Podcasts about Shuttle

A young seamstress gets a bit of help from her Spindle, Shuttle, and Needle to bring the Prince to her doorstep.

Hiya! We're bummed that we have to take another week off, but in the meantime, we'd like to continue the story of another Dumb-Dumbs & Dice podcast, the fully completed 40-episode series, Dumb Scum & Villainy, where professional voice over actors and improvisers explore the underworld of the Star Wars: Edge of the Empire roleplaying game. This series features our Game Master Tom McGee, and familiar voices from Jesters of Ravenloft, players Ryan LaPlante, Tyler Hewitt, Adam McNamara, and (later in the series) Guy Bradford! Join our crew of bumbling criminals, see if they turn to the dark side or stay in the shadowy parts of the light. Enjoy an adventure in a galaxy far, far away! And if you enjoy it, head on over to the full Dumb Scum & Villainy podcast to hear the rest! Enjoying Dumb Scum & Villainy? You can become a Patron of Dumb-Dumbs & Dice for as little as $1 a month at www.patreon.com/dumbdumbdice and gain access to a ton of extra BTS fun. 

Hi there! Welcome to Episode 304 of Never on the Backfoot Podcast. In a cricket-obsessed nation, how does another sport find its voice—and who tells that story?In this special crossover episode, we speak to Akshay and Vijay Lokapally, co-authors of Net Flicks: India's Smashing Affair with the Shuttle. From Prakash Padukone's legacy to PV Sindhu's stardom, we explore the rise of Indian badminton and the challenges shuttlers overcame to break through the cricketing noise.Akshay and Vijay Sir walk us through the inspiration and writing process behind the book, shares stories that didn't make the headlines, and reflects on how sport—and sportswriting—is evolving in India. Even if you live and breathe cricket, this conversation might just make you pick up a racquet—or at least, the book.Thank you so much for tuning in to today's episode and for your incredible support. If you haven't already, make sure to hit the follow button and tap the bell icon on Spotify to stay updated with every new episode.Stay connected with us on social media – follow @neveronthebackfoot on Instagram and Threads, and @neverontheback1 on Twitter (now X) for the latest cricket insights, fresh content, and much more throughout this action-packed season.You can also catch the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify for Podcasters, and many other streaming platforms. Plus, Never on the Backfoot is now on YouTube, so don't forget to subscribe for exclusive, in-depth content coming your way.Thanks again for all your love and support. Until next time, stay safe, take care, and keep enjoying the game. Bye for now!

We did it. We accomplished ... something. What exactly we accomplished is up for debate in this, our last regular episode of the Family Matters watching era. Fasten your tethers tight... one. last. time. Alex Diamond, David Kenny, and John McDaniel heard that the long-running network sitcom Family Matters ends with side character Steve Urkel going to space. And the best way to figure out how that happened - obviously - was to watch the last episode first and make our way backwards through nearly ten years of television. See just how quickly we descended into madness in all the places you expect internet people to be: Website: jumpingtheshuttle.space Email: jumpingtheshuttle@gmail.com Instagram: @JumpingTheShuttle Twitter: @JumpingShuttle TikTok: @JumpingTheShuttle Brought to you by Smooth My Balls 

This Morning's Headlines1. Back home 2. Shuttle diplomacy 3. Defense spending 4. No surrender 5. Rate freeze

From astronauts to engineers, people at NASA have some interesting traditions to mark successful launches. But none may be as famous as Norm Carlson's Launch Beans.

Send us a text and chime in!Great news – you can ride the free WOR Express to the 138th World's Oldest Rodeo! Thanks to a partnership between the Prescott Unified School District and Prescott Frontier Days®, you can have a comfortable, hassle-free trip to the World's Oldest Rodeo. There are three pickup/departure points in Prescott: Residence Inn, Pine Ridge Marketplace, and Springhill Suites. For more information and rodeo tickets, visit worldsoldestrodeo.com or call (928) 445-3103. Evening Performance Shuttle Times Monday-Friday, June 30-July 4 (Times are approximate) Departure Times: STOP A – Residence Inn 3599 Lee Circle 5:00 pm, 5:45 pm, 6:00 pm, 6:45 pm STOP B... For the written story, read here >> https://www.signalsaz.com/articles/worlds-oldest-rodeo-offers-free-express-shuttle/Check out the CAST11.com Website at: https://CAST11.com Follow the CAST11 Podcast Network on Facebook at: https://Facebook.com/CAST11AZFollow Cast11 Instagram at: https://www.instagram.com/cast11_podcast_network

