The Knowledge Project with Shane Parrish - #108 Thomas Zurbuchen: Adventures in Astrophysics

Episode Date: April 6, 2021

Thomas Zurbuchen is currently Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA, where he seeks answers to big questions about the universe and our place in it. Previously, he was a professor of space science and aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan and a founding director of its Center for Entrepreneurship. In this episode, Thomas and Shane discuss the origin of his passion for astrophysics, commercial spaceflight, exciting experiments going on at the International Space Station, the challenges of space flight, how he makes decisions, whether humans will ever live on Mars, and more. -- Want even more? Members get early access, hand-edited transcripts, member-only episodes, and so much more. Learn more here: https://fs.blog/membership/   Every Sunday our Brain Food newsletter shares timeless insights and ideas that you can use at work and home. Add it to your inbox: https://fs.blog/newsletter/   Follow Shane on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/ShaneAParrish Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a scientist, the answer must be, I don't know. And by the way, that's not a cop-out. It's the answer to most questions that we ask in science. I don't know or I don't yet know. So for me, you know, that question, we actually are making a ton, a ton of progress towards. I mean, frankly, during my professional lifetime, it's probably the question where we've made most groundbreaking discoveries, you know, kind of when I started my kind of master's degree in astrophysics, we had no planets elsewhere other than the ones in our solar system. In the meantime, we have thousands of those planets

and some of them look awfully like, you know, like our own kind of relative to the data we have, which are really, really, really sparse. So we're on that track towards, you know, I believe or kind of a sense that, yeah, you know, life just like planetary systems, life could also be very much distributed in the universe. Hello and welcome to the Knowledge Project. I'm your host, Shane Parrish. This podcast sharpens your mind by helping you master the best of what other people have already figured out. If you're listening to this, you're not currently a supporting number. If you'd like special member-only episodes, access before anyone else, searchable transcripts,

and other member-only content, you can join at fs.blog slash podcast. Check out the show notes for a link. Today I'm speaking with Thomas Zerbuken, also known as Dr. Z. Dr. Z is the head of science at NASA, running a $7 billion a year science program covering multiple disciplines, including the world's top research program in Earth's science, planetary science, astrophysics, and heliophysics. This episode is incredible. We talk about things we've learned from running experiments on the International Space Station, our missions to Mars, and whether we'll ever colonize it, how space is governed, and decision-making. In fact,

this episode is a master class in decision-making from someone who routinely makes billion-dollar decisions. It's time to listen and learn. Can you tell us in your own words how you get interested in astrophysics? You know, I grew up in the mountains in Switzerland, and frankly, quite isolated. I grew up in a quasi-amish community with a father who was a religious leader. And so I didn't have a lot in my life, you know, that other people have. The only book I really read was the Bible. And, you know, so what I did have, though, is an amazing environment in that.

that little village where I grew up, I saw the sky in a way that frankly I've rarely ever seen since my youth and I was outside a lot, a night on my back, frankly, on the roof and looking at the stars over time, I bought a map, a star map and I started looking at it. And so for me, the stars were always both a goal but also an escape kind of for me. It was just amazing. So I started, of course, asking questions just like we all do. That was the start for astrophysics for me. Do you remember what some of those first questions were?

The most important question really is about is somebody else watching the other way. I mean, for me, it's just what is there. Just a whole point, right? Growing up in that religious environment, I thought a lot about bigger purpose and bigger things, like, you know, with the name the Lord, perhaps. with the name creation. For me, really looking at the stars, the patterns of them, the fact that they're there

the next day also kind of made me really ask, what is it, how does it actually look, right? And what can, you know, what's the relationship of that amazing sky to us here, like to my little self on my back, on the roof in that little village? You know, what is that big thing? you start opening up books.

You know, my godfather gave me the first book. It's still in my office, by the way, at NASA, really about the possibility of exploring those stars. And, you know, it just keeps on going and that question becomes more intense. Do you feel, what is your take on that? Do you think that there's somebody out there watching us? That's kind of, first of all, I believe it's very likely, right? I mean, as a scientist, the answer must be, I don't know.

And by the way, that's not a cop-out. It's the answer to most questions that we ask in science. I don't know or I don't yet know. So for me, you know, that question, we actually are making a ton, a ton of progress towards. I mean, frankly, during my professional lifetime, it's probably the question where we've made most groundbreaking discoveries, you know, kind of when I started my kind of master's degree in astrophysics, we had no planets elsewhere other than the ones in our solar system. In the meantime, we have thousands of those planets, and some of them look awfully like, you know, like our own kind of relative to the data we have,

which are really, really, really sparse. So we're on that track towards, you know, a belief or kind of a sense that, yeah, you know, life just like planetary systems, life could also be very much distributed in the universe. I have a million questions about space. I was so excited when you agreed to come on. One of the first questions I wanted to ask is my kids actually proposed this, which is what's the most interesting things we've learned from running experiments on the international space station? It's a really good question. I do believe. you know and it depends a little bit who's asking right so for me I'll give two answers

depending on who's who's asking I think the most important one is really kind of a series of of answers that relate to one question and that is how is the human body or even life itself kind of evolve or change without gravity and there's important very very important work that has happened relative to our bone structure Relative to our visual system, but also now, relative to our just genetic expression, right, we have with the twin study that one of the identical twin went on the space station for a long time, the other one stayed on the ground. With that twin study and the kind of generosity of those individuals to make the kind of the DNA public, there's an abundance of research that really talks about how gene expressions are changing in space. So for me, that is a super exciting part, you know, and a question we can't really answer on the ground. The other one, I just want to say, the space station has been the site of much research.

And there's a lot of experiments hanging on the outside of the space station. And for me, probably the most exciting one relates to neutron stars. You know, they're these kind of high energy, high density, kind of stars that were frankly right now measuring kind of the ingredients often. And we're doing that from the outside of the space station using a telescope that's taking advantage of that unique orbit and they enhanced data rate. So that would be the second answer. How do experiments work on the space station? Are they coordinated across countries? Is the data shared? Does each country do their own experiments? For most of the data, let me just talk about NASA first for all of our experiments. We have

have a policy of sharing all data. And I love that because frankly so much of the work we do, whether it's about astrophysics and especially about Earth signs, we're all better off if we share all the data because it's kind of a common good, right? The taxpayers are paying for it. Let's make it as useful as possible. And it's incredible what people figure out with those data. So what we have done in the space station work is we have actually created partnerships in in which multiple countries are participating and they have their own channels up there and there's an integration board

that kind of make sure that we're not doing twice the same thing that we partner when we can, but we encourage and empower both government agencies but also companies to put work on the space station and then coordinate that. Now, what we have done, especially for companies, we have kind of adopted IP law, in a way that there's not undercut the ability of actually commercializing some of the results that are there.

That's deliberately. But for the science work, it basically is public data where, you know, we're trying to enhance, you know, rise all boats, right, kind of in science. That's a principle we really, really deeply believe in, and I think it's exactly the right principle. It wasn't invented long before I came to now, so it's something that we went through in the last 20 years. made us all much better. Are there specific examples of things we've learned about the immune system or sleep from space that we can apply on Earth? There are lessons about sleep, about the immune system.

