Main Engine Cut Off - T+217: Artemis Accords, with Mike Gold

Episode Date: May 16, 2022

Mike Gold, Executive Vice President of Civil Space Business Development and External Affairs at Redwire, joins me to talk about his previous role at NASA, where he served as Associate Administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships, and was the driving influence behind the Artemis Accords.This episode of Main Engine Cut Off is brought to you by 41 executive producers—Simon, Lauren, Kris, Pat, Matt, Jorge, Ryan, Donald, Lee, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Joonas, Robb, Tim Dodd (the Everyday Astronaut!), Frank, Julian and Lars from Agile Space, Tommy, Matt, The Astrogators at SEE, Chris, Aegis Trade Law, Fred, Hemant, Dawn Aerospace, Andrew, Harrison, and seven anonymous—and 795 other supporters.TopicsNASA Artemis AccordsMike Gold, Former Assoc. Admin. for Space Policy and Partnerships | NASASpace Industry Leader Mike Gold Joins Redwire as Executive Vice President of Civil Space Business Development and External Affairs | Redwire SpaceRedwire Space | Heritage + InnovationBahrain joins Artemis Accords - SpaceNewsColombia signs Artemis Accords - SpaceNewsStar Trek: 3 ways it inspired NASA's Artemis AccordsThe ShowLike the show? Support the show!Email your thoughts, comments, and questions to [e-mail] @WeHaveMECOListen to MECO HeadlinesJoin the Off-Nominal DiscordSubscribe on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Pocket Casts, Spotify, Google Play, Stitcher, TuneIn or elsewhereSubscribe to the Main Engine Cut Off NewsletterBuy shirts and Rocket Socks from the Main Engine Cut Off ShopMusic by Max JustusArtwork photo by NASA/Joel Kowsky

Hello and welcome to Managing Cutoff. I am Anthony Colangelo and we've got another special guest with us today. This one's going to be awesome. We've got Mike Gold, who is someone you probably recognize the name of from various roles through space policy. Right now, he is serving as the Executive Vice President of Civil Space and External Affairs at Redwire. But previously, and most recently, he was the Associate Administrator for Space Policy and Partnerships at NASA under the Jim Bridenstine NASA. And notably was the person behind the Artemis Accords, a set of principles for the exploration and development of space that a whole bunch of countries have been signing on to. There are 19 countries signed on to this now.

And so Mike's coming on to talk about the way that those came about, the origin of them themselves, how they get implemented, what they mean in space policy, and what the future looks like in terms of what activities they're governing in space, how countries sign on, who might sign on in the future, and just a whole host of things about the space policy side of the Artemis program. Very interested to talk because not only is it an interesting thing on its own, but we've seen the Artemis program move from the Jim Brinestein NASA to the Bill Nelson NASA, different parties here in the US,

very contentious transition between presidential administrations. And yet the Artemis program continued unscathed and emboldened, honestly. You know, recently, we saw Bill Nelson going to Capitol Hill and trying to get money for a second lunar lander for the human landing system component of the Artemis program, and basically ratifying the decisions that the past administration of NASA made to select SpaceX as the sole provider for that first lander, and then to go and get this follow on program for second lander. So, you know, not only has the Artemis program been embraced, but it's they're doubling down in a lot of different ways. And that is very rare for space policy, certainly in my lifetime, but even beyond that as well, to see a program like this transition so seamlessly. And I think a lot of people, myself included, chalk that up to what's been done in the Artemis Accord side of things to create this larger program than than just any given, you know, mission profile, but make it a larger intergovernmental program that's been very successful.

So Mike's here today not to talk about his role on the Red Wire side of things, but to talk about the Artific Accords. So without further ado, let's give Mike a call. All right, we are here with the man himself, Mike Gold. How is it going today? It's an absolute pleasure, despite being Friday the 13th. Anytime I'm on this podcast, it's a terrific day. It's a very spooky episode today.

I don't know if this probably won't come out today as we record this, but it is May 13th, Friday the 13th, and we might talk about some spooky stuff. Any day I'm talking to you, Anthony, is a lucky day. Forget Friday the 13th. Long-time listener, first-time guest. As I mentioned, really appreciate what you do on the podcast. Thank you so much. And yeah, we should mention your role at Redwire today. That is not what we're talking about, but maybe if you would like to set the stage there. You left NASA a year ago. I forget exactly what the timeline is here.

And what is it that you're doing day-to- day at Redwire? How's that been going so far? It's been so exciting. I serve as the executive vice president for civil space and external affairs. And the activities that we're doing are just transformative and is what attracted me away from NASA that the companies and countries that master microgravity research, development, and manufacturing are not only going to be the economic, but the national security leaders of the future. And here at Redwire, we're the only company that has ever manufactured items successfully on the International Space Station. And since the acquisition of TechShot, we've got incredible capabilities in biotech. We've got incredible capabilities in biotech. We're going to be looking at all kinds of medical, biological revolutions that will occur in microgravity, growing tissue, and then eventually organs. I have nothing but selfish interests since I'm going to need a kidney at least and pancreas and a few other organs as well.