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,America is embarking upon a New Space Age, with companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin ready to partner with NASA to take Americans to a new frontier — possibly as far as Mars. Lately, however, the world is witnessing uncertainty surrounding NASA leadership and even an odd feud between SpaceX boss Elon Musk and the White House. At a critical time for US space competition, let's hope key players can stick the landing.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I chat with James Meigs about the SLS rocket, NASA reforms, and the evolving private sector landscape.Meigs is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He is a contributing editor of City Journal and writer of the Tech Commentary column at Commentary magazine. He is also the former editor of Popular Mechanics.Meigs is the author of a recent report from the Manhattan Institute, U.S. Space Policy: The Next Frontier.In This Episode* So long, Jared Isaacman (1:29)* Public sector priorities (5:36)* Supporting the space ecosystem (11:52)* A new role for NASA (17:27)* American space leadership (21:17)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. So long, Jared Isaacman (1:29)The withdrawal of Jared Isaacman . . . has really been met with total dismay in the space community. Everyone felt like he was the right kind of change agent for the agency that desperately needs reform, but not destruction.Pethokoukis: We're going to talk a lot about your great space policy report, which you wrote before the withdrawal of President Trump's NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman.What do you think of that? Does that change your conclusions? Good move, bad move? Just sort of your general thoughts apart from the surprising nature of it.Meigs: I worked sort of on and off for about a year on this report for the Manhattan Institute about recommendations for space policy, and it just came out a couple of months ago and already it's a different world. So much has happened. The withdrawal of Jared Isaacman — or the yanking of his nomination — has really been met with total dismay in the space community. Everyone felt like he was the right kind of change agent for the agency that desperately needs reform, but not destruction.Now, it remains to be seen what happens in terms of his replacement, but it certainly pulled the rug out from under the idea that NASA could be reformed and yet stay on track for some ambitious goals. I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic that some of these things will happen, but my sense is that the White House is not particularly interested in space.Interestingly, Musk wasn't really that involved in his role of DOGE and stuff. He didn't spend that much time on NASA. He wasn't micromanaging NASA policy, and I don't think Isaacman would've been just a mouthpiece for Musk either. He showed a sense of independence. So it remains to be seen, but my recommendations . . . and I share this with a lot of people advocating reform, is that NASA more or less needs to get out of the rocket-building business, and the Space Launch System, this big overpriced rocket they've been working on for years — we may need to fly it two more times to get us back to the moon, but after that, that thing should be retired. If there's a way to retire it sooner, that would be great. At more than $4 billion a launch, it's simply not affordable, and NASA will not be an agency that can routinely send people into space if we're relying on that white elephant.To me what was exciting about Isaacman was his genuine enthusiasm about space. It seemed like he understood that NASA needed reform and changes to the budget, but that the result would be an agency that still does big things. Is there a fear that his replacement won't be interested in NASA creative destruction, just destruction?We don't know for sure, but the budget that's been proposed is pretty draconian, cutting NASA's funding by about a quarter and recommending particularly heavy cuts in the science missions, which would require cutting short some existing missions that are underway and not moving ahead with other planned missions.There is room for saving in some of these things. I advocate a more nimble approach to NASA's big science missions. Instead of sending one $4 billion rover to Mars every 20 years, once launch costs come down, how about we send ten little ones and if a couple of them don't make it, we could still be getting much more science done for the same price or less. So that's the kind of thing Isaacman was talking about, and that's the kind of thing that will be made possible as launch costs continue to fall, as you've written about, Jim. So it requires a new way of thinking at NASA. It requires a more entrepreneurial spirit and it remains to be seen whether another administrator can bring that along the way. We were hoping that Isaacman would.Public sector priorities (5:36)Congress has never deviated from focusing more on keeping these projects alive than on whether these projects achieve their goals.It seems to me that there are only two reasons, at this point, to be in favor of the SLS rocket. One: There's a political pork jobs aspect. And the other is that it's important to beat China to the moon, which the Artemis program is meant to do. Does that seem accurate?Pretty much, yeah. You can be for beating China the moon and still be against the SLS rocket, you kind of just grit your teeth and say, okay, we've got to fly it two more times because it would be hard to cobble together, in the timeframe available, a different approach — but not impossible. There are other heavy lift rockets. Once you can refuel in orbit and do other things, there's a lot of ways to get a heavy payload into orbit. When I started my report, it looked like SLS was the only game in town, but that's really not the case. There are other options.The Starship has to quit blowing up.I would've loved to have seen the last couple of Starship missions be a little more successful. That's unfortunate. The pork part of SLS just can't be underestimated. From the get go, going way back to when the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011, and even before to when after the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster — that's the second disaster — there was a really big effort to figure out how to replace the space shuttle, what would come next. There was a strong movement in Congress at that time to say, “Well, whatever you build, whatever you do, all the factories that are involved in working on the Space Shuttle, all of the huge workforces in NASA that work on the space shuttle, all of this manpower has to be retained.” And Congress talked a lot about keeping the experience, the expertise, the talent going.I can see some legitimacy to that argument, but if you looked at the world that way, then you would always focus on keeping the jobs of the past viable instead of the jobs of the future: What are we going to do with the blacksmiths who shoe horses? If we lose all this technological capability of shoeing horses . . . we'd better not bring in all these cars! That's an exaggeration, but as a result, first they aim to replace the Space Shuttle with a rocket called Constellation that would recycle some of the Shuttle components. And then eventually they realized that that was just too bloated, too expensive. That got canceled during the Obama administration replaced with the Space Launch System, which is supposed to be cheaper, more efficient, able to be built in a reasonable amount of time.It wound up being just as bloated and also technologically backward. They're still keeping technology from the Shuttle era. The solid fuel engines, which, as we recall from the first Shuttle disaster, were problematic, and the Shuttle main engine design as well. So when SLS flies with humans on board for the first time, supposedly next year, it'll be using technology that was designed before any of the astronauts were even born.In this day and age, that's kind of mind-blowing, and it will retain these enormous workforces in these plants that happen to be located in states with powerful lawmakers. So there's an incredible incentive to just keep it all going, not to let things change, not to let anything be retired, and to keep that money flowing to contractors, to workers and to individual states. Congress has never deviated from focusing more on keeping these projects alive than on whether these projects achieve their goals.I've seen a video of congressional hearings from 15 years ago, and the hostility toward the idea of there being a private-sector alternative to NASA, now it seems almost inexplicable seeing that even some of these people were Republicans from Texas.Seeing where we are now, it's just amazing because now that we have the private sector, we're seeing innovation, we're seeing the drop in launch costs, the reusability — just a completely different world than what existed 15, 16, 17 years ago.I don't think people really realize how revolutionary NASA's commercial programs were. They really sort of snuck them in quietly at first, starting as far back as 2005, a small program to help companies develop their own space transportation systems that could deliver cargo to the International Space Station.SpaceX was initially not necessarily considered a leader in that. It was a little startup company nobody took very seriously, but they wound up doing the best job. Then later they also led the race to be the first to deliver astronauts to the International Space Station, saved NASA billions of dollars, and helped launch this private-industry revolution in space that we're seeing today that's really exciting.It's easy to say, “Oh, NASA's just this old sclerotic bureaucracy,” and there's some truth to that, but NASA has always had a lot of innovative people, and a lot of the pressure of the push to move to this commercial approach where NASA essentially charters a rocket the way you would charter a fishing boat rather than trying to build and own its own equipment. That's the key distinction. You've got to give them credit for that and you also have to give SpaceX enormous credit for endless technological innovation that has brought down these prices.So I totally agree, it's inconceivable to think of trying to run NASA today without their commercial partners. Of course, we'd like to see more than just SpaceX in there. That's been a surprise to people. In a weird way, SpaceX's success is a problem because you want an ecosystem of competitors that NASA can choose from, not just one dominant supplier.Supporting the space ecosystem (11:52)There's a reason that the private space industry is booming in the US much more than elsewhere in the world. But I think they could do better and I'd like to see reform there.Other than the technical difficulty of the task, is there something government could be doing or not doing, perhaps on the regulatory side, to encourage a more sort of a bigger, more vibrant space ecosystem.In my Manhattan Institute report, I recommend some changes, particularly, the FAA needs to continue reforming its launch regulations. They're more restrictive and take longer than they should. I think they're making some progress. They recently authorized more launches of the experimental SpaceX Starship, but it shouldn't take months to go through the paperwork to authorize the launch of a new spacecraft.I think the US, we're currently better than most countries in terms of allowing private space. There's a reason that the private space industry is booming in the US much more than elsewhere in the world. But I think they could do better and I'd like to see reform there.I also think NASA needs to continue its efforts to work with a wide range of vendors in this commercial paradigm and accept that a lot of them might not pan out. We've seen a really neat NASA program to help a lot of different companies, but a lot of startups have been involved in trying to build and land small rovers on the moon. Well, a lot of them have crashed.Not an easy task apparently.No. When I used to be editor of Popular Mechanics magazine, one of the great things I got to do was hang out with Buzz Aldrin, and Buzz Aldrin talking about landing on the moon — now, looking back, you realize just how insanely risky that was. You see all these rovers designed today with all the modern technology failing to land a much smaller, lighter object safely on the moon, and you just think, “Wow, that was an incredible accomplishment.” And you have so much admiration for the guts of the guys who did it.As they always say, space is hard, and I think NASA working with commercial vendors to help them, give them some seed money, help them get started, pay them a set fee for the mission that you're asking for, but also build into your planning — just the way an entrepreneur would — that some product launches aren't going to work, some ideas are going to fail, sometimes you're going to have to start over. That's just part of the process, and if you're not spending ridiculous amounts of money, that's okay.When we talk about vendors, who are we talking about? When we talk about this ecosystem as it currently exists, what do these companies do besides SpaceX?The big one that everybody always mentions first, of course, is Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos's startup that's been around as long as SpaceX, but just moved much more slowly. Partly because when it first started up, it was almost as much of a think tank to explore different ideas about space and less of a scrappy startup trying to just make money by launching satellites for paying customers as soon as possible. That was Musk's model. But they've finally launched. They've launched a bunch of suborbital flights, you've seen where they carry various celebrities and stuff up to the edge of space for a few minutes and they come right back down. That's been a chance for them to test out their engines, which have seemed solid and reliable, but they've finally done one mission with their New Glenn rocket. Like SpaceX, it's a reusable rocket which can launch pretty heavy payloads. Once that gets proven and they've had a few more launches under their belt, should be an important part of this ecosystem.But you've got other companies, you've got Stoke Aerospace, you've got Firefly . . . You've got a few companies that are in the launch business, so they want to compete with SpaceX to launch mostly satellites for paying customers, also cargo for payloads for governments. And then you have a lot of other companies that are doing various kinds of space services and they're not necessarily going to try to be in the launch business per se. We don't need 40 different companies doing launches with different engines, different designs, different fuels, and stuff like that. Eight or 10 might be great, six might be great. We'll see how the market sorts out.But then if you look at the development of the auto industry, it started with probably hundreds of little small shops, hand-building cars, but by the mid-century it had settled down to a few big companies through consolidation. And instead of hundreds of engine designs that were given 1950, there were probably in the US, I don't know, 12 engine designs or something like that. Stuff got standardized — we'll see the same thing happen in space — but you also saw an enormous ecosystem of companies building batteries, tires, transmissions, parts, wipers, all sorts of little things and servicing in an industry to service the automobile. Now, rockets are a lot more centralized and high-tech, but you're going to see something like that in the space economy, and it's already happening.A new role for NASA (17:27)I think NASA should get more ambitious in deep-space flight, both crewed and uncrewed.What do you see NASA should be doing? We don't want them designing rockets anymore, so what should they do? What does that portfolio look like?That's an excellent question. I think that we are in this pivotal time when, because of the success of SpaceX, and hopefully soon other vendors, they can relieve themselves of that responsibility to build their own rockets. That gets out of a lot of the problems of Congress meddling to maximize pork flowing to their states and all of that kind of stuff. So that's a positive in itself.Perhaps a bug rather than a feature for Congress.Right, but it also means that technology will move much, much faster as private companies are innovating and competing with each other. That gives NASA an opportunity. What should they do with it? I think NASA should get more ambitious in deep-space flight, both crewed and uncrewed. Because it'll get much cheaper to get cargo into orbit to get payload up there, as I said, they can launch more science missions, and then when it comes to human missions, I like the overall plan of Artemis. The details were really pulled together during the first Trump administration, which had a really good space policy overall, which is to return to the moon, set up a permanent or long-term habitation on the moon. The way NASA sketches it out, not all the burden is carried by NASA.They envision — or did envision — a kind of ecosystem on the moon where you might have private vendors there providing services. You might have a company that mines ice and makes oxygen, and fuel, and water for the residents of these space stations. You might have somebody else building habitation that could be used by visiting scientists who are not NASA astronauts, but also used by NASA.There's all this possibility to combine what NASA does with the private sector, and what NASA should always do is be focused on the stuff the private sector can't yet do. That would be the deep-space probes. That would be sending astronauts on the most daring non-routine missions. As the private sector develops the ability to do some of those things, then NASA can move on to the next thing. That's one set of goals.Another set of goals is to do the research into technologies, things that are hard for the private sector to undertake. In particular, things like new propulsion for deep-space travel. There's a couple of different designs for nuclear rocket engines that I think are really promising, super efficient. Sadly, under the current budget cuts that are proposed at NASA, that's one of the programs that's being cut, and if you really want to do deep space travel routinely, ultimately, chemical fuels, they're not impossible, but they're not as feasible because you've got to get all that heavy — whatever your fuel is, methane or whatever it is — up into either into orbit or you've got to manufacture it on the moon or somewhere. The energy density of plutonium or uranium is just so much higher and it just allows you to do so much more with lighter weight. So I'd like to see them research those kinds of things that no individual private company could really afford to do at this point, and then when the technology is more mature, hand it off to the private sector.American space leadership (21:17)Exploration's never been totally safe, and if people want to take risks on behalf of a spirit of adventure and on behalf of humanity at large, I say we let them.If things go well —reforms, funding, lower launch costs — what does America's role in space look like in 10 to 15 years, and what's your concern if things go a darker route, like cutting nuclear engine research you were just talking about?I'll sketch out the bright scenario. This is very up your alley, Jim.Yeah, I viewed this as a good thing, so you tell me what it is.In 15 years I would love to see a small permanent colony at the south pole of the moon where you can harvest ice from the craters and maybe you'd have some habitation there, maybe even a little bit of space tourism starting up. People turn up their nose at space tourism, but it's a great way to help fund really important research. Remember the Golden Age of Exploration, James Cook and Darwin, those expeditions were self-funded. They were funded by rich people. If rich people want to go to space, I say I'm all for it.So a little base on the moon, important research going on, we're learning how to have people live on a foreign body, NASA is gathering tons of information and training for the next goal, which I think is even more important: I do agree we should get people to Mars. I don't think we should bypass the moon to get to Mars, I don't think that's feasible, that's what Elon Musk keeps suggesting. I think it's too soon for that. We want to learn about how people handle living off-planet for a long period of time closer to home — and how to mine ice and how to do all these things — closer to home, three or four days away, not months and months away. If something goes wrong, they'll be a lot more accessible.But I'd like to see, by then, some Mars missions and maybe an attempt to start the first long-term habitation of Mars. I don't think we're going to see that in 10 years, but I think that's a great goal, and I don't think it's a goal that taxpayers should be expected to fund 100 percent. I think by then we should see even more partnerships where the private companies that really want to do this — and I'm looking at Elon Musk because he's been talking about it for 20 years — they should shoulder a lot of the costs of that. If they see a benefit in that, they should also bear some of the costs. So that's the bright scenario.Along with that, all kinds of stuff going on in low-earth orbit: manufacturing drugs, seeing if you can harness solar energy, private space stations, better communications, and a robust science program exploring deep space with unmanned spacecraft. I'd like to see all of that. I think that could be done for a reasonable amount of money with the proper planning.The darker scenario is that we've just had too much chaos and indecision in NASA for years. We think of NASA as being this agency of great exploration, but they've done very little for 20 years . . . I take that back — NASA's uncrewed space program has had a lot of successes. It's done some great stuff. But when it comes to manned space flight, it's pretty much just been the International Space Station, and I think we've gotten most of the benefit out of that. They're planning to retire that in 2030. So then what happens? After we retired the Space Shuttle, space practically went into a very low-growth period. We haven't had a human being outside of low-earth orbit since Apollo, and that's embarrassing, frankly. We should be much more ambitious.I'm afraid we're entering a period where, without strong leadership and without a strong focus on really grand goals, then Congress will reassert its desire to use NASA as a piggy bank for their states and districts and aerospace manufacturers will build the stuff they're asked to build, but nothing will move very quickly. That's the worst-case scenario. We'll see, but right now, with all of the kind of disorder in Washington, I think we are in a period where we should be concerned.Can America still call itself the world's space leader if its role is mainly launching things into Earth orbit, with private companies running space stations for activities like drug testing or movie production if, meanwhile, China is building space stations and establishing a presence on the Moon? In that scenario, doesn't it seem like China is the world's leader in space?That's a real issue. China has a coherent nationalistic plan for space, and they are pursuing it, they're pouring a lot of resources into it, and they're making a lot of headway. As always, when China rolls out its new, cutting-edge technology, it usually looks a lot like something originally built in the US, and they're certainly following SpaceX's model as closely as they can in terms of reusable rockets right now.China wants to get to the moon. They see this as a space race the way the Soviets saw a space race. It's a battle for national prestige. One thing that worries me, is under the Artemis plan during the first Trump administration, there was also something called the Artemis Accords — it still exists — which is an international agreement among countries to A) join in where they can if they want, with various American initiatives. So we've got partners that we're planning to build different parts of the Artemis program, including a space station around the moon called Gateway, which actually isn't the greatest idea, but the European Space Agency and others were involved in helping build it.But also, all these countries, more than 50 countries have signed on to these aspirational goals of the Artemis Accords, which are: freedom of navigation, shared use of space, going for purposes of peaceful exploration, being transparent about what you're doing in space so that other countries can see it, avoiding generating more space junk, space debris, which is a huge problem with all the stuff we've got up there now, including a lot of old decrepit satellites and rocket bodies. So committing to not just leaving your upper-stage rocket bodies drifting around in space. A lot of different good goals, and the fact that all these countries wanted to join in on this shows America's preeminence. But if we back away, or become chaotic, or start disrespecting those allies who've signed on, they're going to look for another partner in space and China is going to roll out the red carpet for them.You get a phone call from SpaceX. They've made some great leap forwards. That Starship, it's ready to go to Mars. They're going to create a human habitation out there. They need a journalist. By the way, it's a one-way trip. Do you go?I don't go to Mars. I've got family here. That comes first for me. But I know some people want to do that, and I think that we should celebrate that. The space journalist Rand Simberg wrote a book years ago called Safe Is Not An Option — that we should not be too hung up on trying to make space exploration totally safe. Exploration's never been totally safe, and if people want to take risks on behalf of a spirit of adventure and on behalf of humanity at large, I say we let them. So maybe that first trip to Mars is a one-way trip, or at least a one-way for a couple of years until more flights become feasible and more back-and-forth return flights become something that can be done routinely. It doesn't really appeal to me, but it'll appeal to somebody, and I'm glad we have those kinds of people in our society.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Trump economy shows surprising resilience despite tariff impacts - Wapo* Supply Chains Become New Battleground in the Global Trade War - WSJ* This A.I. Company Wants to Take Your Job - NYT* The Mirage of Geoeconomics - PS* Japan urged to use gloomier population forecasts after plunge in births - FT* Europe's nuclear fusion potential draws record investment round - FT▶ Business* How Disney's AI lawsuit could shift the future of entertainment - Wapo* Meta plans big bet on AI's secret ingredient: human brains - FT* Nvidia and Perplexity Team Up in European AI Push - WSJ* CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactions - Arxiv* Fervo Snags $206 Million for Cape Station Geothermal - Heatmap* BYD launches cut-price EVs in Europe amid global price war - Semafor▶ Policy/Politics* The right refuses to take AI seriously - Vox* The Gig Economy Benefits Freelance Workers—Until Regulation Steps In - AEI* The war is on for Congress' AI law ban - The Verge* Disney and Universal Sue AI Company Midjourney for Copyright Infringement - Wired* Big Tech Is Finally Losing - NYT Opinion* American Science's Culture Has Contributed to the Grave Threat It Now Faces - Real Clear Science▶ AI/Digital* New Apple study challenges whether AI models truly “reason” through problems - Ars* The problem of AI chatbots telling people what they want to hear - FT* With the launch of o3-pro, let's talk about what AI “reasoning” actually does - Ars* ‘This is coming for everyone': A new kind of AI bot takes over the web - Wapo* Europe's AI computing shortage ‘will be resolved' soon, says Nvidia chief - FT* We're Not Ready for the AI Power Surge - Free Press▶ Biotech/Health* Pancreatic cancer vaccine eradicates trace of disease in early trials - New Atlas* World first: brain implant lets man speak with expression — and sing - Nature* The Alzheimer's drug pipeline is healthier than you might think - The Economist▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Big Tech Cares About Clean Energy Tax Credits — But Maybe Not Enough - Heatmap* Nvidia ‘Climate in a Bottle' Opens a View Into Earth's Future. What Will We Do With It? - WSJ* Oil's Lost Decade Is About to Be Repeated - Bberg Opinion* How the Pentagon Secretly Sparked America's Clean Energy Boom - The Debrief▶ Space/Transportation* Musk-Trump feud is a wake-up call on space - FT* Trump's 2026 budget cuts would force the world's most powerful solar telescope to close - Space▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* ‘Invasive Species'? Japan's Growing Pains on Immigration - Bberg Opinion* Incredible Testimonies - Aeon* How and When Was the Wheel Invented? - Real Clear Science▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Trump's "beautiful" bill wrecks our energy future - Slow Boring* DOGE Looked Broken Before the Trump-Musk Breakup - The Dispatch* Steve Teles on abundance: prehistory, present, and future - The Permanent Problem* Is Macroeconomics a Mature Science? - Conversable EconomistFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode of the Goosed.ie Podcast, I'm joined by Scott Ashmore, co-founder of Shuttle, the fintech startup on a mission to modernise how startups raise money — and how everyday people can get involved in the investment world.We chat about:

This week, I'm joined by Scott Ashmore and Rob Halligan, co-founders of Shuttle - a platform giving individuals access to venture capital deals that have traditionally been reserved for the ultra-wealthy.Scott and Rob are best friends of 25 years, first-time founders, and the type of guys who rolled up their sleeves, built something that didn't scale, tore it all down, and came back with something far more powerful - and regulated - with Shuttle.We get into:Their early days of investing together that kicked it all offThat raw turning point moment at Web Summit 2022 when they knew the original plan wasn't going to workWhat it took to get regulated and launch a platform built for the digitally-native, tech-savvy retail investorWhy retail investors should have a front-row seat to venture capital opportunities—and how Shuttle is making that happenThis is a story of friendship, frustration with the status quo, and the belief that access to financial upside shouldn't be limited by your net worth.Learn more about Shuttle: Shuttle enables busy professionals to co-invest alongside well-known venture capital firms, regardless of their knowledge, network or net worth. Since launching in December last year, they've already enabled their customers to invest alongside 15 VC funds.LINKS:Shuttle:  Website  |  X/(Twitter)  |  LinkedIn |  Unsophisticated Investor NewsletterScott Ashmore:  LinkedInRob Halligan:  LinkedInLeave a review & subscribe on: Apple Podcasts  |  Spotify  |  MoneyNeverSleeps (website)Email us: info@norioventures.comPete Townsend:  X/Twitter  |  LinkedIn MoneyNeverSleeps:  X/Twitter  |  LinkedIn  |  Newsletter

