tv Ohio State University - Future of America in Space CSPAN March 19, 2019 10:11pm-11:22pm EDT
a.m. eastern on c-span two, c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app. right now, former nasser administrator charles bolden talks about the future of space travel and exploration at ohio state university's john glenn school. this is a little more than an hour. good evening, everyone. thank you for joining us on the campus of ohio state university. welcome,at to four-time shuttle flyer, retired major general from the united states marine corps, charles bolden. call me john because that is what my mom wanted me to be called. welcome, we will open it up for some questions as we move forward tonight. interestingreally
time in space exploration. this is a transition here in the united states. the shuttle has been retired with now eight years, the longest gap since we have spent humans into space from american soil on american vehicles. at the same time, might you argue that it is a golden age of space exploration of other ways? charles: i call it the golden age. i try not to get angry, but i get frustrated as i travel around the u.s., mostly, and listen to people talk about what will be great when america gets into space again. or it will be great when the u.s. has the human spaceflight program. log are theyhat living? the work that we have done since 2011 when we retire the shuttle on the international space station is second to none. not fly as many people into space because the vehicle
that we fly on today carries three people at a time as opposed to seven. the work that we do has expanded. the centerrought on for advancement of science and space, who could go out and contract for people in the way that nasa could not do it. they understand it the way that we did not do. we opened up space to the science world in a way that i don't think any of us ever imagined. todayvancement of science greatly exceeds what we were doing during the shuttle era. and, because i am a pilot, in nasa.a big a i am incredibly proud of aeronautics because, in 2014 plan forut out a new aromatics, we started moving into green aviation. none of these airplanes that don't have nasa technology. if anyone has been on the newer
boeing 737, it makes you feel comfortable. when you get off the 787 and are not tired because you are getting more oxygen, that is a result of joint collaboration between nasa and the aviation industry. a great period of time. when i started at marshall's flight center in 1987. we would have the shuttle astronauts come back and they would have patches on their blue sleeves. that was a cool patch. i wish i had the chance to earn one. it meant you had gone 25 times the speed of sound. touched and visited a place that almost nobody has ever gone. 25 got replaced with a 100. that 100 was not that you went
mock 100, it's that you lived 100 days in space. and now it is 365. charles: for scott kelly. is here.friend she has not lived in a time where human beings have not been to space. where an american has not been to space. this is progress. irvine -- her first venture into space will likely be in march. unless we get a lot more advanced propulsion systems, it will still take them a month to get there, a year on the planet, and eight months to come back. you are excited about the future. thanks jen for volunteering to go to mars. [laughter] we saw new horizons pass by. now space is something that is not just the united states and the former soviet union and russia.
now they can have a space program. work atou did a lot of nasa where you would travel to place like napal. do they have a space program? really build value for your citizens from space in many ways without having rockets. excited to learn about the observatory here at the ohio state university at the glen college. college. hopefully we will have an observatory with an issue meant the international space station. giving us information that can help people with water resources, crop development, you name it.