But it's really terrific. well but it's really terrific and what we're doing on isam and uh really want to applaud what the white house did with releasing the in-space servicing assembly manufacturing national strategy as they and our friends over at ostp you know that's something where red wire also excels at that our arcanaut satellite that's going to combine 3d printing with robotics to create a next generation spacecraft is just again extraordinarily exciting and then the rosa arrays are rollout solar arrays are doing great on the international space station we're excited to work with lockheed on our cameras so as you can tell it's so broad it's been the rest of the show talking about listing projects absolutely and it's really really wonderful place because you can see it's such a diverse portfolio at red wire and so many innovative and exciting activities

it certainly keeps me busy so if you hear me yawning it's just because i've been working so hard and because as i mentioned i had my second booster uh shot yesterday for covid so again if i sound a little bit tired it's not due to lack of enthusiasm for the artemis accords or norms of behavior yeah so that's what you're where you're here to talk about today is the artemis accords um i feel like you know i've talked about them several times in the show and if you may have thought i had bad takes on them or something and just why you wanted to come on and talk about them um but i'd love to start with some of the background the origin story and and how your role was involved with

that you know from early on uh with even the shaping of them originally i don't know how much you can or can't disclose about the origin of the artemis accords however many years ago that was now but uh whatever of that history you could share would be awesome to hear about i'd be happy to and i think i can share nearly everything about this origin story that would put i don't know itar's been making their way into the whole nasa side of things lately so you know now you're just trying to gain listeners talking about the sexy topic of export control you know there is an aspect of that that if you know my personal history i really began in many ways as a reformer for export control and really recognized how

technology in many ways is the easy part. I say sometimes that the legal, the regulatory, the financial, the political, there's no rocket equation for Congress in getting them to adopt common sense export control reform, et cetera, which is why I always thought the accords were so important. And if you want to talk about the origin of the accords, you really have to begin with the Artemis program because they are the Artemis accords. And the history there, of course, is that throughout my entire life, and I know I look really young, but I'm nearly 49 now, NASA had failed to sustain a beyond low Earth orbit human spaceflight program since Apollo.

Failure wasn't just an option. It was a certainty. And, you know, the laundry list of Vision for Space Exploration and Constellation, the asteroid retrieval mission, just to name a few. And someone else who was very cognizant of those failures was Jim Bridenstine. I certainly don't want to speak for Jim, but he knew what was at stake, that if we were to fumble with our next program, American credibility, particularly internationally, was hanging on by a thread. And if we were unable to sustain the Artemis program, I honestly wouldn't believe that we would be able to lead a global human spaceflight coalition beyond low Earth orbit

ever again, because this isn't occurring in a vacuum and say what you will about China, but they do what they say and say what they do. They're quite a reliable partner. And that's why it was so important, not just for NASA, but for the nation, the world, for Artemis to be sustainable. And I think as Jim looked at that conundrum, he saw two things that needed to be done. One, you needed bipartisan support so that you could survive a presidential transition. And kudos to Jim Bridenstine for being extraordinarily bipartisan in his team and in everything that he did to advocate and make Artemis the nation's program, the world's program, rather than a partisan program. You contrasted our Beyond Leo human spaceflight programs that, as I mentioned, none of which came to fruition since Apollo. But you compare it to the International Space Station, which has been the foundation of human spaceflight, the crown jewel of American human spaceflight. Why?

And you have to look at the word international. That international is not just important relative to contributions and dollars and support, but for sustainability. And Jim knew that for Artemis to be sustainable, we needed a strong international coalition. And I believe the exact same. And while I was on the NASA advisory council had been texting both Jim and his chief of staff, Gabe Sherman, often about my wacky concept for the Artemis Accords. As a Star Trek fan, I was already in love with the name, and I'll leave it to the Trekkies in the audience to connect the dots on that one.

Okay, I was supposed to ask you about this, because on the other podcast I do off Nominal, we had Brian Whedon on yesterday. And when I mentioned we were doing this show, he was like, you got to ask him about the Accords part of the name. And I was like, I was more interested in the first part of the name, but all right, let's talk about the second part of the name.

But there it is. So you've at least resolved Brian Whedon's interest in this particular episode. Well, believe me, it is one of my goals. I always intend to keep Brian happy. And if you want a little bit on that connection, it of course goes back to in Star Trek VI, there were the Kittimer Accords that brought the Klingons and the Federation together. And that resonated with me

because the Artemis Accords were designed to bring the world together and to support the values of Star Trek, which is a diverse, inclusive, science and discovery oriented values to build better technology and a better future for us all. So Star Trek certainly did inspire me and inspire the Accords. If you talk to my former boss, he will discuss baseballs more than Star Trek. And we often have that argument. And just to tell that story, by the way, so one of the pieces of getting me to NASA was that Jim had to agree to be on my AwesomeCon panel that I would hold

annually. And I encourage everyone to attend June 4th in the afternoon at AwesomeCon, which is Washington DC's Comic--con and we knew that jim would get asked star wars versus star trek and again bipartisanship is extremely important to artemis that jim said space balls and ran right down the middle with that so we were all but yeah i think star trek and again we talked about the article that you can post which by the way didn't make the kidamer accords connection is three pages of Star Trek and the Artemis Accords, and they missed the primary point. But it's very much to shape the future that is Star Trek. And that is where the name The Accords came from. And I would even say a lot of the substance was inspired by. So the purpose of The Accords is really twofold.

