tv Consider This Al Jazeera December 3, 2013 9:00am-10:01am EST
extremists across the globe. are americans less safe than a few years ago. former house senator jane harman joins us. the heath care website is up and running, are people falling through the cracks. >> plus an article about women not having it all went viral. what is anne-marie slaughter saying about it today. >> millions of americans wrap up holiday shopping, did the supreme court make your future shopping seasons more expensive. >> i'm antonio mora. we begin with the question after the worse in iraq and al-qaeda - are we safer. osama bin laden was emim nated. he'll fire missiles from drones killed al qaeda operatives, and barack obama said it again. >> the core of al qaeda is on the path to defeat.
our nation is cure, and our homeland is safer. >> two important members of congress in a position to know, including a democratic ally of the president don't agree with him. i'm pleased to be joined by jane harman, a former democratic congress woman who served on department of homeland security commit he is and is director, president of the woodrow wilson international centre for scholars. great to have you with us. let's start with barack obama. he said on 9/11 that we are safer because we decimated al qaeda's core leadership. on sunday senator fienstein said something different. >> i think worldwide is up worldwide. statistics indicate that. fatalities are up. numbers are way up. there are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks ri enforced, bombs through mag ni tom eters.
the bomb-makers are alive. there's more groups than ever and huge mal-esso lens. >> who is write, president obama or senator fienstein? >> they are both right. and i'm not kidding. let me say first it's a pleasure to be an al jazeera america. you bring new content and energy to the business. i'm pleased to be on the program. as for who is right and why they are both right, it's true that core al qaeda has been decimated. al qaeda as a top-down organization is over. al qaeda and related terror groups - they are parasitically related in a horizontal way is growing. what mike rogers is saying is that the threats have changed. what diane is saying is that they have increased.
>> let's listening to house intelligence chair mike rogers, who suggested the situation may be worse than before 9/11, 2001. >> the pressure on intelligence services to great it right is stronger. more affiliates than we have had have switched to the notion that smaller events are okay. if you have more smaller events, that may lead to their objectives and goals. >> representative rogers brings up the issue of smaller events. do you think that's where we are going, instead of big events, attacks? >> i don't know that we can say al qaeda was used to doing big events. it pulled off a spectacular set of event, and a few others that
were large. i don't think al qaeda can do that. that is over. but i think the threat of smaller events is increasing. i think the shooting in the mall in nairobi, or think a number of train and bus bombings in europe, or think the boston marathon bombing related to a terror organization in russia. that is increasing. and to remind anyone, they have to be right one time. we have to be right 100% of the time. there's no such thing as 100% security. the groups or individuals, many lone wolves, people who act alone are trying to attack us asymmetrically. there'll always be some place where we are weakest. our future may be small of events. but also, our future will be full of fewer of them if we
focus on a narrative of what the west stands for, not just the united states, that persuades numbers of these aggrieved people that there are alternatives to blowing themselves up. >> i want to get to some. solutions you suggested. what you and mike rogers brings up is the smaller attacks and the pressure on the intelligence services. many are attacking the intelligence agencies as threats to the freedoms. let's see what congressman reasonabliers said. >> so we have to shake ourselves out of this soon. we need to understand that our intelligence services are not the bad guys. the bad guy, the al qaeda affiliates. russian intelligence service, other forces operating around the world. they are the ones we need to focus attention and energy on.