the program would still be here. it is my favorite of all the programs of nasa. it is located in four different places around the world. bangkok, and the last one we opened, we work cooperatively with the station of development. the last one was open in a place that none of you have ever heard of. if you don't know anything about africa, it is perhaps the poorest country on the continent. when the u.s. decided that there were going to put this center in this country. they literally wept at the dedication semi. perhaps a way out of depravity and everything today. as we talked with students today
, it is amazing what space expiration and science can do for people around the world. john: i will admit, i was late for the game being a gamma ray astronomer. i had to lift my telescopes above the atmosphere to look out. the apollo a picture that we took during the christmas holiday of 1968, to see that earthmoving above the horizon of the moon and the three astronauts came over. we were talking about it today person in africa said the most important thing we will do in space is probably the artificial satellite. looking back at the earth is one way in which, not only are we creating great social and economic things, it has turned into a commercial opportunity as we expand the marketplace. charles: one of the things i am
is become a --w john will tell you, i was the healthy skeptic when i first became the nasa administrator. there were people in the obama administration with me that i called commercial ideologues. they believe that if we took the money from nasa and gave it to the commercial sector, all of the sudden everything would happen magically. we would get to space quicker and do all kind of things. i did not believe that. i still do not believe you can do it that simply, but i have become a huge champion of commercial space now. only made the difficult decision to go through with the directive to phaseout of the shuttle program in 2011, we were really counting on commercial entities, commercial and entrepreneurial entities stepping in to replace shuttles. it has taken us a lot more time
now we wanted to, but we now have reliable ways to get car go into space. notches at the international space station, but to get other things into orbit. this year, you are going to see boeing and space x launch a commercial spacecraft, each of them, built for spaceflight. before the year is out, if all goes well, though same vehicles having come back from their first non-crude fights -- non-- crew fights will come back and they will come back and be transported by commercial means and not government. that will be an incredible day. for people who thought we were not involved in human spaceflight, they will get there because they want to see the rebirth of human spaceflight. john: do you think the old volkswagen bands will be there -- vans will be there? charles: it will be different. john: let's count the number of
spaceflight systems that have been developed. nasa is developing a spaceflight system. that is the biggest rocket ever to be developed. it will be the heaviest device ever to fly. we have developed an opportunity to cargo supply, supply the station with cargo. the falcon nine. we have this the year and about nevadad -- the sierra dream chaser on board. can you talk about why that is important to have these multiple things? charles: i may be able to have too much. example ofneeded an the importance of redundancy in multiple systems, shortly after we began flying cargo to the international space station.
our providers here in america used to be scientists announced they are northrop grumman. much to our dismay, orbital launch one night from the eastern shore of maryland just disintegrated. all the cargo that was going to the international space station with it. several weeks later we launched a space x cargo craft and it got off the air and started on its way to orbit and went out of control. we were down two. and our oldweeks, reliable cargo partner, the russian process, went out of control and we lost that. there were standard ways that we were getting stuff to space that were now gone. we were saved because the japanese had hdv.
this is the largest cargo carrier in the inventory. the european still had atv. we still had to vehicles that could get cargo to the international space station and tie us over until we can figure out what had gone wrong. , it is noo mention longer russia and the u.s. and japan, but it is nations like , their launch systems deployed 100 satellites on one launch. what technology is allowing us to do in the age of what we call are able totes, hitch a ride along with a regular normal payload and get kicked out along the way so we can output 100 satellites in space on one launch. they are able to do things in swarms that we never dreamed of. the indian launch vehicle
is among the most reliable launch vehicles on the planet. but if not want people, you need a ride to space any to be assured that you will get there, that is a vehicle that is open in the commercial market for people to choose from. it is not just rockets. you also have -- we were talking earlier about the united arab a graham.aving south africa having a space program. australia just now announcingagency. what is going on in the world? i heard it said once that kids are fascinated by two things. space and dinosaurs. [laughter] are correlated, nine in a good way for dinosaurs. is not just a present for young people, but it is the future. -- almost every
nation in the world wants to be a family of the space area. one of the things i was proud to do as part of the obama administration was to take president obama's directive to expand the number of what we call nontraditional partners. theing many nations of world as we could that wanted to become members of the family of space nations. maybe they did not have the financial or technological capabilities to do it. we started something rudimentary. stem education. every nation in the world has a need for increasing interest in education among their young people. that is a magic first for us, whether we went to africa where -- to africa,t, the middle east, or anywhere. when we first started with the uae, they were depending on other people. they sent a team of engineers to korea who lived there for 10
years to study how you build rockets. and are on the verge now, the end of 2020 of launching their own mission to mars, which would be a mars atmospheric observer called hope to arrive on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the uae. a lot of good things about it. i talked with some of the students. some of those benefits you get from it in a country that is not noted for its human rights prowess, they are doing very well in integrating women into their scientific community. about 51% of graduates from engineering schools are women. 51% of graduates from engineering school are women. the deputy manager for the hope mission in uae is a woman who happens to be the minister of states for advanced science. her complaint is, she lacks ever city on her project team.
about 80% of the team are women. menuse they can't get interested enough in science and engineering to fill out the team. she is china figure out how to she bring about diversity on her team to benefit her nation. interesting times in the world. john: this is the way in which i think i almost every person on earth can benefit from what we do in space, and almost provide them an opportunity to experience this overview affect of what it's like to go to space and look back at our planet, or look back at ourselves and see us in a different way. i'm a that was a very emotional experience. -- i know that was a very emotional experience. charles: my very first space shuttle mission, i flew in 1986 and i was in the program since 1980.