One, to create the broadest, most diverse, beyond Leo human spaceflight coalition in history, that there was such strong interest in the Artemis program that the international community clearly wanted to go back to the moon. That's why SPD-1 was so important, because it allowed the US to re-engage with the international community as opposed to being isolated. And the Accords represented a public and explicit vehicle to bring this large amount of support and this incredible, diverse, and broad global coalition to support and contribute to the program, which is important from a substantive perspective, from an innovation perspective, from a financial perspective. I also have always believed,

we talk about diversity. Diversity isn't just the right thing to do. It's the path to success for programs, that ultimately a diverse group of people are going to be better problem solvers, more innovative than a homogenous group. And that's why whether we're just talking national diversity here or international diversity with the Accords, I believe it's not only the right moral thing, but is critical to mission success. And then beyond that, there was the view, and credit to Jim, as well as my partner in crime with this, Gabriel Swinney, who was at the Department of State at the time, another great person to talk to. And we wanted to not only bolster the Artemis program, but due to its popularity, leverage that to say that if you wanted to join Artemis, there are norms, behavior, rules of the road that we want you to abide by to create a peaceful and prosperous

future for all of humanity to enjoy. And that's where it was. And myself and Jonathan Margolis from Department of State, who did an amazing job there, Gabriel Swinney, who was in the legal department I mentioned before, and Jim himself. I mean, we were sitting there, I remember, legal department I mentioned before, and Jim himself. I mean, we were sitting there, I remember, in the bowels of NASA headquarters at 7 p.m., and Jim dropped by for the Department of State and joint NASA team that was working the language of the Accords at the time, left, and then came back. He was so enthusiastic about the Accords, he couldn't even come home. So again, a lot of great work. I also believe that we couldn't have gotten them done without the support of Scott Pace and the National Space Council and then how that all came together,

as well as many friends at Department of Commerce and FAA AST and Department of Defense, the intelligence community. Again, it was a real terrific team effort so that is where the accords came from and here's one question i've always wondered and so you mentioned how the artemis accords are positioned to create this intergovernmental coalition to work on you know artemis program but other projects into the future um we don't have that in place around cooperation on SLS for example, or SLS Orion where Europe's providing the service module for Orion that's necessary for any SLS Orion flight

we don't even have them around the ISS that's governed by the Intergovernmental Agreement and that has been extended to Gateway itself so So on these other areas, we don't have something that that wraps it up or we have something, but it's just not branded as well, I guess, as the Artemis Accords. So why why was this new thing necessary for this future program that we wanted to take on? Why was the existing stuff not covering it from your perspective? Sure. So while there were some specific or limited contributions from international partners, like you say, for Orion, there was no overarching means for international partners to express their support for Artemis and to become involved in Artemis. And if you're ESA or JAXA, it's easier for you to participate in a program like that. As you mentioned, the service module ESA was already part and JAXA was making contributions as well. contributions as well. But by creating the overarching Artemis Accords, we ensured that no matter how large or strong your space program is, or no matter how small or modest, even if you

had a couple of grad students working at university, there was a way to integrate you into the program. And rather than doing so on an ad hoc basis, the Accords created a global framework for the countries to come on board, not only supporting NASA, but supporting each other, that I would often refer to the Artemis Accords family of nations. And in many ways, it is that family. So this really took international cooperation up another degree, while also, again, setting those norms of behavior that we did not have agreed upon norms of behavior in space for beyond lower orbit to the moon and Mars. At the very least, we needed to add specificity to implement the existing international obligations from the Outer Space Treaty, the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts. Because as much as I love the Outer Space Treaty, to be clear, I love the Outer Space Treaty.

It's the spine, it's the constitution of space law. Over 50 years old, doesn't look a day over 35. years old, doesn't look a day over 35. But when I was at NASA, I couldn't take the Outer Space Treaty, hand it over to Kathy and say, here, do this, right? That you needed, even if you're still at the level of principles, a degree of specificity to be able to implement the obligations. For example, Outer Space Treaty says, avoid harmful. Terrific. Extremely important. How do you do that? And that's where the Artemis Accords presents the concept of safety zones, which are, what you're doing. You announce publicly where you are, what you're doing. And then you communicate, coordinate with other parties that may be entering the same area to avoid harmful interference. So there you see it's still relatively broad or high level, but does implement the values of the Outer Space Treaty. the values of the Outer Space Treaty. And the reason that was so important is that this is not Star Trek. This is not science fiction.