>> it's fair to assume you probably agree with most of that. how about this question. should people worry less about whether phone records are recorded and more about whether we are facing other attacks. >> yes. people should worry more about whether we are being attacked. what i would say that is a bit different to what mike rogers said is that our intelligence laws, the practices that our intelligence and liaison agencies are engaged in need to be subject to vigorous oversight, as transparent as possible. there needs to be public buy-in to what governments are doing to keep the citizens safe. i don't think there has been enough public discussion. edward snowden's acts are despicable. he's been charged and should return to this country and face
those charges. stealing classifying information, the type he stole, is not okay with me period. what came from that is a public conversation we should have had a decade ago about practices and procedures that the government should engage in to keep us safe. what people understand better, what metadata is, that it's not a view into personal lives, but it's an insurance policy in case someone else, who may look and sound like them is engaged in bad stuff. once people understand that, they will support that. my difference with mike rogers is that our intelligence communities are not the bad guys. no, they are not. can they operate in a way that has wider public acceptance in you bet. >> in an article you wrote in
foreign policy, you highlight the threat from home grown terror, from self-radicalized extremists. you suggest that the government should, one, intervene in areas between radical beliefs and violent behaviours. it should instill trust in communities where alienation is likely and integrate a whole of government approach that embodies u.s. values, can you give us the short version. >> possessing radical beliefs is protected by our constitution. that is what freedom. speech and association is about. the first amendment to our constitution. it's a core value of the united states, one which many aspire to have and observe. that's all fine. what is not fine is when possessing radical beliefs inspires the person with those
beliefs, or someone he or she talks to to engage in violence behaviour. that is not protected by the constitution. the difficult challenge for government is to know when to intervene to prevent somebody from harming the rest of us, just because that person has radical beliefs. that intervention area is hard to identify. the danger is that you end up suppressing people's freedom of association and expression. we don't want to do that. we want to intervene before the bombs are placed in the pathway of the boston marathon runners. we want to intervene. we want tools with wide acceptance and to catch people before they harm us. that is the challenge that all civilized countries face. >> going back to the international threat. everyone believed we'd have better relations with the muslim
world. what happened to the better relations. we are pulled out of iraq, afghanistan. we did not intervene in syria. we are trying to make a deal with iran. why hasn't the intergs at terror threats subsided? >> there has been improved relations with some countries based on some actions that the united states has taken. one of the best tools is generosity, no one missed the united states military. let me underscore military, staging relief into the philippines, after the dreadful floods and calamities there a couple of weeks ago. we have done the same thing in thailand and japan and all over asia and pakistan and in iran. so we are generous and helpful in the face of natural disasters. what we have been missing, and i hinted at this earlier is a
narrative about what the united states stands for and wants to do that engages the foreign side of policy. we have a foreign policy based on generosity, on creating stunty for countries through development aid, on fostering education for boys and girls and training and conducting leadership and political capacity training in countries so they can select their own stronger governments. we support regional organizations, the u.s. has been active in asean, an asian regional organization which has increasing number of countries. we have a trade policies, major trading agreements with asia and europe. my dream is that one day soon the middle east will not only recognise israel's right to
exist and the palestine state, but will be an economic powerhouse. there's enormous natural and intellectual resources in the middle east. wouldn't it be great if the middle east could trade with europe, asia, latin america, africa and the united states on a fair basis, and everybody could win. >> thoughtful comments. jane harman. appreciate you joining us on "consider this". for more on the middle east and contentious article if women and men can have it all. i'm joined by anne-marie slaughter, former member of the state department, but now a member of the new american foundation. thanks for joining us. you wrote an article "bringing the iran text back home." you wrote:
>> in trying to get the domestic space are both sides saying different things that could sut scuttle the agreement. secretary kerry is saying you have no right to enrichment. but ayatollah khamenei said the agreement. >> a good agreement has something in it for both sides, otherwise they wouldn't agree. otherwise it's a capitulation or a stalemate. they are things that iran is happy with. it can read some of the language in the agreement to say there's an implied right of enrichment. secretary of state john kerry is right in saying there's no recognition of that right in this language. it's proof that there was an agreement that may hold because both sides got something they wanted. and can sell.
>> are you optimistic that as we move forward it will lead to a permanent solution. >> i am optimistic for the reasons i wrote about, i think a lot of this has to do with domestic politics, and for the first time since president obama was elected, the domestic politics in iran create an opening for an agreement. the sanctions we have imposed have had an impact. the iranian people are saying to their leaders, "we need relief", and we have a president who is pragmatic. he's not soft, president hassan rouhani. he's practices mattic and put it together with president barack obama's relief that a good deal is in u.s.'s interests and you have space. >> you wrote in that piece that you were hope. a lasting deal will bring about
a multilayered, mean layers of positive consequences throughout the middle east. is there not the danger that by giving iran more strength, unleashing iran that it would lead to more tensions between sunni countries. and shi'ite countries. making things worse? >> it's hard to imagine that things would get worse. iran has been shut out of the middle east. we have not had relations with them for 30 years. they are not at any table where we are. turkey has been growing. saudi arabia has been growing in the region, and they have basically made themselves felt by sponsoring terrorism through hezbollah and other means. it's hard for me to imagine it will get worse. i think 30, 40 years on from the original revolution in 1979, what you have in
iran is an old guard what are deeply anti-american. and then you have a whole young population who are actually very much interests in being part of the world, playing by the world's rules. obviously if iran is a spoiler, we'll take the measures. if we have a deal we are capable region. >> you told "the daily beast", that the obama administration should have moved into syria two years ago, and criticised secretary of state john kerry as old style poll ki, -- policy, aimed at negotiations in okay-panelled rools. >> what should we have done and
what should president kerry be doing differently now. >> many of us will say two years ago it was foreseeable. bashar al-assad wanted to make it sectarian and his government standing against the terrorists. that's what he succeeded in doing. it was predictable that the fighting would get worse. i told you sos are not helpful, from policy experts. i think secretary of state john kerry is doing the best he can under the circumstances in trying to get the parties to geneva to an okay panelled negotiating room. what i was saying is we do have to be operating with people on the ground at the statement. we cannot ignore the reality of the suffering on the ground and what that creates politically in support of hardline entities.