i went there with the expectation of beginning to fly in the space shuttle, and what was supposed to happen in 1978, 1982 we finally flew. incredible time as we watch to get better and better. 10 days after i came back it could not have been more exciting. i watched my friends launch in the challenger and not come back. got 73 seconds into flight and everything was gone in an instant. in the twinkling of an eye. it reminded us that this was risky business. we had to make the decision. i think everybody who decided to venture off into space has made a conscious decision that this was really worth it. fun but it is something that was an impurity for humanity.
it is in our dna to explore. that is why we keep going. john: i know many of you use gps navigation. wassky, albert einstein riding on a train in germany, he sees the clock and he comes up with an idea. it turns out that idea is required for you to be able to navigate what is your gps. there's something that gets put into gps signals so that you can run an airplane or find your place -- find your way to kroger. or you can take an instagram picture and post it on #charlie bolden. it is in your pocket. directxploration has
aspects to that. also with gps. you have had the ability to see the aurora from above. the signals have to go through the ionosphere to get that also has to be corrected so you don't lend your airplane si x yards on the end of the runway. space exploration has transformed what our daily lives are like. we are 50 years now from perhaps the greatest -- one of the greatest space explorations, that is the first apollo landing. now we're talking about going to the moon. china has landed on the backside. axt month, israel will launch privately funded robotic lander? what is going on? charles: nations of the world, private entities and the like, they have this desire to be a
part of advancement of humanity. some have a very strong desire for what they think is a potential financial goldmine. there is -- the nation of luxembourg for example is pinning their hopes on mining, whether it is mining the moon or asteroids. you have people who live in those countries all over the world, entrepreneurs who think they have things that will advance society and also bring financial gains. john: we are here in ohio .. i am amazed -- back when my children were little, we collected the state quarter series. when you look at ohio, there is an outline of the state, and there is the wright brothers flyer, an astronaut walking,
neil i'm assuming -- we have a bright past and also a bright future in ohio. we have the surface module for the orion spacecraft coming from ohio. things: you talk about -- what i call the observatory that we hope will be operated out of ohio state, and will be billed here. -- built here. in cleveland, you are talking about the glenn research center, the foremost in the world when it comes to propulsion, small engines and propulsion and all kinds of things. the state of ohio is a big leader. john: another a. charles: aeronautics is critical. john: ohio is the number one supplier to airbus and boeing. ge engines, wright-patterson air force base -- i think we have a
bright future in terms of our ability to contribute to what is about to happen. we will segue into some questions. we would ask you to come to the microphone, which is on your right hand my left. say you are so we know -- who you are so we know your name. charles: a reminder, there are no dumb questions. if there is a question one of you is thinking of, i can guarantee someone else in the audience is thinking the same thing and did not get up because they think it is a dumb question. i am the dumb question asker. legal ande humans go, policy regulations follow. i know you loved some of your time in d.c. working with congress, committees, testifying on laws and budgets, how much money you have allocated and scheduled and all of these
things. if we are going to the moon and commercialize opportunities in space, what do you think we will have to do on the legal and policy framework side so it is not just the wild west? charles: i mentioned mining before. that is -- it has the potential to be the wild west. mining was around when we launched two satellites on one shuttle mission. both in an identical way. after having the first one fail, the team talked about it to the owners and said, we think we know what went wrong, we are certain it won't happen a second time. days later it lifted off and got where the rocket was supposed to fire and exactly the same thing happened. we had two useless satellites and a useless orbit.