Barnes and Sam follow McMillan to Chicago and a Country Club in Ft. Sheridan. They witness the passing of something and it leads to a shocking conclusion. The crew of the Mercury gets the Shuttle on board containing JoMac and Slane assesses his condition. Thornton and Scarlett meet with Jonathan Windsor's prom date Sandy from back in the day. The crew of the Prometheus prepares the ship to escort the Mercury back to Boldibar. Kate and Nelson learn more about the Lee family and their connection to Kate's old nemesis Wei Wong. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Barnes and Sam follow McMillan to Chicago and a Country Club in Ft. Sheridan. They witness the passing of something and it leads to a shocking conclusion. The crew of the Mercury gets the Shuttle on board containing JoMac and Slane assesses his condition. Thornton and Scarlett meet with Jonathan Windsor's prom date Sandy from back in the day. The crew of the Prometheus prepares the ship to escort the Mercury back to Boldibar. Kate and Nelson learn more about the Lee family and their connection to Kate's old nemesis Wei Wong. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Die aktuellen Automobilkurznachrichten mit Michael Weyland   Thema heute: Citroen bringt den neuen e-Berlingo MPV auf die Straße: flexibel, elektrisch, alltagstauglich   Citroën stellt mit dem neuen ë-Berlingo MPV ein vielseitiges Elektrofahrzeug vor, das den Alltag mit intelligentem Raumkonzept, moderner Ausstattung und lokal emissionsfreiem Antrieb bereichert. Als praktisches Multi Purpose Vehicle (MPV) mit Nutzfahrzeugzulassung bietet der neue ë-Berlingo MPV die bewährte Citroën Qualität in einem flexiblen, robusten und funktionalen Fahrzeug – jetzt auch vollelektrisch. Der neue ë-Berlingo MPV wird in der Länge M (4,40 m) angeboten und kommt serienmäßig mit fünf Sitzen. Er verfügt über ein großzügiges Platzangebot für Passagiere und Gepäck. Mit seinem Elektromotor mit 100 kW (136 PS) Leistung und einer 50-kWh-Batterie erreicht der neue ë-Berlingo MPV eine praxistaugliche Reichweite von bis zu 334 Kilometern (WLTP) – perfekt für tägliche Fahrten im urbanen und suburbanen Umfeld. Das moderne Cockpit kann mit einem 10-Zoll-Touchscreen, kabelloser Smartphone-Integration via Apple CarPlay™ und Android Auto™, sowie einem digitalen Kombiinstrument ausgestattet werden. Zur Serienausstattung zählen eine Klimaanlage, elektrische Fensterheber vorn, eine hintere Einparkhilfe und das Citroën Sicherheitspaket mit Spurassistent, Notbremsassistent und Verkehrszeichenerkennung. Der ë-Berlingo MPV zeichnet sich durch hohe Alltagstauglichkeit aus – mit manuellen Schiebetüren, robustem Ladebereich mit Gepäckraumtrennung, und optional erhältlichen praktischen Paketen wie Style & Comfort oder dem Sichtpaket mit LED-Tagfahrlicht und Regensensor. Die Standardfarbe ist Eis-Weiß, zudem erhältlich sind die Farben Perla-Nera-Schwarz, Stahl-Grau, Kiama-Blau sowie Sirkka-Grün. Mit einer AC-Ladeleistung von 11 kW (dreiphasig) und optionalem DC-Schnellladen (bis zu 80 Prozent in rund 30 Minuten) ist der ë-Berlingo MPV optimal für flexible Ladeszenarien gerüstet. Dank seiner kompakten Außenmaße bei großzügigem Innenraum eignet er sich ideal als vielseitiges Familienfahrzeug, urbaner Lastenträger oder Shuttle. Der Preis für die Variante YOU startet in Deutschland bei 34.390 Euro und ist jetzt bestellbar. Alle Fotos: Citroen/Stellantis Diesen Beitrag können Sie nachhören oder downloaden unter:

Das große Finale: Phaser leer, Speicher voll, und ein letzter Blick ins HolodeckWillkommen an Bord einer Episode des Videogamecast, die sich mutiger in die Untiefen der Star Trek-Videospiele stürzt als ein Ferengi auf der Suche nach Profit. Gordon und Tobi haben sich diesmal Andy von RocksterTV ins Shuttle geholt, um gemeinsam eine mit Humor getränkte Langstreckenmission durch das Universum der Sternenflotten-Spiele anzutreten. Ob Trekkie, Zocker oder einfach nur neugieriger Passagier auf dem Holodeck – in dieser Episode findet jeder seinen Platz im Kanon.

In this episode, Pivot founder Chris Cocalis, graphic designer (and resident SL/AM superfan) Paz Chinchilla and host Jens Staudt dig into the all-new Shuttle SL/AM—why it was built, who it's for, and how it brings big-bike energy to a lightweight e-MTB platform.

Pivot acaba de presentar la nueva Shuttle SL/AM, una e-bike ligera de all-mountain con 160/150 mm de recorrido de suspensiones, sistema BOSCH Performance Line SX con batería de 400 Wh, ruedas de 29” en ambos ejes, sistema de suspensión trasera DW-Link y un montaje superior por debajo de los 18 kg de peso. También nos hacemos eco de la actualización de SRAM para cambiar de un grupo mecánico a un GX Eagle AXS electrónico e inalámbrico. Y del nuevo Brose QORE con motor Drive³ Peak con 95 Nm, 2,9 kg y 600 W potencia pico. Canyon ha incorporado su cockpit PACE, que hasta ahora sólo estaba disponible en la Aeroad, en las Ultimate y Endurace. Este conjunto de manillar-potencia PACE permite adoptar una posición más aerodinámica y acoplar los apoyos de triatlón. Además, Canyon ha incorporado un nuevo cierre de sillín para la Ultimate que permite ajustar de forma independiente la inclinación y el retroceso del sillín y una herramienta TX25 en el eje pasante de la rueda delantera. Por último, la marca alemana ha inaugurado el servicio Collect & Ride en España y Portugal con un acuerdo para recoger tu bici montada y ajustada en diferentes talleres y tiendas adscritas a este programa. Por último, repasamos las cifras del Shimano Rebound 2024 y te contamos todo sobre la edición 2025. Este programa ha sido posible gracias a Cannondale, que ha renovado su Moterra con dos nuevas variantes, una más trail con 160/150 mm de recorrido de suspensiones y dos ruedas de 29” o la Moterra LT con ruedas mullet y 170/165 mm, ambas con cuadro full-carbon y sistema BOSCH Performance Line CX 5. Tienes toda la información sobre ambas versiones de la moterra en www.cannondale.com. Enlaces de interés: Nueva Pivot Shuttle SL/AM: https://www.mtbpro.es/actualidad/pivot-shuttle-slam-la-all-mountain-electrica-de-la-marca-ahora-mas-ligera Kit actualización SRAM GX Eagle AXS: https://www.mtbpro.es/actualidad/kit-de-actualizacion-sram-gx-eagle-axs-transmission-pasate-al-electronico-por-650-eu Nuevo Brose QORE: https://www.mtbpro.es/actualidad/brose-qore-el-renovado-sistema-de-asistencia-para-e-bikes-que-la-marca-presentara-en Novedades para la Ultimate y Endurace: https://www.maillotmag.com/actualidad/canyon-incorpora-el-cockpit-pace-en-las-ultimate-y-endurace Canyon Collect & Ride: https://www.maillotmag.com/actualidad/canyon-inaugura-su-servicio-collect-ride-en-espana-y-portugal Shimano Rebound Gravel 2025: https://www.maillotmag.com/actualidad/shimano-rebound-2025-en-busca-de-superar-los-400000-participantes-en-el-evento-gravel La actualidad en MTBpro: https://www.mtbpro.es/actualidad La actualidad en Maillot Mag: https://www.maillotmag.com/actualidad

Dinner chat on the space station, landing in the Shuttle and flying with William Shatner! Hosts Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham chat to NASA astronaut Nicole Stott about painting in space and whether we should send politicians into orbit! They also visit Space Shuttle Discovery in Washington to meet curator Jennifer Levassuer, Sue talks to Blue Origin astronaut Chris Boshuizen who pioneered phones in space, and the proposed NASA budget and what that means for Europe goes under the microscope...Contact us @spaceboffins and podcast@spaceboffins.com Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Dinner chat on the space station, landing in the Shuttle and flying with William Shatner! Hosts Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham chat to NASA astronaut Nicole Stott about painting in space and whether we should send politicians into orbit! They also visit Space Shuttle Discovery in Washington to meet curator Jennifer Levassuer, Sue talks to Blue Origin astronaut Chris Boshuizen who pioneered phones in space, and the proposed NASA budget and what that means for Europe goes under the microscope...Contact us @spaceboffins and podcast@spaceboffins.com Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Get ready to embark on a journey through aviation history as the LEGO Group announces the new LEGO Icons Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. This is a must-have for aerospace enthusiasts and LEGO® fans alike! The stunning new set allows you recreate the iconic Boeing™ 747™ and NASA Space Shuttle Enterprise, the dynamic duo that played a crucial role in shaping the future of space travel. Savor every moment, as you bring this iconic tribute to innovation and exploration to life, piece by piece.The LEGO Icons Shuttle Carrier Aircraft is available for LEGO Insiders from 15th May 2025 at www.LEGO.com/Shuttle and LEGO Stores for all from 18th May 2025 priced at €229.99/ £199.99/ $229.99.Enjoying the show...give us a like and comment on all platforms. Help us make the LEGO world available to all!Find us everywhere through LinkTreeMusic: www.bensound.comLEGO, the LEGO logo, the Minifigure, and the Brick and Knob configurations are trademarks of the LEGO Group of Companies. ©2025 The LEGO Group.THE BRICKS KING PODCAST IS NOT ENDORSED BY THE LEGO GROUP OR AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-bricks-king-podcast-lego--4920139/support.