we need to be doing more. i think we need to support what remains of more moderate groups on the ground. >> china, joe biden is doing negotiating of his own. visiting south korea and china hosing down tensions. the japanese are worried that the allies may not be working in lock step, and there's talk that this is the start of a cold war mentality in east asia. what do you think we should be doing there. >> people are right to be worried. you have a lot of little i would say, each of which could be a flash point that could put japan, the united states and other al
i --allieson one side. >> you are talking about the islands being disputed territory. >> yes, all the islands that china claims, japan claims, the philippines. you could have an incident in which one side declares an air defense zone, and the other respond aggressively in the view of the first side and you get a spiral of escalation. what is different is in the cold war we had no ties with the soviet union. they were audiologically opposed. they had a closed-off economy, they were politically and militarily opposed. with china, we depend on china. every object we pick up says made in china, and china depends on us. what we have here is a situation
in which our economic interests, our political interests in many areas, our interests in solving global problems like climate change and piracy are aligned. what we need to do is create diplomatic channels that find ways to resolve the territorial issues without letting it spin out of control. if you think about world war i, nobody wanted to go to war. but, you know, there was a fascination in serbia, and as it escalated, the sort of logic of alliance meant that they ended up in a conflict. that is what secretary of state john kerry is trying to prevent. >> your foreign policy service, your greatest fame may have come from an article in "the at lantic" calmed "why women still can't have it all."
you wrote and i quote: >> what that is to change for that to happen, and how do we go about it? >> thanks for asking. i never expected to be talking on these subjects in addition to foreign policy. really, i have spent a year and a half thinking about these issues and talking to people in america. i'm convinced that the problem lies in not valuing care and care giving nearly enough. that because women are primarily - are the primary care givers in middle east places, we see the exact of not valuing care in terms of women not valued when they are care givers, and being discriminated against when they have to take time out or want to take time out to care for those they love. it's true at the top and also at
the bottom. the poorest people in our society are single mothers, we don't give them the support they need to care for those they love. if we move back to on america that valued care in the same way that we value competition, and put the structures in place, and culturally, when somebody says look, i'm caring for my children, for my parents, i am taking care of those i love, that we would regard that as every bit as important as bringing home the bacon, that that's essential to who we are. obviously we are investing in the next generation, we are caring for our elders, but we tilted as a society to value the bringing om, the bread winning and devaluing the care giving for women and men. so men who are primary care givers. stay at home dads, working part time as dads.
we don't value them either. ultimately we have to value care equally. >> important topic to discuss in light of the fact that the u.s. is one of only 10 countries that don't provide paid mat erpty leave as part of our laws. anne-marie slaughter, president of the new american foundation. great to have you with us. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, it was a pleasure. >> coming up - the white house relaunched its revamped obamacare website and claims 90% of the problems are fixed. why an insurance companies concerned about a knew issue. we are tracking what is happening on the web? >> there's a customised way of treating patience that may change the future of medicine. we ask you to send us your movember moustaches, and you did. join the conversation throughout the show
>> for those suffering from frustrating obamacare shopping experience, december is a crucial month. they have until december 23rd to sign up if they hope to get coverage by new year's day. the white house declared healthcare.gov is 90% cured of its troubles. with a consumer crash, how will it hold up. joining me to discuss the latest is jennifer haberkorn, a reporter for "politico," thee covered the affordable care act since 2009 and michael shure is a political contributor to al jazeera, joining us from los angeles. jennifer, a lot of talk about the improvement of the obamacare website.