This is not an academic conversation that we've got Eclipse missions landing this year. We've got other international probes this year. We had several spacecraft around Mars. We need to prevent conflict before it occurs. And these rules of the road will help to ensure that we have the peaceful and prosperous future in space that the US and the other Artemis Accords partners want to see, and that we must see, and that we should see for our children and generations to come. I want to dive in some specific components,

but I want to finish off the naming and branding conversation because I think it is interesting to consider the politics side of that as well. So the Artemis half of the name is, I saw that as a very high-risk, high-reward gamble, right? That you're tying this name to the new flagship program. that that you're tying this name to the new flagship program um i don't know if there ever would have been a constellation accords and if that had happened that wouldn't have gone very well right there there was the high risk that artemis you know there was not a it was not a safe bet that it was going to be fully embraced by the next administration. Here we are, you know, several years, my brain's a little broken on it. It's almost years into this new administration,

and they have fully embraced the Artemis program. They've doubled down on many aspects of it. They're trying to get money for a second human lunar lander. So, you know, we have now made it to that successful outcome that you were envisioning, that this would be something embraced by both parties and could carry on in the future and you know the high reward part of that a high risk was artemis goes away and then the artemis cords go away with it the high reward part is that you've now made the artemis program sticky because there are so many other governments

around the world that are signed on to a thing with artis in the name. Was that exactly what you were hoping for? Were you envisioning this sticky scenario where there isn't even an Artemis program office, but now Artemis is such a solid thing to build upon within NASA and within the other countries that we're talking about? Is that the idea? So, Anthony, to quote the great Captain Kirk, risk, it's why we're here. It's why we're here. It's why we're aboard her.

If I was afraid of risk, I don't think I'd have spent the vast majority of my career in commercial space, nor have gone over to NASA quitting. What was a really wonderful job at Maxar. And I do think you've captured it correctly. As I mentioned before, the Artemis program in many ways was our last best hope.

That, to use the baseball analogy, it was the ninth inning, two outs, and a full count. If we didn't get through the Artemis program, the Artemis program was not sustainable. I don't think there would be a future in beyond Leo human spaceflight, at least for the US to lead a global coalition. So we knew that this was it, all hands on deck. And candidly, that's why I came to NASA. Again, my wife and my bank account were both very upset at that decision, but we knew that this was it and that it was important for the Artemis program, critical to survive and to thrive. And I couldn't live with myself not trying to be a part of it, to make it bipartisan, to make it sustainable.

And we knew that Jim, as I described before, was also completely dedicated to that. And everything that Jim was doing to make it bipartisan, to gain supports from both sides of the aisle, and to gain international. Therefore, while there was certainly a modicum of risk of tying it, had we lost the Artemis program, it wouldn't have mattered anyway. And the international aspect was something that we thought would also be attractive to make it more bipartisan and more sticky, as he said, that the international aspect has great stick, as we've seen with the International Space Station. So we were absolutely thinking of that. That's why we did it. And it was designed to be sustainable. Now, we also need to give credit, though, to the Biden administration, and particularly, I'll quote another science fiction series,

Dune, that the beginnings are such difficult times. Probably misquoting Dune to show that I don't like doing that much, but a beginning is a challenging time. And particularly during that transition period from one administration to another, before you have a NASA administrator, programs are very vulnerable. And I have to give a huge amount of credit to Bahavia Law, who was at the time the acting chief of staff, senior White House appointee, who helped shepherd NASA and the Artemis program through what was really the most challenging period because we didn't have leadership in place. And she did a tremendous job. And then, of course, kudos to Senator Nelson and Pam Melroy and the team who have not only fully embraced Artemis, but also taken actions to really support

the program in extraordinary ways, such as the second entrant for the human landing system was very important, not just technologically, but the sustainability of the program. So again, it's a combination of the incredible work that the previous team did, and then were able to hand off to a terrific group of people that have continued the support. And that's a victory, not for any particular party, not for any particular team, but for America and the free world generally. Yeah, I mean, it was shocking that everything, you know, transitioned so seamlessly because even even in past less contentious transitions, there's like random projects that get renamed.

The gateways had four or five different horrible names just because everyone wants to rename it when they get in. But I don't think there's been a single thing attached to Artemis that has been renamed or rethought. I guess they've reconsidered certain ways of contracting for the second lander, but not in a malicious way, just in a tactical way. Yeah, and it was designed to be that, Anthony. Even the name itself, Artemisis is inclusive and speaks to diversity had to, that this was our last best hope. We needed this to be a winner and to continue to survive and thrive. So a lot of work went into making that happen. I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the success of Artemis. We mentioned the gateway a couple of times, and I think that's one of the things I'm

interested in right now is that that was formulated under the same agreement that the iss is formulated and um to not put too fine of a point on it but that was envisioned because russia was going to play some sort of role in gateway where there was going to be an airlock or there was going to be some something that they were going to contribute to gateway which seems less and less likely and i don't think they've uh made any signs that they're actually going to contribute to the gateway in any way. So are there thoughts that the gateway could actually be enveloped into the Artemis Accords as well instead of the intergovernmental agreement that is governing the ISS? Is that something that would be beneficial to that program itself,

especially when it involves some of the countries that have been signing on recently to the Artemis Accords that don't have a part in the ISS but would like to? So it's important to distinguish, and I appreciate the opportunity, between the IGA and the Artemis Accords. The IGA, or Intergovernmental Agreement, as you mentioned, but for your listeners who might not be familiar, and shame on you if you haven't read the IGA, real page turn. The IGA is the governing document for the operation of the ISS. And as you mentioned, we leveraged the IGA for the Gateway as well. So what's in the IGA speaks to operations and the variety of boards and how decisions are made relative to these spacecraft. What the IGA doesn't do is speak to norms behavior in cislunar space. So with the