we came up with a way to get those satellites, bring them back to earth. aat begin a serious -- began serious conversation on space law. who owns the satellites once they are retrieved? we would resort to maritime salvage law, which says the captain of the ship, it's his or hers. folk over in london watched us for a while, allowed us to toy around with this. they came in with their lawyers and said, we own it, we paid the premium, it is ours. we don't care who gets it, it is ours. i can imagine going through a huge if it had not been them working with nasa, i can imagine a years long legal battle of who
owns these satellites. one of the growing fields of law law. is spcace who can operate on an asteroid? u.s. congress passed a law two years ago that said anyone that goes to a foreign body and takes something from it, it belongs to them outright. other nations in the world have said, i'm not sure i agree with that. regulations will follow. stand by. john: one of the things mentioned in the introduction when we introduced the crowd, this opportunity to work in between engineering and public policy, between the technical side of something -- what we barely know how to do -- humans barely know how to put humans into space. it is really hard. the other thing that is really
hard is getting along with people, especially when you're and mine -- your and my interests collide. we went up with the conversation like nasa and lloyd's of london walked into a bar. this is where i think the future is going. space policy is not tax policy, and it is not necessarily environmental policy. it is its own thing. we need all of the bright minds. endeavorsne of these where anyone with any capability to do a must any skill -- machinist, thermodynamic system, space legal, there is a for you in the space programs coming along. i encourage you, think about space as a career. if you have any questions, you can ask jen.
let's go to our audience. please state your name and we would be happy to entertain your question. >> i am a senior here at ohio state studying communication. i had the pleasure on working on communication teams at nasa headquarters and langley research center. i will be returning this may to be on the communication team at langley. one question i get a lot, one question i have for myself and would like your opinion on it -- s when we caning sl use atlas or falcon nine, among other cheaper rockets? charles: it is space launch system, sls. when it is finished, it will be the largest rocket we ever built. sls was primarily built for deep space travel. it has the capability that -- when we started looking at the
capability, we were looking at getting things to mars. how many atlas fives would it take to get a human mission to mars? how many falcon nines would it take, or how many falcon heavies? when we did the analysis, we patterned a rocket that was sized out to be the sls, the space launch system. it is a family of vehicles. as we get further down the road payload,to carry more we will enhance it with some other kind of things. a quick example of what the sls will allow us to do -- and it has nothing to do with humans. if we want to do a mission to europa, one of the moons of jupiter -- it is a big deal in the science community. john: there is more water on europa than there is on the earth. charles: you either take a
number of years -- either it is seven or eight ticket to europa, which is orbiting jupiter, or sls gives you the lift, the power that cut -- the power to cut that in half. for a scientist, it means they may live long enough to get to the planet where they are going. sometimes people will tell you nothing last forever, and that is right. we are getting ready to retire the delta four heavy, which was an incredible rocket built by ula, which used to be boeing. as technology comes along, other things go away. may fly, a system we and another version of an ion engine.
whenever we have a plasma fusion rocket engine -- everything is going, by the way. it means we can go to mars in a matter of days -- at least half the time that it takes today with chemical rockets. chemical rockets are going to be obsolete one of these days. we want them to be obsolete because we want to go faster and go farther. kind of a long answer to your short question. mentioned -- your first thing was, why? "why" kick, because as i speak to students as they decide what they want to do finishing ohio state university, ask themselves, why do i do what it is i want to do? when you answer the question appropriately, you will find out because i am passionate about that. if you follow your passion, you
can't go wrong. you may not be rich, but you will be the richest person in the world. my wife and i spent years doing active duty in the marine corps. we would come back from active travel. she said we are the richest poor people in the world. she recognized riches are not always financial, they are opportunities to do things. coming out of this university, right, you will be one of the richest people in the world and you will never work a day in your life because he will enjoy -- you will enjoy every circle moment of it, and that's not work. >> i am a third-year masters student studying aerospace engineering. my question is kind of broad. in the past, the government aencies, nasa, it was monopoly and the soul pacesetter
of how to explore space. now with spacex, origin, access to space has become much broader. how do you see the role of government agencies and private sector in space? is it competitive? is it complete mentoring? charles: there is strong competition. it is among the nations, not companies. it is blue origin versus spacex versus boeing. you add in sierra nevada, you name it. the competition is an the business sector, not in the international sector. internationally, we coined a is collabetition.
we would try to get the heads of agency together, where do we want to go next? we had a competition of ideas. when you make a decision of what to do together, then you go off and do that. you want to know why you are doing what you are doing. i think it's essential we collaborate with the private sector and collaborate with international partners. you will see nasa make an announcement soon that we are going to put humans back on the surface of the moon. much to my pleasant surprise, they are going to really call on the industry and international partners to develop lenders so that -- landers so that the u.s. government doesn't have to make the investment. we have the sls. we have lived launch vehicle that will take anything.