I'm not sure whether any of them, kind of is in the Nucket form in which I could just basically say, well, this is, you know, this is what, we know, for example, the various levels of sleep, right? kind of the, the astronauts just like here are kind of being observed constantly. They're wired, you know, the way it's in the movies, it is the way it happens, right? Kind of our, we make sure that the astronauts are healthy. And we are, you know, like how we, they're sleeping, you know, kind of the depth of sleep. You know, I mean, I talk to a number of the astronauts, very easy to just recognize,

hey, this is a really different life. And it's hard. It's, you know, I mean, give you one example. close your eyes you see flashes going through your eyes why because cosmic rays you know that come from the deep galaxy uh from exploding stars they're out there most of them never come to the ground because between you know if you take a square centimeter and go all the way to space there's a kilogram of air per square centimeter that shields us right so so we're very radiation shielded well if you're in the space station that is not the case right because you're on top of the air so basically what now

happens is that radiation goes through your body and then you know if you close your eyes you see these flashes that are going through uh your eyes and you know many of the astronauts some of my friends have told me it's like how kind of tough it is to try to ignore that when you want to fall asleep first right you know these kind of flashes that occur in your eye just one tiny example oh that's so cool with mx platinum 400 dollars in annual credits for travel and dining means you not only satisfy your travel bug, but your taste buds too. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Conditions apply. You can get protein at home or a protein latte at Tim's. No powders, no blenders, no shakers. Starting at 17 grams per medium latte, Tim's new protein lattes, protein without

all the work at participating restaurants in Canada. Can we talk about the earth's magnetic field and how it shields us from debris? Am I getting that right? The Earth magnetic field, you know, by the way, it's one of those things, if you really ask in detail, we still don't fully understand why it occurs. And kind of the more we know about it, the more it kind of makes us learn. For example, Mercury as a magnetic field, the Earth as a magnetic field, Jupiter as a magnetic field. Mars does not have a global scale magnetic field, and either does Venus.

And so you basically, we learn from that. Okay, so what does the earth magnetic field do? So what it does, it stands there, you know, like a dipole from north to south. And what it does is the very particles I just talked about, but especially lower energy particles, the ones that come from the sun, they come into the magnetic field. And they hit the magnetic field. And whenever they hit the magnetic field, think at the equator, right, when the magnetic fields look like a dipole. It's kind of right over the magnetic field.

It turns the particles around. So if you want, it shields, the magnetic field shields the inside of the earth, including all the way down here, but also in the space station, shields from energetic particles, debris, you know, which are dust pieces and kind of, you know, some of them human-made, kind of spacecraft that blew up or, you know, that are no longer used or, you know, upper stages that were used, of course, to propel spacecraft up there. They're way heavier, so the magnetic field doesn't really have a huge impact on them. And that's also how we get the northern lights, right? So it's the reflection off of that debris that sort of refracts the light differently. So think of that particle. I just described at the equator. So at the particle at the equator, it goes away because remember, the magnetic field force is always perpendicular to the magnetic field itself.

Now let's go at the polar region. At the polar region, the magnetic fields are coming in. right kind of just look at you know google magnetic field of a dipole you see that the magnetic fields are coming in so up there the particles are like a funnel they're coming down they're not deflected they're like funnel coming in and they come in and they hit the atmospheric uh oxygen and whatever is there and it'll it makes them light like a neon light or whatever you know a light that you have in which kind of high energy particles are exciting them and they radiate that's so the the the Northern lines are energetic particles, both from the sun, but also from the back of the Earth magnetic field, kind of funneled into the top, into the polar regions and igniting, if you want, the spectacle of light. You mentioned sort of like satellites and unused spacecraft, I guess. What happens to them after they're done? I mean, do they just float around? Do they get sent on course to the sun? As we put more and more satellites into the air, does it become a problem? for launching rockets? So if I was organizing the kind of whole spaceflight according to its challenges,

this would be a top five challenge that you're mentioning. It may be even a top two or three challenge. So basically the issue is these particles, especially in low Earth orbit, right? Most spacecraft that we have are in low Earth orbit. The second most site is in geostationary orbit. That's where you're, you know, spacecraft data do both weather observations,

but also, you know, the TV satellites, you know, the intent on the roof points towards geostationary orbit. That's why I can point one place. It doesn't have to move at lower orbit. You know, there's a lot of spacecraft, thousands of spacecraft that are operating. And tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of debris. Now, so what happens is depending on where you are in height, that debris stays there for decades. And so basically what actually is one of the biggest challenges we have is as we launch into that space because of our history, but also because of new things, that debris is frankly becoming a real challenge. Now, just imagine the speed by which the spacecraft move are kilometers per second.

That's also the speed by which the debris moves. So what we have is that we have an observation program, both by the Department of Defense but also other places. international places with telescopes. And we tried to catalog all the debris. So on an average month, we have one, sometimes multiple, almost hits. So sometimes we have to fly a spacecraft away. I have tens of spacecraft that are there operating.

We have to move it away to make sure the debris can pass. Those are fine. The ones that really worry me are the ones that we don't see. Like if you took a sugar cube, worth of metal and you shot it, you know, at 10 kilometers per second. You shot it against the spacecraft. If it hits it at the right place, that spacecraft is over, right? So we, if it's tiny, you know, it may take a solar cell out. If it's, you know, you see the size really matters. So, so we have a problem as an international community that especially lower orbit is clocked with

debris and it's really one of those things. I think in the next 10 years we have to solve it. We have to in fact clean that garbage. And also what's important, you know, the rule number one in digging holes is stop digging, right? So we have to make sure that everything we launch, we either fly out or we create such a short timeline that within years it's gone, right? So it's out of the space. You know, the upper atmosphere kind of has a drag force and it falls onto the like a meteor, an artificial meteor, and it disappears. So that's a really critical problem. You mentioned that was one of the top, maybe five challenges.

What would be other contenders for the top challenges? Well, I do believe that one of the things we really want to be careful about is to keep space peaceful. And I think that's something we've been watching with repudation. We've signed treaties, both in the U.S. and otherwise. you know and we see and it has been discussed we see some countries nation states that are out there that are you know really putting in question whether they're serious about the peaceful utilization of space and and it is it is really worrisome because of course you know it is you know they can use space like other countries use they can put telescopes there observe whoever they want to

their own people or other people, right? They can do that. But they can, by law, right, but they cannot, for example, weaponize space. So, so for me, kind of if you ask me, kind of my, kind of in lower orbit, what is my biggest worry right now? It is that, that we take the common good of space that we've, you know, over decades, we've used that way, you know, in a non-interference spaces, you know, with international community, that we take that and move it into a place where this becomes a domain of war, almost, or a domain of potential war. And that, you know, I mean, and frankly, we're moving at a larger speed than we would like in that direction, unfortunately.

And it's not, you know, because we want that. But, you know, of course, we observe what, what is happening. Do you think that's inevitable that it becomes another frontier for, say, war, for example? God, I hope not, right? I mean, we've seen in history, we've seen cycles in which we, you know, armed ourselves to the teeth. Then we said, this is insane. Let's step back. You know, let's get rid of all these nukes, you know.