Artemis Accords, you've got topics like avoiding harmful interference, rescuing astronauts. All of this is, of course, far more broad than how you operate a particular system or a particular platform, be it the ISS or the Gateway. So those are the two swim lanes, and certainly there is some overlap in that if you're a signatory to the Accords, you have to follow the principles of the Accords, whether you're on the gateway or anywhere else in cislunar space. There's also slightly different groups that, for example, ESA, the European Space Agency, is not a country. So ESA cannot sign the accords. I actually sometimes get that question. Why hasn't ESA signed the accords? Well, they're not a nation. Nations make the political commitments, which is the Artemis Accords, and that's why you have individual countries within ESA doing so, as opposed to operating a platform, which ESA is actually a part of.

important that while we all supported the Apollo program and we stand on the shoulders of giants from Apollo, I just recently, it was Arab American Heritage Month, and I had the privilege of my company to interview Farouk Elbaz. If you're familiar with Farouk, he's the godfather of remote sensing, trained astronauts in terms of geology for Apollo and picked out the lunar landing site. My hope is with Gateway that in part because the Russians aren't participating, actually opens up opportunities for an even broader coalition that we can have with Gateway involving other countries that weren't part of the ISS program. So I'm hoping that Gateway can be very broad. As I mentioned, the flaw with Apollo, and we all love Apollo, is that it ended. And part of the reason for that was lack of infrastructure. There was no infrastructure

that Apollo really laid down in a substantive fashion. That's exactly what Gateway is. It's infrastructure to ensure that this time when we go back to the moon, we do it to stay and that it can serve as a launching point for Mars, because in many ways, Gateway can act as a Mars analog. We'll learn so much about operating in deep space that's extremely important for future Martian missions. You mentioned a couple of the actual elements of the Artemis Accords so far, but I'd be interested to dive into that and specifically what they are. You've listed off a couple of them, but how did you decide upon which norms were part of that list and any ones that you

were hoping would make that list but didn't quite in the final format here? So the journey of the Artemis program was to the moon and Mars, but the destination of the Artemis chords is a peaceful and prosperous future. So we wanted to focus on what are the values, what are the norms that can ensure a peaceful future, a harmonious future, and candidly, one that looks like Star Trek. And almost more than anything, what can we do to prevent conflict? Because we want a future that is more Star Trek and less Star Wars. And that's where we were picking out many of these principles. Additionally, we wanted to help implement and define the Outer Space Treaty. The Outer Space Treaty, as I mentioned, is a wonderful

piece of work, a terrific document. And part of the reason it survived the years and is as relevant as it was back in the 1960s when it was created, much like Star Trek, is that it was high level. It was principles. It was objectives. So again, for example, who could argue with avoiding harmful interference? The challenge with that is it doesn't tell you how to achieve those objectives. And that's where the Artemis Accords came in and how we got many of the principles that we needed to find ways to implement how we are going to achieve those objectives. how we are going to achieve those objectives and a lot of it is transparency and you see that with the early principles of the accords and it goes through registration and many other principles of the accords even the safety zones etc all of it is about even the release of scientific data was one that has been particularly relevant as we see you know china has kind of like very

closely held of their lunar data until they've gotten the run of it and then they're like okay here's some stuff that we can now release glad you raised that because while china or russia may not be part of the artemis program we wanted to lead by example and embrace what makes American and our partner exploration of space important and terrific and accessible and wonderful. Where is the wonder? Where is the discovery? cover up your scientific discoveries if you make them opaque and, as you mentioned, don't release them in a timely basis or in a full fashion. That's not the future that we want. We want space to be open, free, and a journey of discovery for everyone, not secretive and fearful and opaque. So while those other nations might not sign, and China may not sign the

accords, although they're absolutely welcome to, the best that we could do is show what good looks like. And that's where the full free open release of scientific data that we articulate in the accords is so important. And many aspects of the accords are a reaction in some ways to what other countries may not be doing that we want them to do. And that's why we thought it was also important to be a part of the Artemis program that you would commit to releasing your data in a free, fair, open manner. And that's why we're so glad to have now, again, I'm almost losing track, 19 nations as part of the accords. But even those countries that don't sign, we're establishing a norm of behavior. We're establishing a precedent that others will then, if nothing else, be shamed, hopefully, into following in the future. us be shamed, hopefully, into following in the future.