i always tell my partners, don't waste your time and money to develop a heavy launch vehicle to compete with the u.s. you build a lander, i can get you where you want to go. the only thing i ask in return is one seat for one american astronaut, so when we land on mars we have an american and israeli and russian and arab, you name it. that is where we want the future to be. >> do you think nasa will still be the pace setter? charles: let me tell you where we are today. i know where we have been for the last eight years. nasa was not the determining factor. i am referring you to something called the global exploration roadmap. people in the business call it the ger. we are on version three, but it is a compilation of the discussion that up to 25 nations
have been having over the last 15 years about the direction for human space flight. -- every organization has to have a leader. nasa is sort of the natural leader because everyone looks to the u.s. because i was the nasa administrator, i was in the defector leader of the group whether i wanted to be or not. but it was one jointly discussed and jointly decided. if you look at the exploration roadmap, you will see how we got to mars based on the discussion of 25 nations, many of whom have nothing to contribute to get there except the desire to participate. charles: john: i think the world is in a position where nasa will, in my opinion, have a lead voice in the chorus of who is
going to space our conversation with who runs the european space agency, let's discuss where the united states thinks they are going, let's align, because the last thing people want to do is cross budgets, because the resources are not enough to go around. ae nasa administrator is not boundary free condition. even as nasa administrator, you have some bosses telling the agency wanted to. -- the agency what to do. nasa's vision does not always come out of the agency itself all the time. charles: why didn't the united states land on the backside of the moon before the chinese?
we have the capability of doing it. why didn't we do it? in the u.s., nasa is guided by lots of entities -- congress, the american public, the president and administration. most importantly, by the scientific community through a process of surveys. every 10 years, learned people from all over the world meet, a survey in earth science, planetary science, and they list in order the top 10 or so things they think the world scientific community ought to be undertaken. -- to be undertaking. in other words, this is where you put your money, nasa. it is hard for nasa to ignore the scientific community, to go yeah, we like those ideas, but we would like number four.
you are tangling with one of the most powerful organizations in the world, the scientific community. a mission to the moon never ranked high on the planetary science list of things to be done. a country like china doesn't have a decade of surveys, so they are going to go do it. john: they have a five-year plan. charles: and they follow it. john: next. appreciate your question. >> i am a recent graduate and now an engineer at the nasa glenn research center. my question is in regards to changes in policy. under george w. bush we had the constellation program for going back to the moon. under obama, we were going to mars. now with the current administration, we are talking about going back to the none. i would like your insight as a former administrator, how much is a change in policy, how much
due to change in technical limitation, and when might we see success in forward motion? charles: i will ask john or marty to shake their heads yes or no. heflirt you to the ger, t global exploration roadmap, or nasa -- it is a funky looking moon,that has earth, mars. that has been the vision for space exploration since eisenhower. before we ever landed on the moon, one group published a vision for humans to mars. reason, humanity has always held mars as the place we want to go. not as a final stop, but as the
horizon destination. it is just how you get there. i don't think the destinations a re policy changes, they are subtle changes in the path we will take to get somewhere. i am possibly surprised. i was worried -- pleasantly surprised. i was worried when the trunp administration came in. this will seem partisan. i am entitled to do it, because i can. when we had obama on it, it was going. that was unwritten policy. i figured okay, mars is out of here. mars is going. that is exactly what appeared to happen, until you read between the lines. what we are doing now is we will put emphasis on trying to get
humans back to the moon. there are people who believe going back to the moon makes it easier to get back to mars. i am not one of them. i could ask people in this room, did we have to go to the moon and do more stuff to go to mars? they will say yes, definitely. asked, what is the difference between landing on the moon and landing on mars? absolutely different. the moon has no atmosphere. you know you will take a rocket and it will be a propulsive landing. that is no atmosphere to decelerate you, but there is also no atmosphere however thin to burn up your spacecraft before you get to the surface. mars has one of these atmospheres -- you love it, but you hate it.