And we have done that with people at times, you know, we were in a cold war with, you know. And so for me, my hope is we get to a place in which we kind of really say, look, we're going to create lines and we're going to accept those lines. You know, the fact that people say, oh, we're going to do this and that, you know, that's one thing. The important thing is that we, you know, if you look at the Cold War, we went and checked each other, right, and made sure that we followed the rules. So for me, I think, you know, there's a fork in the road in the next decade or so in which we do that. Needless to say, the United States put a space force together in part because of that challenge, is that space deserves a lot of attention and we can still use space as a domain from which to support kind of the us or our allies and so forth without you know crossing that line but my worry really is that I mean that

discussion is one of the discussions in the next decade that's really serious other other things to come to mind as like big challenges over the next decade well I mean I think the the big challenge now in this case I don't know whether it's a challenge or an opportunity I And I think we're at the verge of really opening space for commoners, right? For my family, your family, right? To do a trip to space and kind of utilize it both as a commercial entity by imaging the earth, for example, and selling those images, those data, that information, or also as a tourist destination and so forth. And so for me, if we can do that, right, it creates a very different dynamic.

in this whole thing, right? And so for me, you know, that's also decided I would argue in the next 10 years, right? It's got off, I mean, frankly, it's incredible what has happened in the last 20. You know, the question is, where are we in the next 20? You know, so for me, for me, it just, I mean, that's another big question. And, you know, if we're, if that is failing, right, that space is solely the domain of, of governments, right? Get off the question we just had about one of my worries, right? It's a totally different discussion than when others are there also, right, in which we basically say, hey, look, this is, you know, just like we do a trip to Paris, let's do our anniversary trip to space, right? I mean, and you say, well, that's crazy. No, it is

not, that is precisely what five companies are working on right now. And for all I see, they're successful. I mean, it's looking really promising. It's moving into the domain of entrepreneurship. So, in other words, it's no longer a technology. The question, The question is, does the business model close? So that's what that one is. How is space governed? Can I just start a company and shoot stuff into space? So each, you know, the space is, you know, the United Nations Office for Outer Space,

with its signatories of the relevant, you know, acts that came internationally, you know, for example. It says we will use space as a common good. We will not weaponize it. We will act on a non-interference basis. So those things are kind of the international framework. Then the national framework, each country is now responsible for access to space. So for example, if you wanted to launch and you're in Canada, you would work with your country on how, in fact, you know, the access to space. Are you, for example, compliant with the orbital debris guidelines,

right? Are you compliant with the frequency interference stuff? You know, that we, how are you going to communicate? Those checks are done by your nation state and then you can launch based on that. So it's really, there's both national and international community that works together on those things. We know, of course, whenever there's a launch somewhere. So it's not like Like, you can't hide. If there's a launch, we know, it's almost, you know, I mean, everybody knows where there's a launch. That's why we actually tell everybody there is a launch. There may be, you know, we may be launching or I'll just call it.

The Russians may be launching a top secret asset, but they're saying we're launching. They're just not talking about the payload, but they're just telling you that they're launching and they'll give you the trajectory and everything, I would imagine. Exactly right. So that's how it's regulated, yeah. How does that work in the future in the sense of we'll see more and more private corporations innovating in space? And I want to come to SpaceX later specifically. But how does that regulatory body work? I mean, ultimately, you'll be able to, there'll be countries with less regulation and more regulation.

And you could locate your business in any of those countries. I do believe, you know, back to my top five, this is one of those also. You know, as always, the speed. of innovation is the relevant speed on this one, right? And the speed of regulation, like so many places, it's just not matching the speed of innovation, right? And so it's because of that that I worry, right? It is because of that that, you know, you believe. I mean, it needs to, it needs to be, it can't be a leaky bucket, right? Can't be that, you know, certain countries just pollute the space by whatever means.

means, right? Whether it's the frequency, the communication piece, or whether it's the orbital debris piece, or whether it's how they're setting their orbits, they need to be part of a common kind of community that actually enforces those standards and holds them. And I think that kind of commercial, by the way, the commercialization of this is a great story. So for me, especially from the U.S. perspective, that is the goal, right? Our goal is not that in 50 years the government us the same stuff that we did 50 years ago. That's crazy, especially when it's a research entity like NASA. We want to kind of attack the next frontier. We want to go beyond what's possible to they kind of increase the box of what's possible, you know, and then let the

commercial entities deal with that. So for me, it's what I call a good problem, but it's a problem nonetheless. So with something like Starlink, did they just need U.S. approval or do they need to go around the entire world and get everybody's approval to launch those into space. Like, how does that work? It was the U.S. approval. So the relevant U.S. entities both focused on launch on the frequency, you know, all this stuff was approved in the process that is agreed upon in the United States. So they went up there.

Of course, what happened, you know, is, you know, the element of surprise is always there when when you're working with innovation you know so they were a lot more bright and you know everybody looked at there like i mentioned myself in switzerland on top of that on top of that roof i would see starlink right i mean it's like that you can't miss it right and and that that rises questions that are beyond the regulatory right it's going to is there a right to a dark sky right so it's questions like that especially as a as an astrophysicist like how does that affect the future observation. I just want to tell you, SpaceX and the Starlink team have been nothing but collaborative. They went and faced the astrophysics community. They're actively darkening

their bodies, right, kind of their spacecraft. Frankly, people didn't want to do this, right? That's not that, oh, like, I don't care, right? It's really hard to do some of these calculations the right way. And frankly, sometimes you don't know what the question is you're supposed to ask, Right? I mean, who would have guessed that that's going to be the big discussion in Starlink, right? Of course, having Internet everywhere is a great equalizer. I mean, I worked on this when I was a university professor with my, I mean, I worked with Google on this problem, right? And they do diligence of company, kind of investments with them. And so for me, that's a good thing.

And SpaceX is really pushing the envelope. But yes, this is an important part. Well, let's come to SpaceX a little bit later. One of the coolest things I think you're working on is a Mars sample return, which would be Humanity's first round trip ever to another planet. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah, I'm so excited about it. So first of all, in this summer, we did launch a mission called Mars 2020 Perseverance,

and it's basically a sampler. That was in July, right? It was in July. Yes, in July, the 30th of July. I remember it exactly how it took off and it was incredible. it was named by a schoolboy is up, you know, called Perseverance, and it's like the best name ever, especially for the time we're in today. And it's on the way to Mars. It's beyond halfway to Mars, and it's going to land in February, 21. It's going to land on Mars. And then it will has one task and it really has to prioritize on, and that is to collect samples, identify and collect samples.

So we're going to land into a crater, a former crater that, you know, was a lake, used to be a lake. We know from a remote observation. So we're going to collect samples kind of in places where on earth we would go find fossils, right? So that's where you would go. And so basically that, we're going to collect those samples. In 26 or 27, our next two spacecraft will take off, one in 26, one in 22. 27, we think, today.

The first one will go up there, and it will, its job is to fly to Mars and using, you know, a propulsion method, iron propulsion, electric propulsion, moving into Mars and waiting. So it's kind of the carrier ship. So it's there with camera and come, then the other one comes, and it puts a rocket down on the surface of Mars. It's a total functional rocket. It lands a rocket. Then the rover that we have will go and drop off samples, by the way, just because we don't know whether that robots will work, we have a sample fetch rover that actually is done by Canada.