Shawn Linam, Aerospace Entrepreneur & Host of In Her Orbit Podcast  Shawn Linam's journey didn't start with a telescope or dreams of rockets—it began with candy striping, biomedical engineering, and a resilient heart that would eventually take her to NASA. Listen for a candid conversation about the challenges and joys of being a woman in the space exploration industry, raising kids while growing a company, and navigating a professional trajectory that's anything but linear. Shawn shares the behind-the-scenes truths of her extraordinary career: from training astronauts at Johnson Space Center to co-founding her own company after a surprise layoff (while on maternity leave!). Together, Beth and Shawn reflect on NASA culture, building confidence in male-dominated fields, and why mentoring the next generation—especially girls in STEM—is the legacy that matters most.  About Shawn Linam: Shawn Linam is the co-founder and CEO of Qwaltec, a space systems operations and training company. Before launching her own business, she served as a NASA trainer supporting the International Space Station and Shuttle programs. Today, she leads In Her Orbit, a podcast amplifying women's voices in STEM and beyond. A mom, leader, and advocate for women in space-related careers, Shawn continues to mentor, speak, and support others as they launch their own bold missions.

A fully operational R2 is now displayed standing with arms and legs extended as it looks straight at Discovery's starboard side.

A new free of charge shuttle bus service connecting two of Clare's most prominent tourist destinations to towns and villages has officially been launched today. The Burren and Cliffs Explorer is expected to run for the next three months and significantly ease traffic congestion in the region. National Parks and Wildlife Service Manager William Cormican says it should play a big role in taking care of the roads.

A new free of charge shuttle bus service connecting two of Clare's most prominent tourist destinations to towns and villages has officially been launched today. The Burren and Cliffs Explorer is expected to run for the next three months and significantly ease traffic congestion in the region. There are seven busses in the fleet for seven different routes that will all be operated by C&C Executive Travel. The service begins at 9am daily in Miltown Malbay, Kilfenora, Doolin and Liscannor and will have busses arriving at, and leaving the Cliffs of Moher every half hour. Clare Tourism Director Siobhán McNulty believes it will bring major benefits.

Strap in with your inanimate carbon rod and start hitting switches! It's BIG EPISODE 500 of the Amigos Everything Amiga Show, and we're going to the STARS! Well...we'd like to go to the stars...which one of these buttons released the parking break? It's SHUTTLE, and I promise you, we'll be going boldly where NO MAN has gone before!

Strap in with your inanimate carbon rod and start hitting switches! It's BIG EPISODE 500 of the Amigos Everything Amiga Show, and we're going to the STARS! Well...we'd like to go to the stars...which one of these buttons released the parking break? It's SHUTTLE, and I promise you, we'll be going boldly where NO MAN has gone before!

Astronomy Daily | Space News: S04E89In this episode of Astronomy Daily, host Steve Dunkley takes you on a fascinating journey through the latest developments in space exploration and astronomy. From the nostalgic reminiscence of the first IMAX film shot in space to the potential cuts in NASA's funding, this episode is filled with stories that will intrigue both space enthusiasts and casual listeners alike.Highlights:- Celebrating 40 Years of IMAX in Space: Join us as we revisit the groundbreaking IMAX film "The Dream Is Alive," which was shot aboard the space shuttle. Steve shares insights from astronaut Marcia Ivins and cinematographer James Nahouse, who reveal behind-the-scenes stories about this iconic film and its impact on public engagement with space exploration.- NASA's Proposed Budget Cuts:Explore the concerning news surrounding the Trump administration's potential budget cuts to NASA, which could slash funding for vital science programs by nearly half. We discuss the implications of these cuts on ongoing and future missions, including the fate of the Nancy Chris Roman Space Telescope and the Voyager missions.- Innovative Lunar Construction Materials: Discover the exciting research from the University of Texas at Dallas, which proposes using self-healing concrete, or bioconcrete, for building structures on the Moon. This innovative material, made with bacteria and lunar regolith, could revolutionize lunar habitats and support long-term human presence on the Moon and Mars.- NASA and Roscosmos Extend Seat Barter Agreement: Learn about the renewed collaboration between NASA and Roscosmos, allowing for integrated crews on the International Space Station through 2027. This agreement ensures that astronauts from both agencies can work together, promoting international cooperation in space exploration.For more cosmic updates, visit our website at astronomydaily.io. Join our community on social media by searching for #AstroDailyPod on Facebook, X, YouTubeMusic, TikTok, and our new Instagram account! Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, or wherever you get your podcasts.Thank you for tuning in. This is Steve signing off. Until next time, keep looking up and stay curious about the wonders of our universe.00:00 - Welcome to Astronomy Daily01:05 - 40 Years of IMAX in Space10:30 - Proposed NASA budget cuts17:00 - Self-healing concrete for lunar construction22:15 - NASA and Roscosmos seat barter agreement✍️ Episode ReferencesIMAX in Space[National Air and Space Museum](https://airandspace.si.edu/)NASA Budget Cuts[Ars Technica](https://arstechnica.com/)Bioconcrete Research[University of Texas at Dallas](https://www.utdallas.edu/)NASA and Roscosmos Collaboration[NASA](https://www.nasa.gov)Astronomy Daily[Astronomy Daily](http://www.astronomydaily.io/)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/astronomy-daily-exciting-space-discoveries-and-news--5648921/support.

Eigentlich sollte Chris ein echtes New Orleans-Musikfeuerwerk ins Shuttle bringen – doch es kam ganz anders. Improvisation ist angesagt! Markus nimmt Chris ins Kreuzverhör, und was folgt, ist eine wilde Reise durch grüne Paraden, Mississippi-Illusionen, tanzende Hühnchen und pumpenden HipHop. Dazu gibt's ärztliche Hilfe, frittiertes Soulfood, eine Prise Hurrikan – und obendrauf noch Vampire, Voodoo-Zauber und gruselige Gräber inmitten der Südstaatenromantik. Tauche ein in eine Folge voller guter Laune, schräger Stories und natürlich: feinster Musik – serviert mit einem kalten Bier in den Straßen von NOLA. Dich erwartet der perfekte Mix aus Radio und Podcast – voller guter Musik und jeder Menge Spaß. Eine Sendung zum Abfeiern! Wenn dir unsere Sendung gefällt, freuen wir uns über ein kostenloses Abo und eine Bewertung in deinem Podcast-Player. Für direktes Feedback schau gerne auf unserer Webseite http://vinylopresso.ch oder auf Instagram und Facebook vorbei.