it is not enough to slow you down sufficiently, so you have to do a whole mix of things. there is enough to cause all kinds of havoc to your vehicle trying to get through the atmosphere. the challenge used to be radiation. we are comfortable where we don't think people are going to die living on mars. we are still looking at long-term quality of life. our biggest challenge is something called inter landing. how will we get 20 landers safely on the surface of mars? we today don't know how to do that. that is the challenge of mars. spend a little time on the moon if you want to. we can still get to mars in the 2030's, as long as we don't dedicate to the moon . add, do you view
mars as a science destination and the moon as a commercial destination? charles: no. in fact, both are mixed. both are aspirational destinations for humanity. mars, the motive is not quite like conquering mount everest. they asked me, why did he do that? because it is there. settlershe original crossed the mississippi? they did not know what was over there, and they wanted to go. we don't know what is on mars, so we want to go. we have a good idea of what is on the moon, but we want to go there. i think both of them are aspirational. both are scientific. the moon is more if there is a
commercial potential, definitely the moon as opposed to mars. mars today is too far away to make it commercially viable. you are going therefore science -- there for science or advancing humanity. john: i want to recommend a book. the question in the presidency has been moon, mars, moon, mars. there is a book called the myth of residential leadership in space flight. that is an excellent book. it is an excellent discussion of how anomalous kennedy's speech really was. presidents can have a policy, but unless there is support from the congress, and oh by the way, money, and public support, you might as well shelved at the c
-- you might as well shout at the comet. the idea a president can declare a new vision is all well and good, but because of kennedy, it was ingrained in our brains that somehow must happen. it doesn't. take a look at that book. that may get another window into how these things play out. >> hi, i am an astronomy and astrophysics student, so i approach things from the science side. you mentioned space mining a couple times. i thought space mining as a little preposterous, given it takes us right now $10,000 to launch a pound into orbit. i think it was famously said of john glenn it might as well be solid gold for the amount of
money it took to laugh him. mining we make space economically feasible, or is it economically feasible? charles: that is out of my league, but you have to get the cost of lunch down. spacex has served as the leader in -- whether they are really doing what they say or not, we don't know yet, but what we do know is they are causing everyone else to think they are doing it, so they are driving the cost down. the cost per kilogram to go to space is markedly decreased from what it was in the early days of shuttle. second thing you have to decide is, what is out there? what are we going to mine? is the return on investment such that it makes it worth spending
this gold mine of stuff trying to get it? it is intriguing. nasa was never into mining, and they are still not. we touched on the technology and the procedures to do it back when -- president obama had something called the asteroid redirect mission. it was something that came out of trying to facilitate a look into how you potentially save the planet if there is a planet threatening asteroid headed our way and we are going to go the way of the dinosaurs. the vision was you get to the asteroid with a robotic spacecraft, and later you could bring humans if you needed to. you could use the robotic spacecraft to alter the trajectory of the asteroid way far out and cause it to miss earth. if we get a spacecraft we can
dock to, why don't we send people up and start mining stuff? people think it is possible. john: i think you are going to need some -- what did greenspan call it? perhaps we are in the irrational exuberance phase. to make this a serious business plan, you are not going to get platinum from an asteroid and bring it back down to the surface of the earth. whatever you mine needs to be useful wherever you are mining it. water, i'd go mine because water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. i can split it and make rocket fuel, i can drink it. those seem pretty useful to those that want to survive on a planet. that is why you see an interest in going to the polls of the moon. -- poles of the moon.
the poles are permanently shadowed. a comet goes in, the water never boils off. that is why the poles are useful. we know there is water there. charles: how many have heard of resource utilization? it is an area that the scientific community, planetary scientific community in particular has been looking for decades. you want to be able to go to a planet and be able to manufacture things while you are there. we do a lot of 3-d printing on the international space station today. we do what people refer to as mass launch. you take very little material
and manufacture it using the resources wherever you go. john: my crass commercial the material used to go into space founded by an ohio state grad. i would like to get through all of the five questions. next question? studenta third-year studying foreign affairs. i have a public policy based question. we spent a week in beijing, china working with the beijing institute of technology, talking about collaboration between the two nations. however, due to the willful formalnt -- collaboration is not legal between the u.s. and china.
how do you think that serves as a barrier between potential demilitarization in space moving forward, but also do you think there is any chance to repeal that? charles: i preach patience. when the amendment was put in the appropriations bill, it forbade any bilateral l corporation between nasa and china. we kept going back to congressman wolf and got little pieces of relaxation. today we collaborate in planetary, mostly lunar science. we have a group that works together in the himalayas. the thing we haven't been able to get is human space flight. it is coming. this is an administration that can do a nixon china thing.