And it may actually turn out to be the most important part of that entire piece, kind of to go pick up kind of deposits of these sample kind of flasks that we have, super clean things, then put them on the spacecraft and that launch vehicle, go up and then drop kind of an orbiting sample satellite put it there remember the thing that's in orbit and waiting it's going to put it up you know that austin powers movie it's that right kind of just to scoop up that kind of easter egg right that's up there kind of with the with the sample in it then come back to earth and drop it onto the earth so that will be the first round trip it's international and science driven just like we should do those kind of big leaps do you think

ever live on Mars? I believe so. I don't think it's me or it may be at the generation of my children but it's not my generation. I think we will go to Mars with humans in my lifetime for sure. I think we and colonize it. I think over the time scale of multiple generations, I think it's very much possible that we could stay there for a long time. It's not clear how, right? We don't know enough. And it has everything to do with the resources that are there. And so for me, the question is, is the way we're going to live there, like we live in the Antarctic Research Station, right? There are people living there, but it's kind of a tough life, right? It's in middle of eyes. You know, airplanes come and drop them off. They stay there for the summer, you know, and then,

I mean, the southern summer, and then they take off, you know, and there's kind of the only people who are there are just, you know, that go through winter are very healthy individuals who, you know, just keep the thing afloat. So it doesn't, you know, it's still ready for the next summer. So that's one version of living, right? And then the other version of living is like we have here on earth, right, go to an island and build houses and live there with our families. And on that whole spectrum, right, I don't know where we're going to end up. You know, if I had the hypothesis right now, And I know many people, I mean, kind of depending on who you are, some people think there are thousands of people who will live on Mars. It's like that may very well be. So that's more on the island side of things. You know, instead of Hawaii, an island in Hawaii, you know, go to Mars, find resources, do that. Perhaps even terraform Mars, that's what people talk about, make it a different planet so we can live there. One good way of counting is just a number of miracles you need, right? This is a 10, 20 miracle type of scenario.

The other one, kind of the Antarctic Research Station, is maybe only a five miracle thing. So the path to that certainly goes through the Antarctic Research Station, right? I mean, first we need to do that. That's what I'm focused on. And, you know, I understand Elon, Musk, and many others, they're talking about that other world. I don't think, so if I, I mean, again, I don't know, never underestimate the power of innovation. That's really important, right? But what I want to do is just break down these, kind of take the first few miracles down, right?

Because it's good for all of you manage. Just take them down, put them in the bucket of from the miracle bucket into the bucket of that's possible now. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm curious as to like what we'll find on Mars. Will we find materials that are, I mean, obviously exceedingly rare, but maybe they're useful, in which case does Mars become almost a mining colony? and then we have another race to see who can get there first and who can extract these because we're eventually going to run out of these rare earth materials.

And if we find substitutes on other planets, how do you see that playing out? Or am I just like way too far in sci-fi land right now? No, I think this is our lifetime kind of issue, the mining call. I think what you said about Mars is highly appropriate. Resources relate to living there, living off the land, but it also is, creating business models that kind of make it viable. It's feasible and viability, right? Both matter. I want to talk to you about another celestial body just to amplify your point. It's called psyche. It's, you know, like psyche, like the psyche and me, you know, P-S-Y-C-A-G. So it's an asteroid.

We think it's a failed, a failed planet. So it's a planet that has a core, that it, you know, a metal core and kind of enormously pressures if it's true, right? We know the size. We know it's orbit. We're building a mission. We're going to launch in 22 to go there and go orbit it and learn about it. But assume this is really a fail core. That body has more value than any other body we currently know. Because frankly, we cannot get that from the earth. Taking a hole into the earth to where we need to go is actually harder than just going out there and collecting that. And so for me, I think the kind of mining world, that the mining approach to the world is in space is inevitable. I mean, it's something that will matter for both purposes, again, to survive, but also to, you know, to build new commercial entities. And that's why it's so important that we regulate it up front in a way that actually protects those environments. I mean, for me, I mean, I think Mars is beautiful in its own right. look at these images it's incredible we don't want to destroy it right then we know how to we've learned

a lot on earth how to do that right and we should include those lessons there and not kind of get into down the road so far that we say oops you know we're back to where we were on earth in which we have an environment so again the regulation and innovation speeds need to adjust right most people live in cities so they don't get to look up and sort of see all these thousands of stars i remember the the first time I ever went to Columbia and I was in the middle of a rainforest and I looked up and there was like thousands and thousands of stars and it was just the most incredible experience and then you see, you know, the Hubble and you see these low, low orbiting satellites and it was kind of, it was really interesting and startling to see the sky with such clarity.

When you think of an asteroid and landing on the asteroid and like extracting materials, do you Do you think of that as we're landing on it and we're going to extract it and bring it back? Or do you think of it as we're going to redirect the asteroid back to Earth and bring the whole thing back somehow? It depends on the size of the asteroid, right? And of the energy that it takes to redirect us, depending on the size and the orbit it has is almost infinity, right? Relative to what we have, if you look at psyche, it would be the former model like landing and extracting and bringing back. And of course, that puts into the value chain, everything from launch to extraction to, you know, to, you know, the whole risk you have to offset from the uncertainty and all the way down to, you know, so the investors wanting to make money from it. So it's a really tough business model.

You could do an experiment right now and basically say, suppose I took one of those big rockets, you know, take, you know, the biggest rocket we have. and suppose by whatever miracle, I go to that asteroid and I fill, I mean, I can go there. I pay for the rocket and forget the physics. I just go there and I fill the whole thing full of gold and I bring it back and I land. Do I make or lose money? You know, and then the answer is we're starting to make money because launches so much cheaper now than it was. You know, that is in part because of that commercial force. But it's not by enough yet, right? So kind of the, So kind of you want to make sure that Europe said, rare earth battles, by the way, are actually worth more, as you know, as gold, right? Kind of in many of these, you know, applications that really depend on them.

And so we want to do that right. So it's it we need to learn more, right? We're just scratching that surface, but that's where we're going, I think. You manage one of the largest budgets in the world, let alone science budgets. I think you're $7, $8 billion a year. I mean, that tops most S&P 500 companies, most Dow companies. You're allocating more money into science than probably anybody in the world. I'm curious as to what's the hardest part of that job and why?

I think the hardest part of research is always to find that edge. So kind of, you know, kind of if you really look at the best research, you know, I think of it like I'm a mountain guy. I think of it as like walking in the mound and so on that rich, on the one side is the irrelevant. We've already proven it. It's easy to do research there. It's safe. You know, you get tenure and every professor, you know, is fine doing it, kind of twiddling around. And you can make a lot of money there.

The other side is the impossible, right? And if they're, I mean, kind of research questions don't only need, frankly, the right question, but the right time. for that question and and the hardest part is is to build programs that are programs that have that push that edge at the maximum speed viable that requires that you learn how to fail you're going to every once in a while drop down this way and drop down that way into you know and what you really have to do especially the ones that fail because they went too early. You want to protect them. You want to protect your innovators, right? Because that's important. So for me, the hardest part is really to set the program at the right speed

of innovation, kind of, and allow for experimentation, for iteration, as opposed to kind of being that colossal, kind of, that kind of slow organization that just wants to make everything safe, which, of course, we want to be safe, right? That has to live in our brain. too, because when we make an investment of $3 billion, like that March 2020 perseverance over, right? If we make that investment, we want to do what we can, right, but, you know, to do that. So that's the hardest part, I would argue. At Grey Goose, we believe that pleasure is a necessity.

That's why we craft the world's number one premium vodka in France, using only three of the finest natural ingredients, French winter wheat, water from Jean-Sac and yeast. With Grey Goose, we invite you to live in the moment and make time wait. Sip responsibly. Oh, hi, buddy. Who's the best? You are. I wish I could spend all day with you instead.