Yeah, I've got a personal bone to pick on that one, which is the meteorological data that all of the European satellites are collecting is not exactly as open as I would like it. I make this Mac app called Downlink that takes GOA's imagery from the NOAA satellites, and Japan has a satellite that has the same kind of imagery on it. And these high-res, full-disc images are there to be used free and open and not as easy to get the ones over Europe. So next time you're in a meeting with anyone that knows about their meteorological satellites, just mention that and send them my way, if you will. We hope that the Accord sets a precedent that even the weather satellites in Europe will eventually reflect. What are they hiding?

Exactly. And again, some of this is just bureaucracy, right? Oh, yeah. And they got to get paid for that weather data. I get it. Yeah. But even then, even then, right, it's important to release. Now, I will say that the Accords were not drafted to cover commercial activities, that this is for civil space activities. I think for free, fair, open release of scientific data is an aspect that would differ for a commercial version of the Artemis Accords, which I think, by the way, is very important to develop.

And I was at the agency, I would often complain that I need the private sector more involved, that we've got the private sector playing an outside role technologically. We need the private sector playing an equally important role diplomatically in terms of norms development. And that's something that we haven't had in the past in a robust fashion. So it's a good example of an aspect of the accords that might need to be altered as we look at a commercial version. But for civil space and government, taxpayer dollars, I think it's a good example of an aspect of the accords that might need to be altered as we look at a commercial version. But for civil space and government, taxpayer dollars, I think it's extraordinarily important value. because I think this is a misperception that arises relative to the accords from time to time. The accords represent common ground among the nations that have acceded to them.

This is not the U.S. position. If you look at the United States position, particularly in something like space resources, you see that we explicitly reject the moon agreement. Yet that's nowhere to be found in the accords. The accords actually represent an attempt to see what can a country like Australia that has actually signed the moon agreement or Mexico, what can they agree upon with a country like the United States that explicitly rejects the Moon Agreement? So it's a document that was designed to bring us all together. And if you look at the text of the Accords, you'll see that there's nothing there that actually contradicts the Moon Agreement.

And what we say relative to space resources is that you have the ability and the right to extract and utilize space resources, and you should do so in a safe, sustainable manner in compliance with Article 2 and the other aspects of the Outer Space Treaty. I think that contention is very difficult to disagree with, and the Moon Agreement actually explicitly contemplates doing so. Yet if I turn to the Moon Agreement, again, I note that in 40 years, 50 years, the Moon Agreement has now fewer countries that have committed to the Accords in less than two years. So I think we're doing something right here. And again, via the Accords, I hope that we can find a path that can bring the world together relative to the topic of space resources. And I think the common sense language of the Accords represents hopefully universal values

that again can protect the peace while supporting innovation and future development on the moon, Mars, and beyond. Were there any norms that you were hoping would make this list that didn't quite make it? Or do you feel like you got the list that you needed to, like you're talking about, put a finer point on the things that are in the Outer Space Treaty? I was hoping for some sort of prohibition against the New York Yankees, but you can't get everything you want, Anthony. I didn't know how some of the internationals would react. No, I think it was actually, there were so many miraculous aspects of the Accords. One of them is, if you go back to the release of the principles that was done on May 15th, nearly two years ago now, that was the initial group of principles that we wanted to pursue.

The negotiations with the international community had not taken place yet. And the fact that every one of those principles actually made it in to the accords as is, just demonstrates, I think, the thoroughness of what we went through in developing the accords. And again, kudos to our friends at the Department of State who initially sat down with NASA to develop that document together, as well as the C-175 process. This is probably the only time you'll hear someone say something good about C-175, but we did get, again, a thorough vetting. But I can't really say that there were any values that we didn't get through because we got them all through. And I also want to note though, that while I guess you could say we were leading this effort, that the Accords belong as

much to the international partners as they do to America. You know, those negotiations took place with not only eight other space agencies, but eight ministries of foreign affairs as well. space agencies, but eight ministries of foreign affairs as well. I'm actually 24. This is what I look like after negotiation. And for those of you listening, I don't look like I'm 24 anymore, but again, that's how difficult- Yeah, just second foot in the shot, so that says a lot. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, that'll tell you. So that's how challenging those negotiations are. And really, in a scenario like that, for anyone who hasn't been through an international negotiation process, it's really the foreign partners who have the power in that if any one of them wants to strike down language or ideas, they can. I cannot compliment enough the group of countries that came together to craft what is a vision for the future that we can all be so proud of and that the world can support. For example, our friends at United Arab Emirates kept pushing hard, and we all agreed that

we needed an inclusive document that any responsible spacefaring nation could sign. And I'm also certain that the Japanese speak better English than we do. That the typos and the support that we got from our Japanese friends was tremendous. So everyone brought just terrific insight and innovation and ideas to the accords. And what came out of that crucible was a terrific and trailblazing document because of the contributions of these international partners, which was a mix of many of our traditional partners, such as Japan, such as Canada, Italy, but also new entrants like UAE, like Australia, like Luxembourg, some smaller countries. So we had a great balance in the beginning of both traditional space-faring countries as well as new and innovative entrants from such a wide variety of countries. If you go back and look at the announcement of the accords,

