on these export deals, and it me it’s inexplicable that we cannot reauthorize something that actually makes money for the United States of America.
Davenport: These are deals—you’re talking about spaceports in other countries? What deal specifically are you talking about?
Whitesides: Yeah, I mean, there’s a lot of interest out there for spaceships to operate in other parts of the world.
Davenport: Right. So, I think this has come up a couple of times, but with you, you’re very close to it in terms of getting people up there, and for the moment let’s take the optimistic view, that you’re successful in doing this, and your test program is robust and vigorous and produces a vehicle that can safely and reliably take people. And I know you’re being very, very careful about that.
What does it look like in five to ten years, where—what is Virgin’s footprint in the U.S.? How many space craft do you have around the world? How many people have been to space? And what’s sort of the significance of all of that?
Whitesides: So, right now only about 550 people have ever been to space in the entire history of humanity. I mean, I don’t know how many people are here today, but it’s probably a few hundred. So, like, twice the size of this room, maybe, have ever been to space. Right? Basically, the number of people who can fit on an Airbus 380 in one flight. I think it’s nuts that we haven’t had more progress than that.
So, the number one thing that’s going to be exciting about the next few years when it comes to human spaceflight is that we are going to be doubling, tripling, quadrupling by ten the number of people who’ve been to space in a relatively short order. And by short order, I mean a small number of years. I think that’s going to have a profound impact on the planet.
You know, the astronauts that were just up here speak so eloquently about the impact that the space experience has on them when they go up into space, and the idea of the overview effect, and there was this great show that many of them were on about one strange rock—that profound shift in perspective that you get when you do go up to space and you look down at our home planet and you see the fragility of the biosphere. I think having that first person being spread into all the countries of the earth—so far, only about 50 countries have sent somebody of their own nationality to space. Imagine if all of the countries of the world had someone from—a man and a woman, or kids and adults—who’ve been to space and who bring that experience back down to their communities, to their national leaders. I think that’s exactly what the world needs right now, that planetary perspective.
Many of our biggest problems that we face are sort of dependent on understanding that we’re in one big spaceship Earth. And so, I really hope that we can play a small role in sharing that perspective globally.
Davenport: So, one of the sort of amazing things, and you alluded to this earlier, about the time that we’re in right now, with all these companies building all of these launch vehicles and spacecraft and balloons and even habitats, is that you actually have competition, not just to take people to space, but suborbital competition from Blue Origin, who we should disclose is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post—
Whitesides: I’ve heard that. That’s good reporting, Chris.
Davenport: Thank you. I appreciate that. We have always got to address it, you know, we want to be up front about it.
Whitesides: Very up front.
Davenport: But, how does that shape what you’re doing?
Whitesides: Look, I think competition is what moves America forward and it’s what moves innovation forward, and it keeps you sharp; it keeps you on your toes. This is good, right? I mean, we have competition in provision of cargo to the international space station. We have competition in provision of cruise services to the international space station. We’re going to have competition in suborbital space flight. That is what it’s all about. I mean, that is what has driven costs down in any product category in history. It’s what’s driven improvements in technology in every product category in history. It’s the basis of capitalism; it’s the basis of improvement. And so, I think it’s a very good thing.
And to have two massively successful entrepreneurs—actually, a few more than two—you wrote the book on it—but, to have two massively successful entrepreneurs believe that there is a huge market in suborbital spaceflight is a very good thing, I think, for belief in that market. And it suggests to me that we’re onto something, and I think the market is going to be much bigger than either of us can serve for many years.
Davenport: Do you think you have an advantage because it’s space plane and it can land on a runway?
Whitesides: I think they’re just different systems. You know? We have huge respect for the folks inside the Blue technical team; I think they have respect for our technical team. A lot of those folks came out of NASA or other parts of the industry. They all know that what we’re trying to do is hard, and takes a lot of effort, and particularly for a human spaceflight system that is not going to put amazingly fit folks, but a wide diversity of folks into space. These are challenging things. And so, I think it’s just different architectures.
Davenport: How fit do you have to be?
Whitesides: So, we tested that by, we took our first hundred customers, which we call our founder community, and we put them through a centrifuge and some zero gravity tests, and we found that about 97% to 98% of them were fine. We had 80-year-old grandmothers, some guy with four artificial joints in a 4G, 5G centrifuge and they all did fine. So, I think the vast, vast majority of people on earth will be able to fly to space.
Davenport: Okay. Good. I think that’s all the time we have for today. I want to thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it.
But before we let you go, I just want to mention a couple of things. The Post is putting on a series that we’ve been working for some time about companies and the entrepreneurial spirit of working in space, and you can follow that at washingtonpost.com/space. Also, if you like what you heard today—and George mentioned I have a book called The Space Barons, which is for sale out in the lobby, which covers a lot of what Virgin Galactic is up to, but also SpaceX—sort of a real leader in this space, as well. And if you want to watch any of the interview and go back and watch this from our people online, or check out any upcoming events, please visit washingtonppostlive.com.
Thank you so much, everyone, for coming today. It’s been a real pleasure. I also want to say thank you to the Washington Post Live staff for putting this on. It’s a lot of work, and they did a great job. So, thanks so much.
[APPLAUSE]