Uh, Dave, you're off mute. Hey, happens to the best of us. Enjoy some goldfish cheddar crackers. Goldfish have short memories. be like goldfish. I'm curious internally as to how you balance that and how you think about, okay, well, we're investing $3 billion and we need to eventually ship this. But on the same token, the money at stake and in a public way, too, it's not even a private

company losing $3 billion. It's the public that would, you know, be losing $3 billion. How do you think about those decisions and how do you make them? So first of all, you recognize that the launch is irreversible. decision, right? And of the moment I say go, it's done. You don't get it back. It is over, right? So it's irreversible. So basically, whenever you make a decision like that, and many people do that in the business world too, right, kind of these kind of one-way doors, I think, as others call like that. You only go through it once. The way you do it, I believe, is you recognize, do you want to make the decision

well-informed, and with all the scrutiny up front. So the way I make that decision is, first of all, I don't make it alone. I put in the room the people, the best people that I know, kind of from the engineers, but also the policy people. And I actually have people who don't report to each other. Like I have an engineering organization, just the way we built NASA over decades. We have an engineer organization that talks about just engineering without any other encumbrances, right? The question just is, will it work?

What's the likelihood for it to work? There's one that talks about safety, just that way. Is it going to be safe, right? And no other if, that's their focus. And so you basically, the way you make the decision is you bring together that, of course, you work. You recognize, by the way, the most important thing is to empower the team, right? I mean, frankly, I'm not the most important guy in this. I'm just making the decision to live with it, you know, and I'm the guy in the congressional hearing, right, if something goes wrong.

So everybody knows that, right? So I will make the decision. And it's one, it's not a vote. It's one decision by one signature. The only signature that matters there for most of these missions is mine, right? Because I take the accountability, right? But I would be a fool to not listen to the others. So for me, you really get to know with big decisions.

I actually spend a lot of time meeting the teams. I've built space hardware. I can sense how good it, you know, I listen to the team. I listen to the things that are not said. I listen to, I basically figure out whether they're scrutinizing each other, whether we have a lead that squash us opposition. You know, those are all warning signs. you want to see whether I look at mistakes people are making are they by the way I don't care if

they make a mistake but are they making stupid mistakes and over and over again are they are they disciplined right so so all that stuff kind of it's it's years of work that come together to that decision where I said yes we launch where are you when you make that decision are you in a room with other people are you alone are you walking are you running what are you doing when you actually make that call? In many cases, I'm in a room with other people, but if I'm not sure, I will take a break, and I think well when I run, I think well in the shower in the morning. So, I mean, there are kind of points of clarity. If I'm not sure, I will never push into a decision. I mean, the way I always go is I go backwards, right? Suppose I'm sitting in the congressional

hearing, and I just blew up X and Y. Can I explain how I made the decision in a way that it made sense there. Space is hard. And by the way, every once in a while, we will fail. And I remind everybody of that. If you want to not fail, you're in that safe space over here. That's irrelevant. That's not how NASA got to where it is. It's not because people's played it safe. It's because we do take risk. We do leave the launch pad, even though we know it's dangerous. With 1.5 to 3% likelihood, it will not make it out of the Earth's gravity, statistically speaking. So we take that risk right so just that itself i will never one of the things i really believe in is don't don't get pushed i i if i'm not sure i don't mind being the only guy who's not comfortable

you know and and i will i will back off i basically said uh thanks we're stopping the meeting i appreciate that if anybody has anything that has not been said uh i will not make a decision for 24 hours, send it to me by email, and I will go back. And if I find that there's more information I can gain that really is relevant, I'll do that if I find, you know, like you get into a place where more information actually doesn't help you because it adds ambiguity to the team. I make the decision right on the spot because, frankly, I'm ready for it because I did the work. So it's not because I came in unprepared. I did the work for years in advance. I know, kind of have all these data points and I've discussed them with my group of diverse leaders

who look at them from different perspectives. Is there examples where you've made that call and it's turned out to be wrong, but you got a good outcome? Yeah. So I want to I'll talk about two decisions. The first one is I was one of the first decisions I made. It was a billion dollar assets. It's the June omission that was in orbit or is in orbit around Jupiter. And so we were in an orbit of a 50-day orbit, and we wanted to drop the, fire the engine and drop it down to a 15-day orbit. What that does, and I may have to date slightly wrong, but you get the point. I wanted to get, I have over 100 missions, so sometimes I mix updates. I did not want to think we're going to talk about this, but anyway, I wanted to kind of increase the frequency

of encounters by a factor of three. That's what I wanted to do. The question was, do we want to do that. So the entire team, look at them from their point of view. They're frankly, perfectly fine in a slow orbit. They say we need 20 flybys. It costs the taxpayer $50 more million to just stay where you are. The principal investigator, everybody's like, let's just leave it where we are. There's risk. We want the minimum risk. And I'm like, well, what's the opportunity cost? You're spending $50 more million to do the science. And so what I had to do is, is unentangled that kind of natural inclination, which I understand, because I was in his role before, from the actual technical question, is it, is it important? So in that room,

there were very few people who wanted to fire the engine, but I took the decision to fire the engine, and then we prepared for it. And as we prepared for it, all of a sudden, we realized that the engine had a problem, it had a leak. It was, something was wrong with it. And frankly, what we needed to do is basically look at the, you know, as we prepared for this exact, what I believe is the exact right decision, we actually realized that we couldn't do. Because now we would have to fire the engine. So I made a second decision. We would have to fire the engine in a state that it had never been tested. Now, I have a billion dollar asset that's basically working, and I need to take a risk.

Is it worth that risk? So actually the second decision had to reverse the first decision to fire. I actually decided not to fire because of the kind of enhanced and unknown risk. We thought the ancient people said we could probably do that. We just have never done it. And there has never been a burn that long in that configuration in any test environment. Okay, that's crazy, right? You don't, I mean, of course, I'm boiling it down to the quintessential 30.

seconds of the meeting right once you learn that it's like you don't fire so ultimately we ended up not firing because we did the scrutiny in the first and the second decision we set ourselves up in a way that actually made the science way better because we actually we actually had i had asked him to bring you know yes there's opportunity cost but tell me what you can do extra science that you weren't able to do so we actually moved it up so so by failing in my first decision we enhanced the mission significantly I appreciate you sharing the details of that. You said there was two decisions that you recalled. What was the other one?

So the first one was, let's fire, even though everybody opposed it. The second was let's not fire because, you know, even though some of the technical people said we could do it, but we put in off-scrutonate together that basically, again, I was wrong on the first decision. I, you know, if you could say, well, you know, I'm sure somebody says like, well, you could have just not fired and we're exactly where we are. It's like, no, that's exactly the right scrutiny. Because in a congressional hearing, I could actually now explain to you how I costly spent that extra $50 million. It's not because I just, I'm not handling the pressure. Well, we actually learn something that really matters. Learning is an important part of innovation. How do you disseminate

what you learn within the organization? Like, how do you share that knowledge? That's actually a really good question and I struggle with it. And basically what happens to me on a given day, I make multiple decisions, right? And for me, what I've started to do is sit down and talk people through the decision. It's almost like, see what I'm seeing. This is what, you know, and really create that rigor in the organization and kind of show where, how the decision path goes, right? I asking questions out loud and talking through it. And so that's what I'm sharing in the leadership team. I worry sometimes just because NASA is so hierarchical, right?