is it really and dramatically in better shape. >> the administration says it's better. can handle up to 800,000 people in one day. we saw today that the site was down, queueing people for a number of hours in the middle of the day. the concern is whether it will sustain the crush of people that is expected. >> we were given graphs showing the system was stable. up from the 40s in early november. how are they judging success. experts say the system uptime is still way blow industry standards that would be considered on unacceptable disaster for the private sector. >> if you compare this to how much amazon works, it's not a success. the administration set the bar at having the website working for the vast majority of the users. it's a swishy bar to meet. they said this weekend that they
had met it. the real charge will be when it comes, and they can't test people going on the website at one time. that will be the real test. >> kathleen sebelius, secretary of the department of the health and human services wrote a piece about the dramatic improvement since october 1st, but says: . >> that doesn't sound like a vote of confidence. one question that comes to mind is what kind of communication strategy is that saying don't go trouble. >> doesn't show optimism. it's more like something you'll here on the recording of an airline. they anticipate this being a
very popular piece of legislation that people are going to wants. they expect droves of people to come to the website at one time. they are saying rather than last time where people ran into the walls, they are saying, "don't be discouraged. come later. still, i agree with you, it's not really what you want to say, it's not very inviting but is saying listen, we had our problems. one of the things that happened today and yesterday is that we haven't seen this gauntlet of rhetorical outrage at what the website is doing. if it's at 90% or handling 50,000 people, the obama administration - i imagine them wiping the sweat from the brow saying phew. >> i went on and tried to do it as if i needed to sign up. i was impressed. it was working quickly. there were all sorts of plans. i was focussed on gold and platinum.
the costs were not something that made me happy, but so far everything was fine until i noticed on one plan was available to me with a ppo, letting me go whatever doctors i wanted to go to, so, again, very few opportunities though to keep my own doctor. is that going to be an ongoing political problem >> this problem that you are talking about now, these are the kinks we expected to see the program work out. we didn't think it would be a debac debacle, we thought what you said happened to you will happen to more people. time will tell. they'll have to work things out with the plans. they have been able to find one that had that ppo. it may be a product of what state and exchange.
obamacare. >> one of the other problems that has been arising. if the side is far from fixed, forms people are filling out, people are thinking they are enrolled when they are not. >> that's going to be a huge problem. the obama administration has been focussing on the first half of the website. the half that the consumer will see. like you said, you go and look at your plans, and send your application in. you think of the website, the second half being where the application goes from your computer to the insurance company. they know your name, social security number and whether they paid your premium. that half is not working as well as anyone hoped, the obama administration or the insurance companies.
they are concerned that you, as the consumer will thing you have coverage, but if the information didn't get through, you are not covered. the administration are working on the problem, trying to get it repaired. they don't provide specifics in conference calls. it's definitely something to watch for. it could be a problem if it's not repaired by the time people get their coverage. >> then there's the side of how doctors get paid through the system after january 1st. if you want the coverage, you have to sign up by january 23rdrd. with the 21 days left, will they be able to fix the glitches. is it realistic. >> today was the first day that - if you want to call it healthcare.gov, 2.0 was in effect. and the administration said that they had doubled the traffic they would normally have on a monday. if the traffic were to continue,
i think we are going to see a significant crush that could add a lot more people into this cue on the website right now. three weeks isn't a tonne of time. the website has enough for about eight weeks. they've turned around a lot. time. >> some optimism. >> president obama's former advisor david pluth made a bold expansion. >> it's a fact. it may take until 2017, almost every state in the country will run their own exchanges and expand medicaid. i think it the work well. >> is that right, states like kentucky, where they work great. mississippi next door has few sign ups and prices are different. in kentucky, they are lower than mississippi.