it almost brought a tear to my eye watching how many different languages were spoken during that video. And again, that diversity of views, the innovation that came out of it, produced a trailblazing document. And the alacrity, the speed with which it was actually developed was amazing to me, because we weren't cutting corners in any way. You couldn't do the inherent nature of that process, as I described. Any person raises a flag, you have to take material out. And the fact that we could come together at all, much less how quickly we did, again, is a real tribute to all of the nations that participated in that effort and have since signed on. I'd love to talk about that aspect as well. Like, was there a particular

set of countries that you were kind of recruiting for that first round? And what is it like as, you know, newer countries, you know, I think Colombia signed this week. So there's, it's been pretty ferocious how quickly countries getting added to this. What is the process for originally recruiting them? And then when they're added, is that them showing interest? Are we still approaching people to sign on? And we being the people that have already signed on, the Artemis Corps is trying to talk to your friends and get them involved in the situation. How does that all work?

So the beginning of the process, you want enough countries to initially sign that it's substantive. If the US and Luxembourg makes an agreement, that's not going to move the rest of the world too far, as much as we love Luxembourg. It's not the biggest market over there. Exactly. Although they are dynamic and innovative. Redwire has an awesome- I'm just talking scale.

Exactly. Probably not that many Twitter followers. Yeah. So like I say, probably more Twitter in Japan or in Italy. So we wanted a sufficient number of countries that it was a substantive number. At the same time, as I describe when you're negotiating this, not only do you have a number of space agencies, but you've got all the foreign ministries and those two groups might not even agree with each other in many cases.

So that was the buying, the bounding of the number that we had in eight seemed like it would be substantive, but still manageable in developing the text ambitious but manageable as a matter of fact we didn't anticipate having a country signed in october we would have been thrilled candidly with five sounding on or four and the fact that we got there with that entire initial group was absolutely terrific. And then in terms of the countries that were selected, we needed to ensure that we were going to the nations that were either already part of the Artemis program or had plans for rovers

or other activities on the moon or Mars that needed to be covered by the norms of behavior. And we wanted a balance between, again, traditional space-faring nations and many of the new entrants, as well as geographic balance and diversity to the extent we could get it. So that's really what drove the initial selection of countries. And after that, the more the merrier. I hope the whole world and more than the whole world signs on. But with the new entrance, it's again great to see a continuation of that balance where you've got some larger countries such as Brazil or South Korea signing on, but you're getting a Bahrain, Mexico, Colombia coming on board. It's so important to show that balance also between developing nations and the developed world because Artemis program is not just for the rich

or the wealthy. It's for anyone who has a dream of exploration. And even if you're Columbia, which I know may not have a robust space program, but they've got brilliant people, they've got dreamers, they've got innovators. That's what's so exciting is to bring energy and diversity of a country like Colombia on board with the other nations to support the Artemis program, even if it's in a modest basis, even if it's just a couple of grad students involving as many people and as many different people as we can will only benefit the program in the world now you mentioned uh rich wealthy countries that have an interest in exploration and boy howdy if there are two

countries i'm thinking of that i've not signed on yet uh that is france and germany uh and they are i know france i think they're working on it or something like that there's been some statements that yeah yeah we'll get to it eventually um i haven't really heard anything like that on the germany front so you've mentioned a lot of the bureaucracy that goes into like getting this thing through the whole situation is that what we're looking at with those two countries or is there something else that's holding up uh two very traditional partners you know with the u.s and other european partners and you know tent poles of isa themselves like where it's what's going on there sure so just to provide some context though,

right? The accords aren't even two years old at this point. Normally, just negotiations for a process like this takes a series of years. So I think it's important to acknowledge within the framework of the question, just how quickly and how many nations have signed including europe with the uk as a founding member with poland again you've got a balance between you know some larger and new spacefaring uh nations i'm going to include ukraine and that ukraine romania have come on board romania uh recently maybe next time we should have a mutual defense clause in the Artemis Accords for our friends in Russia, are doing. Italy, again, certainly a pillar of the European Space Agency as a founding member of the Accords. will be there for us, just as they always have been in space exploration. I believe you've read articles and seen media reports that France, I believe, has a positive view towards the accords. But again, these things take time. You understand that we're dealing with foreign ministries and

very busy decision makers, and there's a lot going on in the world right now. Yeah, are they busy at all like what's going on over there exactly so i wouldn't read into it that you know oh you know france is turning it down or france is dragging its feet just a lot going on yeah they're spending a lot of time and money everywhere else you know i hope and i think once you have france again it's it's virtually all of our primary European partners and many new entrants. I believe Germany will eventually follow suit. So I'm very optimistic regarding France.