Because of the fact that only one signature matters, you know, kind of my schedule is always subscribed by a factor of 10 every week. Right. So I say no a lot more than yes relative to my time. That's my most impression, most important good. So for me, the question I'm asking, I'm spending enough time to actually disseminate. things into the organizations because I'm you know it would be helpful for them to actually know

this is the scrutiny we're putting on it I try to do it and I ask people to do it but I just want to tell you it's a question on my mind that I'm currently thinking about you know I just I'm not and that reason I'm saying it's like I see some of the same mistakes over and over again it's like no no I don't want like for me what I really hate if you really want to tick me off come show up and tell me everything is low risk. That makes me believe you haven't understood your job, right? Don't make me love. Don't make me feel good. Make me feel scared and then make me feel comfortable because you're dealing with all the risks. Don't come and say it's all low risk. It is not low risk. It's rocket science. And so for me, it's like, you know, and at the beginning,

everybody came with this because, you know, these organizations have their histories, their leaders, you know, like some leaders don't sleep well if they have problems, you know, so they have pain aversion. It's a big leadership weakness, like, you know, to not be able to carry worries with them, you know, and those worries pulling them down. So, you know, that the whole organization behaves in a way that they never bring a worry to you. You still have them, but you don't know them, right? So you get surprised, you know, and I'm like, no, no, no, I want. I need you to be worried more than me, then I'm feeling comfortable. I don't want you to be calm. I need you to be worried. That's what I want. What it sounds like you're really looking for, if I'm paraphrasing

correctly here, is you're wanting to know that they've thought about it in a level of detail that's appropriate and accounted for those. And if they're coming to you and saying, you know, I don't really have any concerns, then it begs to, it sort of makes you question whether they thought about it enough and deeply and that's a red flag for you that you need to like dive in and evaluate exactly right so i i look at those red flags and i look really i listen really carefully to what's not being talked about oh i listen really carefully double click on that so so i go into a a meeting i actually have a chart i'm not sharing with people uh generally speaking but on that chart there's technical, schedule, cost, team thing, you know, like key topics.

And I listen carefully, are you talking about technical? What are your things that you're dealing with? We've just talked about that. Are you worrying about it? Are you moving them forward? And, you know, what are your top worries? I want to know what they are. Then I want to know about your team.

I want to know what do you talk about your team. How is your team doing under pressure as they are? are, are they making mistakes? Are there almost mistakes you caught? Like, you know, like, how are you making sure your team is cohesive, motivated, excited, you know, the relevant unit of innovation is a team. It's not an individual, right? So for me, I want to hear you talk about the team. I want to hear you talk about cost. You've thought about it. You've linked those things together. I want to hear you talk about schedule so often for planet remission. Schedule is the most important variable because the planets need to be in the right place in the sky so i can't take

longer i can only either go this year or two years from now to mars for example right uh you know so so because just mars doesn't line up with the earth the right way so i can go there so for me i listen carefully for the white spaces on my chart or in my mental image of the entire collection of the mission what are you not talking about and that's where i'm going to go right so i sit there I prepare, I look at every chart deck, every information I had. Frankly, I block my schedule to do that in a very aggressive fashion. I take a lot of preparation time and I come in and now I listen really carefully and I tick off the jar. Are you talking about this?

Are you really comprehensively doing that? And I may take one of those things and I drive like five questions into depth. And I want to see whether you can go, go, go, go, until you're finding. Finally, you know, and there's some people I've never missed, I've never got to the end. There's some people two questions deep, I got them, right? And it's like, okay, there are a two question kind of person. You know, there's the other one that's, I've never found the end. After six questions, he's still going, right?

It's like, like, you know, I mean, I'm like, okay, don't worry about him, you know, or her, by the way. You know, the same is true with our managers. The same is true with our money people. Now tell me how, you know, you know, and I go after. And again, I want to know what you're not focusing on and, you know, as a team. And so that's that's where. So again, be dishonest, red flag number one or kind of overexaturate your comfort. And the second one is be blind, right?

You're not seeing that part of your trade space, kind of overfocusing, I would argue, is my biggest challenge. So everybody focuses on schedule. Oh, schedule, schedule, schedule, schedule. And it took me a long time. And I could tell you a story about the James Webb Telescope. It's that story. I knew when I joined the job, a month in where the problem's going to be. Tell me that story.

Well, James Webb Telescope's Telescope for 20 years. We've been working on it. It's one of the most difficult stories that we have in NASA, the international community. Canada built an instrument on it. So did Europeans, right? It's basically a $10 billion investment. It's the most complex mission ever done. It's basically a telescope, six and a half meter, mirror protected by five tennis court sizes, kind of sun protection shields. It's really hard. The hardest thing to do is the telescope and the instruments. When I came in,

that was in integration and test and everybody focused on that. Well, there are two more swim lanes. One of them is the software operations piece. And the second one is the spacecraft bus. The spacecraft bus is just, you know, the power, the communication, you know, it goes behind the telescope and just attach it. And it's also that, you know, sun shield deployment. Okay. So when I came in kind of view, you know, like like a good MBA, you know, you look at it, the critical path goes through the telescope and all these other things are off the critical path by months. And I'm like, okay I listened for a couple of weeks to the updates and I said you're never talking about the bus can I ask you about the schedule performance on the bus you know and I'm learning right I feel very

inadequate right they're all much better than me which is I'm feeling you have to get used to in my job you know I'm not the smartest guy in the room by a long shot many times but I'm there listening, right? It's like, well, tell me about the bus. And I look at the schedule performance and they're losing schedule. And you basically take that scheduled performance, it's like, oh, we're doing fine, we're doing fine. And we're so far off the critical path. I go talk to the director. There's the same kind of evasive maneuver. And I did not know yet how to do that. It's one of those things I learned in the last five years. I knew after a month this is going to be my problem. What I didn't know, it's one of the biggest lessons of my life. During that time,

as well as the year before, this team was so, had such challenges that it was making mistakes that cost the taxpayer of the United States, $800 million. The mistakes themselves cost $600 million because of lack of focus, because of lack of cohesion in the team, stupid mistakes of the type that frankly, I would have kicked out undergrads out of my university lab if they made them. For example, they did not tighten bolts the right way. It's like, how can you have a $10 billion asset and not tighten bolts in a way that the faster catches? Of course, it's a long story that tried to solve another problem.

And I'm 100% sure, Shane, that there's a technician who, by the way, thousands of those bolts. there's a technician up there who's tightening it's like these things are not catching is that the right thing to do and I'm sure that was being said because it always is said the technician knows well but the team was broken enough that in that state that that information did not lead to action we went to acoustic tests the bulls start flying off it's one of the most embarrassing things they the engines that are there 12 engines were flushed out with the wrong chemical. Instead of actually checking, the person who flushes it out, they tried to clean it. That's exactly what they should do. They need to use the right chemical. Instead of checking with the

supplier, a small company in upstate New York who did nothing wrong, instead of checking with them, they flushed with the wrong chemical. Now, the problem is they didn't talk to anybody about it. So the engines got added, the engines got added to the bus. Now I have 12 of those engines to the it that I now have to cut out. I have to replenish the kind of valves that or kind of seals that were etched away by the wrong solvent. And all that happened as I'm, nobody is focusing on it. And so for me, our focus, I tell you, is that, you know, we're focusing on this because it's on the critical path. It's such a horrible mistake that people are making. You know, I mean, and it's kind of, I always, it's like, you know, don't look at a chart like an end.