with politics push other states to say we have to get on board and set up exchanges to help the constituents, whether they'll demand it. >> i don't think a state or govern nor listens to david pluth. he's good at the politics. he's saying states like kentucky, where a governor says we'll have a state-based exchange not just through the federal and we have success, it will make it difficult for some states where some said, "no, we are not going to be part of a state-based exchange, we'll stay on the federal. as soon as you have your constituents and residents and state doing that, it will be give for you to say, "no, no, we'll be more expensive and not
give you as good a product as neighbours across the line." >> it's the politics dickating all 50 states having it, echgly everyone will get there. they are going to get there. they could have health care plans delivered by drone from amazon. all sorts of things. >> if it takes until 2017, suffering. >> adding to that, there'll be a political campaign, people will decide on that before 2017, which is why he says 2017. he knows it will coincide with the 2016 election. >> thank you for coming on and joining us on this again. time to see what is trending on al jazeera america's web. let's go to harmeli aregawi. >> there's a customised way to
treat cancers. one guest looks at one or a few of your genes, but if you are at mao clinic, they'll test all the genes, to see which are making you sick. it will cost about $21,000. a viewer says: >> you can read more at the website. now, speaking of fighting illnesses, we asked you to spend a photo of your movember moust ark and why you took part in the campaign to raise money for cancer. you can vote for your favourite moustache on this website. mike has raised more than $500
for the cause and says, "i'm spreading the word to those who think movember is not serious. oh, and i hate shaving. this is brad's fifth year participating. he raised over $800. he said, "because i look ridiculous, generating attention to raise awareness and fund for a preventative check-up. thanks to all of you for taking part and sending us your photos. >> great causes. good for them. straight ahead hon "consider this" supreme court justices jack up your christmas giving bill. >> and why this
>> did the supreme court make your future shopping scenes more expensive. the high court declined to take up a challenge to the new york law allowing the state to collect sales tax on outer state companies. are higher bills ahead and are the justices a group of grinches. what do black friday and cyber monday say about the state the economy. let's nask "fortune" magazine claire zillman about this. what does this mean for online shopping. will it make it expensive in the future? >> it's evolving. the supreme court decided not to take up
this decision. it backs on to a 1992 supreme court which is out of date, dealing with a catalogue merchant. the most notable decision is a 2008 law by new york state alog the state to collect sales taxes through online retailers even if they didn't have a physical york. >> there could be federal law passed. the senate and the house are looking at a lou deciding taxed. >> in not taking up the issue, it sort of looks like the supreme court deferred to congress, and the senate this past spring passed a bill in line with the new york law allowing states to collect through retailers without a physical presence.
>> that will be a big hit for consumers. if you are out there today and you are ordering something. and you don't have to pay sales tax. you are saving a lot of money. >> there are other overhead costs that retailers save on that gives consumers costs. >> you don't see any major impacts on online shopping in the future. >> it remains to be seen, whether consumers flock to the bricks and mortar stores because of this issue. >> they say it's a fairness issue, they shouldn't be undermined by the online retailers who don't pay tax issues. tonnes of people, 140 million went shopping. i was not one, fortunately. sales down 2.9% from last year. >> not the outcome retailers
hoped for. the holiday creep went into unprecedented territory, stores opening on thanksgiving. macy's for the first time in 155-year history opened on turkey day. it really didn't produce the sales that retailers hoped for. >> you wrote a column "how black fridayate thanksgiving and destroyed"", saying that by moving the sales into thanksgiving, not only did they roou join the holiday, but it didn't seem like sales went up. >> people showed up on thanksgiving , and this is for the weekend. we have a lot of time before christmas, and the holiday spending scene starts. there's a lot of other weekends to take into consideration. people spent money then, not the past weekend. >> people were buying ahead.
>> that's one explanation. >> hopeful for the retailers. if not, what does to do for the economy. consumer spending is the big motor making our economy hum. >> it's really a reflection of how people feel about the economy, and they are not spending the discussion and consumer income that hit a low in november. you know, the jobs that the economy is adding and the stock market performance that we are seeing, it's not trickling down to consumers in the store. >> spending a down, it hurts the economy. one other problem is we were looking at a shorter span between thanksgiving and christmas. it came late. there's not much time left to numbers. >> it means that retailers are pic-- a panicked mode.