if president trump said look, we will let the chinese come to the international space station, they probably have the talking standards -- docking standards, it would happen like that. the chinese would jump at it. it is just what we can do. it is going to happen. get a bigtion is to explorationhe space we have done so and moving forward. biggestld be the two achievements so far in space exploration, and what purpose has it served? have?how much time do we
i will give you the two most -- charles: apollo eight and the photo of earth writer. all the money we spent in the space program, it was enabling humanity to see the planet from which we come. i am trying to think of who it was. john: bill anders. charles: bill anders took the photo and called houston, i cannot believe it, we have come to the moon to discover our planet earth. that was the beginning of the environmental movement. we recognized we lived on this acredibly -- and we call it fragile ball.
birth is not fragile -- earth is not fragile. earth has survived millions of years. we are fragile. the thing the apollo eight ussion gave us was allowed to see we lived on a water plaen controlsater really everything on this planet. it helps us to understand we control our own future and destiny. we can squander it and leave ea rth with the cockroaches that survive nuclear war and everything else, but no humans. they will go the way of the dinosaur. john: thank you very much for your question. >> i am a recent graduate of osu. john: my son would be proud. his first name is anthony. he does not use it much because
he did not want to be called tony. >> a couple ideas bouncing around. one is collecting space junk from orbit. that would be nice to recycle different material and to clear off all of that space. with the policy that whoever launched it owns it, if the system was created by a private company and launched from the u.s. and came back, say there was a piece of unidentifiable space junk and multiple countries thought it belonged to them. how do you think that would play out? john: your concept is a little different. we don't care what it is, we just want to get it out of earth's orbit. i would tell you to follow your dream. designed this system first, then get your lawyers to argue about
it. you will probably not bring it back. you will collect it and either put it in a big container and boost it to an orbit where it will stay for 100 years, or more ideally you will move it into a destructive reentry where no one will ever see it so you don't have to worry about where it belongs. seriously, you will neither spend the time nor the money to try to build an orbital debris removal spacecraft that is going to have the capability of doing an intact reentry. you just want to get something that collects all of that stuff and lets it burn up in reentry. john: there will be no junkyard in the future. it will be vaporized. >> this is a question about
collaboration. i know you touched on that a little bit. you mentioned the global exploration roadmap and survey every 10 years. in play onare space exploration and where does the u.s. see in making improvements? of sciencee themes and aeronautics are more lucrative in building international collaboration than human spaceflight. human spaceflight even today is limited to a relatively small number of nations. when you look at science and aeronautics, every country has airlines, almost every country. nasa heads an organization called the international federation for aeronautics research. china is an active member of that. when you talk about getting
nasaries to come together, has international agreements with most of the nations on what we call air traffic management. it is trying to help them do the same thing we are doing and smooth the flow of traffic to get rid of the congestion, to build systems that are eco-friendly. it is bringing a lot of people together that wouldn't come together once. anye science, astronomy, nation in the world that wants to support their kids going to school, they can play a role. they can have a nobel prize winner. there is no rule that says you can't have a nobel prize winner from this year. it is unlikely because of their educational system, but there is no rule you can't do that if you
can inspire kids to get interested. john: there are three things collaboration from my experience. we all breathe the same air, we all drink the same water, and we all share the same common heritage of the night sky. those are really powerful for me. i think if we double down on those three areas, we won't have any trouble getting along. >> thank you very much. just a guy who likes space and nasa. >> [laughter] john: so do we. >> [applause] >> that said, i have one disagreement. i think the lunar module was -- reallywas really broke paradigms.