And I know you have an MBA, so no offense to MBAs, we need them, we love them. But kind of look at them as a leader, right? And of course, they shouldn't be in contradiction. But just go with the thing. Don't look at the chart and say, I'm fine because my critical path moves. And that's what I learned in some book is okay. Everything off the critical path is, well, you're going to lose sleep over one year from now if you're not watching it. And it's not that you divert attention from the critical path, but you also need to focus off the critical path and pattern match.

Go figure out, get to know about this team. I only focused on it a year later. I basically asked, I basically gave up. There's a kind of the red flag version of space is you ask for an independent review team. I basically put the flag down and says, I lost trust. I did an independent review team that basically came back and says we need 800 more million dollars to. fix those mistakes and bring it together and we had a horrible time on the Capitol Hill kind of explaining that to the disappointed science community that we did. And it was because

of my mistake as a leader, not following my gut. I have in my notebooks that I had the mistake pecked. I just did not know how to get after it. In the meantime, of course, I stay connected with all parts of it, right? Frankly, I have the best team I've ever had. And as we're getting ready for the launch next year, right, that we're going to do so because the team got a chance to actually fix itself. But I could have given that chance a year, one and a half years earlier. Talk to me about that sort of the team fixing itself and go into detail about how you

change the, how you rebuild the confidence, how you change the trust level. how you go forward with that, because I'm assuming the answer is not more bureaucracy. That's exactly right. So for me, remember, I'm the guy who sits in Washington, right? I am not going to solve this problem. But what my job is to create the environment in which the problem is solved and to hold the leaders accountable for solving it. Right. So what is absolutely critical is all the relevant leaders, all the way to the CEO of the company, agree on what the key priorities are. For example, the first priority is mission success. Yes, we want to launch as soon as possible. The first priority is mission success. We will not rush and make stupid mistakes

because every one of these mistakes in that environment costs us hundreds of millions of dollars. So saving a day and having six months to fix a mistake is just a bad thing. So it's really aligning that getting together, also recognizing is there needs to be a strong. ride we find. There's the right speed at doing something. So in other words, if you, you know, like it's like biking, you teach your kid biking. It's like, you know, there's that the right speed of doing it. You can't do it any slower. It's not safer to go slower. You need to find kind of the speed of attention, the speed of learning, the speed of, you know, find that right speed, kind of allow the team to get there, but insist on the right mechanisms being in place.

for example, what was really important, you know, I mean, one of the reasons Airborne travel is so safe is because of the mechanisms that are put in place. Any pilot can say, we almost made a mistake. For me, that almost made a mistake mechanism is so important for big projects. Talk about the almost mistakes because they surely will be mistakes if you don't fix them. What can we learn from almost mistakes? Also, talk about the mistakes. And so for me, the question was, how do we do that? met up with the leaders, met with the team to say, we got your back. We need to get better. Frankly, we had a team. I basically replaced in my reporting structure, everybody. And the simple reason for that is I wanted to basically create a before and after. I wanted to make sure that

the after is one that we are together and we are one, we are locking arms. And frankly, I observe, I do that often in reviews. I push against one person and see whether the other one comes to rescue them. I want to know, like, do they let them sink? I mean, frankly, I put more edge against one person. Sometimes I apologize at the end. Sometimes it's exactly the appropriate thing to do. But I want to see whether their partner helps.

Right. Are they helping each other, not against me, but together as a team to come do that? For me, also staying in touch was important for, I mean, I cannot stay in touch with all missions. In most cases, I delegate. Small missions, I delegate. I don't need to be in touch. For the highest missions, I meet with them. I meet with the leadership team. I have the leader on speed dial. I know problems before it comes to me because we're transparent about it. So that's what I do. So it's really, again, replace the, create a before and after. If you're in that much trouble, replace that. But then really recognize you're not going to solve the problem, create the environment for that. I really appreciate that answer in the detail you gave there.

I'm curious as to how the variance in presidential leadership affects your ability to build consistent programs. It's actually a really interesting question. And I just want to tell you, of all agencies in the United States, NASA is perhaps the one that's the least partisan. So basically, it's kind of interesting that if you look, I came in under the Obama administration. I worked in the Trump administration. And if you really looked at the priorities, that did not, for example, in the science program, substantially change, right? We are, of course, part of a human exploration campaign to the moon and then to Mars, of which science is part. But if you look at, take at the Mars sample return, kind of the mission, the web mission, they are there.

And the reason for that is that actually the person who's in charge of choosing the highest priority science is actually not me. And I'm really glad for that. The process that we have built in the United States and other countries have different processes, but we use our national academies, the thought leaders in the domains, to say, what is the most urgent question that we should address right now? So what's the best, most important question, but what's the most urgent question? And that sets the priority. So I actually don't go argue with, if them, should we go to Europe?

you know, the moon there? Should we go to Mars? Should we go to Uranus? We haven't been there in a while. I asked the science leaders with that collective, diverse kind of community to come up with that prioritization in a Decadal plan. Every 10 years we get that plan. And so I follow that. And that has created stability. Basically, both parties agree that that's the way to organize. And then the question really is what's the money available that that is that is the political side right kind of how does it how does it go up and down and you know of course there's other priorities in the world than the science program i understand that it sounds like that would be an almost is there an equivalent for for doctors and medicine because it sounds like that would almost be an ideal approach to directing some of that

funding as well from a government perspective not from a private sector perspective there are some some elements of kind of NIH research that have a similar National Institute of Health research that have similar type of prioritization scheme. I would argue that, especially with NASA and kind of the space research, we have a better kind of consensus building process that many of the other disciplines. And it has really served us because it creates a constancy of purpose. So it's not so much like, I know if somebody comes in and says, hey, look, we want to focus on Earth signs, what are the next missions? They are not questions. I'm like, oh, let me start thinking about this. I already know what they are. Because for the last decade, I frankly, I've

built that strategy and we're working on it. We just, the only lever here is speed, right? So how fast are we doing that? Because we know the Earth is a connected system. We need to focus on it, right? We know about global change. Now, the question is, how do we bring that data to the community? So it helps them thrive on this changing planet. We already know that, right? So the question is, how are we going? So for me, that is really a useful tool. Two decades ago, the idea of SpaceX and its ambitions were sort of laughed at by the space

community writ large. How do we ensure the biases of today are not slowing or blocking the ambitious goals of private sector? It is true that I remember I wrote an editorial, kind of something. like 20 years ago or so in which I basically made a symbol point and that said, hey, the top talent right now works at SpaceX. And if they have enough runway, financial runway, they will be successful because they have the top talent right now. And I remember how much I got attacked over that. I was a university professor and frankly, the way I got to that assertion is by just

tracking students, right? Where are the three Sigma performers, right? And then I called MIT and I called other universities, they said that the same for them. And I'm like, that's a pattern, right? And so, so yes, I mean, of course, that time has come and gone, right? Space Six is a force to be reckoned with. I think Blue Origin, you know, Jeff Bezos's company is right behind them. There's many others. Rocket Lab, a company out of New Zealand, I think it's incredible innovation story for small launch systems. And it is true that in the government, right? That's where I work right now, it's a very difficult time in a following sense, right? And we need to make sure that we're not putting hurls into the way. So it's in a following sense. So what happens is if I walk

into a room in any place at NASA and I basically look at the leaders, a significant fraction of those very good people grew up in a one specific environment, right? And they grew up in a place where, you know, after Apollo and which kind of NASA was the only game in town together with some contractors that also worked on with other agencies, on big systems, but you know, in a contracting relationship using a specific set of contracting mechanisms and so forth. Okay. So where we are now is we have that other vehicle, kind of a much more iteration-focused thing with failures, right? The first, you know, the first two SpaceX Falcon ones blew up, right? You know, and frankly, you know, Elon tells the story that he was on the final money, right, the one that worked.