And Germany, they can be very legalistic. They take a lot of time to digest. very legalistic they take a lot of time to digest they're very cautious um and very wedded to the un system which isn't a bad thing but if you had a nickel for every time the accords referenced the united nations or copious you could afford your own mission to the moon this is about implementing it that if you support multilateralism, you support the Outer Space Treaty, then you should not only support the Accords, you should demand that every country have a commitment either to the Accords or something like the Accords, where you actually articulate how you are going to implement the Outer Space Treaty. Otherwise, it's an empty

promise and empty words. And I was very proud that as much as I love the Outer Space Treaty, it too has a fatal flaw, and that's that there isn't any teeth. What are the repercussions of violating the Outer Space Treaty? For the first time, the Artemis Accords created one that if you create harmful interference to others in space, if you don't release your information publicly, if you're opaque and not transparent, you won't be part of the Artemis program. I think that's so important that we stand up for these values because we don't just want better technology. We want a better future in space. we want a better future in space and certainly to put that in context of what's going on this past week, deliberations over the

anti-satellite test ban that US announced recently Canada signed on that as well, there's kind of this dual part of these norms in space discussions that are going on on more military sides but there's a lot of, even yesterday I mentioned we were talking to brian whedon and mostly about that side of things and the war in ukraine and there was multiple references the artemis accords because they it feels so similar in that kind of like you know

we're defining what is right what is not right how you can be responsible in space and what you need to do to make sure that space is still usable and all that so um this has been awesome i don't know if there was something that we missed that you were hoping to get to. If you want a couple more Star Trek references, we've got another minute or two before we get to get you back there. I think I've done a fair amount of referencing Star Trek. I don't think I need to go there,

but I would like to respond to your last point, by the way, that the accords represent a pathway for international agreement, for crafting a peaceful, prosperous future, as we've discussed. But the accords are the beginning of a discussion, not the ending. And as I'd mentioned previously, the accords are dedicated to civil space activities. What we need is a version of the accords or an accords-like effort for national security space activities. Because if we're going to get into a conflict in space, and I certainly hope we don't, and I've

dedicated the vast majority of my policy career to preventing that, but if we do, let's at least have it be intentional. And my fear is that we don't have clarity or international agreement on, for example, how close is too close to a different nation's satellite. And we need to articulate what those rules are so that one nation doesn't violate that due to a misperception or confusion of what that line is. So I think it's very important. I would commend the Space Force and our friends at Defense to developing an Artemis Accords-like document where we could take some of the principles that have already been articulated for what good looks like in national security context and get a coalition of the willing going and then bring that to the United Nations. Same should be done on a commercial basis that I'm already involved in several efforts where we're bringing together different companies to articulate this is what norms of behavior should be for commercial space, which is different than what's in the accord.

So there is still much work to be done. And I'm glad that the accord serves as a precedent and a catalyst for that process. Perfect place to leave done. And I'm glad that the Accord serves as a precedent and a catalyst for that process. Perfect place to leave it. Mike, thank you so much for coming on. This has been really great to have you on talk and hopefully we can have you back when some more developments happen or as on the Redwire side, probably could have you back to talk about that as well. I look forward to talking more about Redwire. Again, a lot going on there. And then we can also come on and talk more when we celebrate the 100th country joining the Accords. There it is.

Nice. Might be Germany. Yeah. Thanks, Anthony. I appreciate it. Live long and prosper. Have a great weekend. Thanks again to Mike for the chat.

That was a fantastic conversation and really learned a lot about the background and how some of the inner workings of this kind of thing happen because a lot of times it is obscure to people like ourselves on the outside. And so very cool to hear from the person themselves that was involved in this, how it all went down and how it maps to what our projected reality was in many ways. So very, very cool. Hope you enjoyed the conversation. And if you want more of this kind of thing you can support the show directly over at mainenginecutoff.com support this is 100%

listener supported so if you like what I'm doing if you like these kind of conversations head over there and help support the show and keep it going growing and moving into new areas which we're going to be trying as the world gets going again with in-person events you know the conferences are coming back hopefully there's some launches that we're going to go to later this year down in Florida. And we'll be, you know, organizing some events around that stuff as well. So keep your eyes peeled.

But I want to say thank you to the 836 of you who are supporting Main Engine Cutoff every single month. That includes 41 executive producers who made this episode possible. Thanks to Simon, Lauren, Chris, Pat, Matt, George, Ryan, Donald, Lee, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, Mor Simon, Lauren, Chris, Pat, Matt, George, Ryan, Donald, Lee, Chris, Warren, Bob, Russell, Moritz, Joel, Jan, David, Eunice, Rob, Tim Dodd, David Ashtonot,

Frank, Julian Lars from Agile Space, Tommy, Matt, the Astrogators at SEE, Chris, Aegis Trade Law, Fred, Haymonth, Dawn Aerospace, Andrew, Harrison, and seven anonymous executive producers. Thank you all so much for the support. If you want to help support the show, and if you want an entire other podcast in your feed, I do a podcast every single weekend called Miko Headlines, where I run through all the stories that happened in space this week, keep you up to date on what's going on with them, give you some thoughts where I've got them.

It is a great way to stay up to date on space news without having to read everything yourself, and also to support the show to make more of this stuff possible. So if you like the show, I guarantee you're going to like Miko Headlines. So check it out over at managingcutoff.com slash support. And thank you all so much for listening. Thanks for your support. And if you've got any questions or thoughts,

hit me up on Twitter at WeHaveMiko or in email, anthony at managingcutoff.com And until next time, I'll talk to you soon.