no clue how to do something like that -- was groundbreaking. back to the previous question about space junk. you talked about more and more countries are going into space. it is almost to the point where you can piggyback stuff on the back of aircraft, so you can put massive amounts of stuff out there. john: you can put a tesla into geo-planetary space. >> and something the size of a quarter can be detrimental to any space vehicle. i am wondering where they are going with that. charles: there are international standards. this is the challenge, there are standards, there are no laws. we talked about laws earlier. laws may catch up. most nations follow international standards for
debris mitigation and debris prevention. today is a nation wants to launch something, by convention they are supposed to provide enough fuel to either boost it to a parking orbit where they will be out of the way of things for hundreds of years, or enough fuel to deorbit it into a destructive deorbit if it is not going to land somewhere. most patients abide -- nations abide by that. state, youre at ohio are seeing a burst of research, rockets ording micro micro thrusters that will fit on a cube set not much bigger than this cup. or solar arrays that will make
this controllable. when you are putting thousands out at a time, that clutters up your orbit pretty quick. john: those space craft should be built with means by which they can be deorbit it. are is something that you better off not creating in the first place. debris wills, that come back in. at these orbits higher than the space station, 400, 800 kilometers where there isn't a lot of drag, that stuff just does not come down. you do not want to create it in the first place. responsible behavior in space, not conducting anti-satellite tests in orbit -- those kinds of things will go a long way.
we have some work to do to clean up the space environment. >> what about cutting down on explosive rockets that are used for, say, deploying things? you don't realize it, but that andches off small debris, that can be detrimental. i am wondering, are there any standards on that? charles: the reason i talked for the need for a game changing propulsion -- we did not talk about nuclear propulsion yet, nuclearthing like propulsion, ion propulsion, things that don't use chemicals that leave debris as a residue
coming out of an engine i think might be helpful. i don't know. john: thank you for the questions. also an important reason why, in my opinion, the united states needs to fully engage with the u.n. committee in vienna. you say, great, you get to go to vienna. as the first woman to go to mars, you will go there. it is better than just nice food. that is where the world comes together to talk about these issues, to try to establish a global framework. forfeitt go there to your own interests, that i not thes point. it is a dialogue where we can peel the layers off of this onion.
jackie, she fle withw you. she is a former japanese astronaut who runs that, and does a fantastic job. i hope our students, if you decide engineering is your future -- great. understand the policy context in which you are operating. you don't work in a vacuum. money doesn't just come out of the sky and you spend it on cool things. policy and framework and discussion is your thing and you want to do it in space, learn something about the technical aspects of what you are working on. you will be so much more effective. that is the power of these kinds of dialogues we have through this series of programs.
,e bring together the context regardless of whether you describe yourself as content or context. how do we create a conversation so we can, if not make progress, at least grow in our understanding of each other? unfortunately i think we are out of time. as a boy growing up in st. louis, i will use my moderator's prerogative. i used to listen to the voice of a famous ohio state graduate who broadcasted games on radio. his son is someone you may have seen. until next time, so long. i want to thank you for being here tonight. we hope to see you again soon and look forward to any future questions you may have as we exi t tonight.
thank you very much. >> [applause] >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact the. american morning, the enterprise institute president discusses his new book "love your enemies: how can people can save america from the culture of contempt." a harvard professor talks about his new book "how democracies die." watch washington journal live wednesday 7:00 a.m. eastern. here is some of our live coverage wednesday. at 12:45 p.m., a conversation with the chairman and ceo of at&t. it is hosted by the economic
club, live on c-span. feds charge around how is his conference on the economy and interest rates. and from the center for strategic and international studies, we hear about china and how its policies impact the u.s.. in the morning on c-span2, after several failed votes for the u.k. to leave the european union, prime minister theresa may answers more questions from members of the house of commons. then the acting defense secretary and defense chair speak at a forum on the trump administration's 2020 budget and evolving national security priorities in space. later the american bar association releases a 300 page report on reforming immigration policy at the border in courts and federal agencies. on c-span3, a discussion on authoritarianism and the u.s.
response. ♪ >> the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. >> ask not, what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> and the people who knocked these buildings down will -- >> [applause] >> c-span's newest book, noted historians rank america's best and worst chief executives, providing insights into the life of america's 44 presidents. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and legacies they left behind. published by public affairs, to spin's "the president's" will be on shelves april 23, but you can order your copy today at
www.c-span.org or wherever books are old. >> president trump and brazilian president jair bolsonaro held a joint news conference in the white house press garden. president trump said he had many views in common with them in described as the trump of the tropics. the leaders discuss the political situation in venezuela, the role of socialism in the 2020 election, and plans for the u.s. to launch spacecraft out of brazil. this is about 25 minutes.