It needed to work because there was the end of the company if it didn't, right? That's what he says. I don't know. So the question really is, how do we move forward with that? And it kind of, of course, of course, the answer needs to be that we actually bring people who speak that other language on the inside of the government. See, diversity of thought is a really important criterion of team, whether it's in NASA or any other entity, right?

And so for me, that's something I focused on, right? I've been, I've worked in a venture fund, like, you know, as an advisor. I've kind of invested in venture things before, right? I've been on boards of companies. And so, you know, so I'm not the best at it. I know that I'm not. I know what I don't know, but I know kind of have network over there. And so what's really critical to me is that I'm not the best in a room in NASA.

And if it's not in the room, others are in a room who speak that language. Now, the good news is we're making progress and we're learning how to go forward. And of course, the proof of that is the crude private vehicles that are operating now. Basically, there were a lot of thought papers that said that can never happen. It's impossible. And it's not just because of SpaceX making enormous leaps forward. It's also the government making leaps forward. So I think it's going to be a struggle as we go forward.

And it's a struggle that we need to recognize it such. and basically make sure that we all do our work in a way to advance it. It is a strength for us to have commercial entities. It's not in any way threatening. This is the future we want. No question about it. For us, the question is, how do we enable that? There's mistakes we can make in the garment that are really horrible.

Like if a pre-seed company pitches us for $100 million, we shouldn't just say yes, because it's a pre-seed company. see the venture capital community because if it's a pre-seat company only invested one million dollar in it why because they see a lot of issues that are there on team market fit and so forth so we need to bring that knowledge to bear too kind of supporting of commercial entities doesn't mean that we say yes all the time it means that we our reaction is appropriate to what these companies are and we become customers we we learn how to utilize these companies without owning them. I do not want to own these companies. I want to be a customer. And so for me, that's really

the goal I'm after. How has that affected your ability to recruit the best people and your internal culture and motivation with the rise of SpaceX and Blue Origin? I think in general, actually, there's more excitement in space because of those partners. I actually don't believe that that somehow suck the energy out of it. The NASA brand remains one of the top brands in the world. And frankly, SpaceX added to that. They didn't subtract to it. And so for me, it has increased it. But what's also important, especially as we go to the leadership level,

that we recognize that we need more arrows in the quiver in our leadership tools, right? We need to learn how to handle these environments and learn how to be agile, react to it, be learning organizations. And for me, what I've done in my job is really brought in a much more diversity in the leadership team, in all dimensions, but especially to kind of, kind of reflect that environment. So we need, of course, the very experienced internal and as a people who frankly know more about this agency and what's possible on the inside of the agency, but we at the same time also need the others who have worked in SpaceX and then frankly

are or in related industries and are helping us make good decisions. Do you think it changes NASA's role at all in terms of risk-taking where you can start to take more risks now. And when things work out, you can pass that technology to the private sector. That's exactly what I want to do. Exactly right. That's exactly what I want to do.

I want to focus on the things that a company cannot do it because it's too crazy, it's too risky. So we have done things for that, right? The James Webb Space Telescope that I just talked about is one of those things. It's not possible to do in a private setting. But at this moment in time, but as we go forward, it maybe, we're Also, I have a new program, the commercial lunar payload services program to the moon in which I basically said, I'm buying at firm fixed price delivery services to the moon. Who wants to play?

I did that after, you know, I came into NASA and I saw these Google X price companies that had been funded by, you know, venture capital and other sources, not government sources. I was like, okay, if you have a company that could do that, I want to be a customer. By the way, I don't want to be the only customer, not interested whatsoever to own that industry, but I want to be an anchor customer. And by the way, I'm going to take the risk. So what I did is I talked to every stakeholder, including those on the hill and say, look, the likelihood of that is not 100%. You should think of it as a 50-50 shot on goal.

So we need to, you know, like hockey, we need to take shots on goal to score. So for us, it's kind of being regular doing that is really important. So we have a team that is running that, that is kind of learning to dance on that stage. It's a very different thing than what we're doing to Mars or to the moon in the past, right? It's a very different, different company. And frankly, you know, this has lifted. So it's both leaning forward on kind of new things, but also kind of learning how to hand off, even in places where we're not 100% sure yet that it works.

How do you think about giving these companies not only sort of those contracts, but also valuable information that makes their product better versus opening that information up to the world so that the next Elon or the next Jeff Bezos gets a head start and you're not solidifying one or two companies as the only option going forward and creating effectively a monopoly that just acquires more and more important. information from NASA gets harder and harder to replace as time goes on. How do you foster competition in that space? So we try wherever we can to make the information public, right?

I mean, kind of whether it's the science data, how we do it. We actually encourage people to write publications that said, how did you do it? You know, we just picked up a sample at Benu, you know, this asteroid are using a new technology. It's a new, how did we do it? Go read the publication. We wrote it, right? There are, there are some elements that kind of that, that We want to respect, right?

The first one is intellectual property of individuals and of companies. If you, with your company, develop a new technology, I mean, frankly, I don't want to go stump you out. I want you to be able to lift, use that to lift your company, right? That's good innovation needs to be supportive in that way. So for me, I need to learn standing back, right? Of course, as a government person, I'm basically looking at you through the eyes of a taxpayer. Is it worth my money to pay for that license? I think the other one is that, of course, the loss that relate to export loss, right?

We have legal boundaries on some things, you know, certain technologies we just can't. We don't want to, you know, there's a legal boundary. We're not going to cross. But within those boundaries, we are, you know, trying to stimulate innovation by driving forward by making information public. We also, it's very common that we create kind of agreements with companies to help them, right? So our goal is, you know, I mean, Elon himself has talked about a lot of stuff we learned from NASA in the crew thing that, frankly, we, our great experts taught them. It's not, and that's what we want to do. And the next company can get the same service just the same way, right?

So for us, for us, we want to hand off what we can. And so, like you said, we can focus on the edge of innovation because companies cannot afford that yet. Yeah, governments can take risks that private companies can. I think that's a great place to end this conversation, Thomas. Thank you so much for your time. This has been fascinating. Thanks for your time and thanks for all you do. I've listened to your show many, many times.

I run every day. So often you're in my year when I run. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, one more thing before we say goodbye. The Knowledge Project is produced by the team at Furnham Street. I want to make this the best podcast you listen to, and I'd love to get your feedback.

If you have comments, ideas for future shows, or topics, or just feedback in general, you can email me at Shane.fs.org or follow me on Twitter at Shane A. Parrish. You can learn more about the show and find past episodes at fs.blog slash podcast. If you found this episode valuable, share it online with the hashtag, The Knowledge Project, or leave a review. Until the next episode.