so there's still time. >> numbers on cyber monday are huge, higher than last year. is that the future of retailing, despite sales taxes. >> consumers move away from stores towards online - 44% of steals from black friday retail were online, that is a little up. the expectations for cyber monday are - for sales on cyber monday are higher. it's the way things have been continuing. >> significantly higher. preliminary numbers are 17.5% over last year. let's hope that that is a silver lining in all this. we see spending. the economy is making a comeback. thanks for joining us. >> straight ahead, from the results of holiday shopping to its origins, how did cyber
>> today's data dive shops up a storm to find out how much the 12 days of christmas will cost you. if your true love from to give you to you 12 drummers drum, 11 pipers piping and so on, your true love would be broke $27,000 broke. that's up 8% over last year's costs according to the p&c christmas price index. you ask people to look this stuff up. if your true love from to buy. all: the items in -- all the items in august. $115,000 - you'd have to declare bankruptcy. that's way above inflation. over the 30 years the index was calculated it averaged the same as the u.s. inflation rate. what is responsible for the jump
in prices? union costs. the eight maids amilking or nine laties dancing are more expensive because you have to pay the performers more. two turtle doves run you the same as last year. who knew there was a market for turtle doves. from the 12 days of christmas, let's move on to black friday, cyber monday and small business saturday. how did they pop up. the term black friday was coined by philadelphia police, they hated the heavy traffic and pushy shoppers and hoped it would give shoppers a reason to avoid stores - it didn't work. american express started small business saturday to help out mum and pop stores. that worked. the national federation of independent businesses say smaller stores did better than last year, ringing up
>> comet of the century or celestial let down. is all hope for a dazzling show in the christmas sky lost? another set back for the space x fall con 9 rocket. will the delays hurt spacex or is it a temporary set back. while spacex struggles to get off the launch pad china sends a mission to the moon. what are they sending up, whose toes are they stepping on to get there.
>> i'm joined by derrick pitts, scientist at the franklin institute science museum. there's disagreement over the last few days about what happened to ison. nasa says it's a gonna, is there something there in. >> i think what happened, antonio was a to usle between this not very well consolidated nucleus, the gravitational pull of the sun and the heat of the sun, the heat of the sun sublime, frozen gases and the loosely compacted material left in the nucleus in the comments had nothing to hold it together. the solar wind took care of it after that. as we look at the images from the satellites looking at the sun. what we see is what's left of ison, a mere shadow of its former self. >> no hope that we'll get a good show in the sky. >> i don't think we'll see much from the ground.
folks will be out with binoculars. a big telescope under dark skies might show us a whisk of what is left. orbit. >> the possibility of it hitting earth was ruled out before it passed the sun. is there a chance that it blew apart and there are fragments that something may hit. >> what particles are left will be carried on the original orbital path of the comet. >> but they are not intersecting at all. because of that and the earth is in a different location beyond the orbital path, we will not see any of those particles entering the atmosphere. since it's not coming back we won't even get a meteor sure out of it. >> let's look at the spacex launch. it was delayed again. what is going on?
>> it's difficult to launch these sophisticated machines. >> they have thousands of parts that have to work with split second accuracy and precision. they are pumping liquid fuels at supercold temperatures at high speeds and pressures, and it has to work at the right levels. what spacex is doing is making sure they have all the ducks in a row for a successful launch. rather than get the rocket off the pad and malfunction, jeopardising not just the rocket, but the payload. that's an expensive loss. >> it is an expensive satellite dollars. >> and spacex. these are private launches for the falcon 9 x rocket - does
that hurt the company's chances. it builds confidence in the launch team and the company itself, that it has the ability to do things absolutely right, to make sure the whole system is put together well, and they can operate it well without taking undue chances. to get a piece of the $6 billion pie launching satellites is an important milestone for spacex. they want to make sure they do everything right to show they are capable and can do this. >> while spacex had its problems, china launched a rover to the moon. the first mission to land on the moon. nobody has been to the move -- to the moon since 1976. >> we lost an impetus to go to the moon once we'd been there a number of times.
and we didn't have competition, we redirected efforts elsewhere. since only a few of the major superpowers can do this. there was nobody else to do it. the russians gave up on it long before we had gotten there. the chinese come back to show what technological capability they have. show economic might and demonstrate to the world that they, too, can be tech knoll onlyicly advanced. they can use it as a stepping moon. >> we must be able to learn more with current technology than what we had the in '70s. >> some at nasa say china's mission could interfere with nasa's probe orbiting the meal. >> with the, the mission sent up
in september is studying the exosphere, the environment around the moon and the dust on the surface of the moon. any disturbance of either of those environments could throw a monkey wrench into the satellite. the ro propellant as it makes its way down to the surface will put a lander on the surface, the propellant that slows down the environment will pollute the environment. the principal scientist is not happy. it presents another alternative, and that is we can study how quickly the propel ants dissipate out of the environment. >> it will be exciting to have anything on the moon after a long time. >> the show may be over on the