Could our reality be a simulation? Tom Campbell, a Physicist, lecturer, and author, joins us today to challenge the notion of reality as we perceive it, explaining his groundbreaking Theory of Everything (“My Big T.O.E”) and how our perception of the world may be part of a vast simulation. Get ready to explore the nature of free will, entropy, our connection to a larger consciousness system, and how this gives purpose and meaning to our existence.OUR GUESTTHOMAS W. CAMPBELL (born December 9, 1944) is a physicist, lecturer, and author of the trilogy My Big TOE (Theory of Everything), which aims to unify general relativity, quantum mechanics, and metaphysics along with the origins of consciousness. His work is based on the simulation argument, proposing that reality is both virtual and subjective. In 2017, Campbell and his co-authors published the paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory" in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations, suggesting several experiments to test this hypothesis.Campbell holds both a B.S. and an M.S. in Physics. He started but did not complete a PhD in experimental nuclear physics, with a thesis on low-energy nuclear collisions. He worked as a systems analyst with U.S. Army technical intelligence for a decade before moving into the R&D of technology supporting defensive missile systems. For nearly 30 years, he worked within the U.S. missile defense community as a contractor to the Department of Defense. Most recently, he worked for NASA's Ares I program (the successor to the Shuttle), assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to ensure mission and crew survivability and success.TOM CAMPBELL

As you've been hearing on Clare FM news, new hopon hop-off shuttle bus service linking towns, villages and visitor attractions throughout North and West Clare is the subject of public consultation and engagement sessions taking place in Miltown Malbay and Kilfenora on Monday (April 7, 2025) and Tuesday (April 8, 2025) next. The free “Burren and Cliffs Explorer” set to be launched by Clare County Council, in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), this summer will be open to online and onsite bookings. To tell us more about this, Alan Morrissey was joined by Lisdoonvarna Fine Gael Councillor, Joe Garrihy. Photo(C): mladn61 from Getty Images Signature via canva

Two more stops have been confirmed as part of a Cliffs of Moher shuttle bus service due to commence on May 1st. The service will now take on passengers at Corofin and Carran in addition to halts at Kilfenora, Doolin, Liscannor, Lahinch Miltown Malbay and Lisdoonvarna, with the latter two both to serve as hubs with facilities and free parking. The service is expected to run until August 31st with a potential extension until September, while public consultation on the proposed timetables will run from now until the end of next month. Corofin Fianna Fáil Councillor Joe Killeen is hopeful it will become a permanent feature.

A call for unity brings the crew to a Temple of Triune, where 18 of the original 19 androids have gathered—searching for the last to complete their connection. Their quest leads the team east of Veridian Colony on a rescue mission, but instead of salvation, they find a standoff. Draeliks emerge from the shadows, weapons drawn, demanding the Necropositrine Ray. Will diplomacy prevail, or is another battle inevitable? Tune in to find out! ⚙️

THIS VOYAGE, theTreksperts, MARK A. ALTMAN (author, The Fifty Year Mission, writer/producer, Pandora, Agent X, The Librarians, writer/producer Free Enterprise), DAREN DOCHTERMAN (associate producer, Star Trek: The Motion Picture) and ASHLEY E. MILLER (showrunner; DOTA: Dragon's Blood, writer, X-Men: First Class, Thor) welcome DR. DAVID ALEXANDER, flight surgeon for NASA's Johnson Space Center as he talks about space medicine, being inspired by Leonard "Bones" McCoy and whether engineers really love to change things.Dr. Alexander is a certified Flight Controller for the International Space Station and Shuttle. He served as Deputy Crew Surgeon for Shuttle Mission STS-123 and ISS Expeditions 11, 23, and 47. He was the Lead Crew Surgeon for Expeditions 14, 33/34, 42/43 and 52. He was also Lead Crew Surgeon for STS-128.**TREKSPERTS+ SUBSCRIBERS NOW GET COMMERCIAL FREE EPISODES ONE WEEK EARLY! SUBSCRIBE TODAY AT TREKSPERTSPLUS.COM****Join us on our new INGLORIOUS TREKSPERTS DISCORD Channel at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/7kgmJSExeh⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Learn all that is learnable about Star Trek in Mark A. Altman & Edward Gross' THE FIFTY-YEAR MISSION, available in hardcover, paperback, digital and audio from St. Maritn's Press. Follow Inglorious Treksperts at @inglorioustrek on Twitter, Facebook and at @inglorioustreksperts on Instagram. And now follow the Treksperts Briefing Room at @trekspertsBR, an entirely separate Twitter & Instagram feed."Mark A. Altman is the world's foremost Trekspert" - Los Angeles Times

In questa puntata spaziale, Paolo Attivissimo, giornalista e curatore del blog Attivissimo.me, ci ha parlato di tecnologia e di missioni nello spazio. Dagli anni 60 ad oggi abbiamo esplorato i problemi logistici e le soluzioni di tecnologia informatica che scienziati e astronauti hanno dovuto adottare per rispondere al più sfidanti degli ambienti. Ovviamente, con un briciolo di attenzione a ciò che c'è di reale e concreto dietro alla narrazione leggendaria di quelle imprese senza precedenti.Ospite: Paolo AttivissimoRedazione: Elisa Baioni, Clarissa Esposti, Manuela Gialanella, Diego Martin, Matteo Melchiori, Giuseppe Molle, Alex Ordiner, Dasara Shullani, Matilde  Spagnolo, Cristiano Ursella, Chiara Vitaloni, Enrico ZabeoAltri riferimenti:https://attivissimo.me/, Il Blog di Paolo AttivissimoMusiche:https://www.epidemicsound.com/ Epidemic SoundSeguiteci sui profili social del CICAP:Facebook: @cicap.orgInstagram: cicap_itNewsletter: https://eepurl.com/ihPeWL

Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hypnosis-and-relaxation-sound-therapy9715/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The space business landscape is changing. Companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are moving at breakneck speed toward goals Americans have dreamed of since the 1960s. At the same time, a whole host of smaller startups are arriving on the scene, ready to tackle everything from asteroid mining to next-gen satellites to improved lunar missions.Today on Faster, Please — The Podcast, I'm talking with Matt Weinzierl about what research developments and market breakthroughs are allowing these companies to thrive.Weinzierl is the senior associate dean and chair of the MBA program at Harvard Business School. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Weinzierl is the co-author of a new book with Brendan Rosseau, Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontier.In This Episode* Decentralizing space (1:54)* Blue Origin vs. SpaceX (4:50)* Lowering launch costs (9:24)* Expanding space entrepreneurship (14:42)* Space sector sustainability (20:06)* The role of Artemis (22:45)* Challenges to success (25:28)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Decentralizing space (1:54). . . we had this amazing success in the '60s with the Apollo mission . . but it was obviously a very government-led, centralized program and that got us in the mode of thinking that's how you did space.You're telling a story about space transitioning from government-led to market-driven, but I wonder if you could just explain that point because it's not a story about privatization, it's a story about decentralization, correct?It really is, I think the most important thing for listeners to grab onto. In fact, I teach a course at Harvard Business School on this topic, and I've been teaching it now for a few years, and I say to my students, “What's the reason we're here? Why are we talking about space at HBS?” and it's precisely about what you just asked.So maybe the catchiest way to phrase this for folks, there was one of the early folks at SpaceX, Jim Cantrell, he was one of the earliest employees. He has this amazing quote from the early 2000s where he says, “The Great American Space Enterprise, which defeated Communism in defense of Capitalism, was and is operating on a Soviet economic model.” And he was basically speaking to the fact that we had this amazing success in the '60s with the Apollo mission and going to the moon and it truly was an amazing achievement, but it was obviously a very government-led, centralized program and that got us in the mode of thinking that's how you did space. And so for the next 50 years, basically we did space in that way run from the center, not really using market forces.What changed in various ways was that in the early 2000s we decided that model had kind of run its course and the weaknesses were too big and so it was time to bring market forces in. And that doesn't mean that we were getting rid of the government role in space. Just like you said, the government will always play a vital role in space for various reasons, national security among them, but it is decentralizing it in a way to bring the power of the market to bear.Maybe the low point — and that low point, that crisis, maybe created an opportunity — was the end of the Space Shuttle program. Was that an important inflection point?It's definitely one that I think most people in the sector look to as being . . . there's the expression “never waste a crisis,” and I think that that's essentially what happened. The Shuttle was an amazing engineering achievement, nobody really doubts that, and what NASA was trying to do with it and with their contractors was incredibly hard. So it's easy to kind of get too negative on that era, but it is also true that the Shuttle never really performed the way people hoped, it never flew as often, it was much more costly, and then in 2003 there was the second Shuttle tragedy.When that happened, I think everybody felt like, "This just isn't the future." So we need something else, and the Shuttle program was put on a cancellation path by the end of that decade. That really did force this reckoning with the fact that the American space sector, which had put men on the moon and brought them back safely in 1969, launching all sorts of dreams about space colonies and hotels, now, 40 years later, it was going to be unable to even put a person into orbit on its own rockets. We were going to be renting rockets from the Russians. That was really a moment of soul searching, I guess is one way you think about it in the sector.Blue Origin vs. SpaceX (4:50)I guess the big lesson . . . is that competition really does matter in space just like in any other business.I think naturally we would lead into talking about SpaceX, which we certainly will do, but the main competitor, Blue Origin, the Jeff Bezos company, which seems to be moving forward, but it's definitely seemed to have adopted a very different kind of strategy. It seems to me different than the SpaceX strategy, which really is kind of a “move fast, break things, build them back up and try to launch again” while Blue Origin is far more methodical. Am I right in that, is that eventually going to work?Blue Origin is a fascinating company. In fact, we actually opened the book — the book is a series, basically, of stories that we tell about companies, and people, and government programs, sprinkled in with some economics because we can't resist. We're trying to structure it for folks, but we start with the story of Blue Origin because it really is fascinating. It illustrates some really fundamental aspects of the sector these days.To your specific question, we can talk more about Blue in many of its aspects. The motto of Blue from its beginning has been this Latin phrase, gradatim ferociter or, “step-by-step, ferociously,” and Bezos in the earliest days, they even have a tortoise on their company shield, so to speak, to signal this tortoise and the hair metaphor or fable. From the earliest days the idea was, “Look, we're going to just methodically work our way up to these grand visions of building infrastructure for space,” eventually in the service of having, as they always said, millions of people living and working in space.Now there's various ways to interpret the intervening 20 years that we've had, or 25 now since they were founded. One interpretation says, well, that's a nice story, but in fact they made some decisions that caused them to move more slowly than even they would've wanted to. So they didn't continue working as closely with NASA as, say, for instance SpaceX did. They relied really almost exclusively on funding from Bezos himself issuing a lot of other contracts they could have gotten, and that sort of reduced the amount of external discipline and market competition that they were facing. And then they made some other steps along the way, and so now they're trying to reignite and move faster, and they did launch New Glenn, their orbital rocket, recently. So they're back in the game and they're coming back. That's one story.Another story is, well yes, they've made decisions that at the time didn't seem to move as fast as they wanted, but they made those decisions intentionally. This is a strategy we will see pay off pretty well in the long run. I think that the jury is very much still out, but I guess the big lesson for your listeners and for me and hopefully for others in the sector, is that competition really does matter in space just like in any other business. To the extent that Blue didn't move as fast because they didn't face as much competition, that's an interesting lesson for the private sector. And to the extent that now they're in the game nipping at the heels of SpaceX, that's good for everybody, even for SpaceX, I think, to have them in the game.Do you think they're nipping at the heels?Well, yeah, I was just thinking as I said that, that might have been a little optimistic. It really does depend how you look at it. SpaceX is remarkably dominant in the commercial space sector, there's no question there. They launch 100 times a year plus and they are . . . the latest statistic I have in 2023, they launched more than 80 percent of all the mass launched off the surface of Earth, so they run more than half the satellites that are operational in space. They are incredibly dominant such that concerns about monopoly are quite present in the sector these days. We can talk about that.I think “nipping at the heels” might be a little generous, although there are areas in which SpaceX still does have real competition. The national security launch sector, ULA (United Launch Alliance) is still the majority launcher of national security missions and Blue is looking to also get into the national security launch market. With Amazon's satellite constellation, Kuiper, starting to come into the launch cadence over the next couple of years, they will have demand for lots of launch outside of SpaceX and that will start to increase the frequency with which Blue Origin and ULA also launch. So I think there is reason to believe that people in the sector will have more options, even for the heavy-lift launch vehicles.Lowering launch costs (9:24)[SpaceX] brought the cost of getting a kilogram of mass into orbit down by 90 percent in less than, really 10 or 15 years, which had been a stagnant number for going on four or five decades.People in Silicon Valley like talking about disruption and disruptors. It's hard to think of a company that is more deserving, or A CEO more deserving than Elon Musk and SpaceX. Tell me how disruptive that company has been to how we think about space and the economic potential of space.We open our chapter in the book on SpaceX by saying we believe it'll go down as one of the most important companies in the history of humanity, and I really do believe that. I don't think you have to be a space enthusiast, necessarily, to believe it. The simplest way to summarize that is that they brought the cost of getting a kilogram of mass into orbit down by 90 percent in less than, really 10 or 15 years, which had been a stagnant number for going on four or five decades. It had hovered around — depending on the data point you look at — around $30,000 a kilogram to low earth orbit, and once SpaceX got Falcon 9 flying, it was down to $3,000. That's just an amazing reduction.What's also amazing about it is they didn't stop there. As soon as they had that, they decided that one of the ways to make the business model work was to reinvent satellite internet. So in a sector that had just over a decade ago only 1000 operational satellites up in space, now we have 10,000, 6,000 plus of which are SpaceX's Starlink, just an incredibly fast-growing transformational technology in orbit.And then they went on to disrupt their own disruption by creating a rocket called Starship, which is just absolutely massive in a way that's hard to even imagine, and that, if it fulfills the promise that I think everyone hopes it will, will bring launch costs down, if you can believe it, by another 90 percent, so a total of 99 percent down to, say, $300 a kilogram. Now you may not have to pass those cost savings on to the customers because they don't have a lot of competition, but it's just amazingWhat's possible with those launch costs in that vicinity? Sometimes, when I try to describe it, I'm like, well, imagine all your 1960s space dreams and what was the missing ingredient? The missing ingredient was the economics and those launch costs. Now plug in those launch costs and lots of crazy things that seem science-fictional may become science-factual. Maybe give me just a sense of what's possible.Well first tell me, Jim, which of the '60s space dreams are you most excited about?It's hard for me, it's like which of my seven kids do I love more? I love the idea of people living in space, of there being industry in space. I like the idea of there being space-based solar power, lunar mining, asteroid mining, the whole kit and caboodle.You've gone through the list. I think we're all excited about those things. And just in case it's not obvious to your listeners, the reason I think you asked that question is that, of course, the launch cost is the gateway to doing anything in space. That's why everyone in the industry makes such a big deal out of it. Once you have that, it seems like the possibilities for business cases really do expand.Now, of course, we have to be careful. It's easy to get overhyped. It's still very expensive to do all the things you just mentioned in space, even if you can get there cheaply. Once you put humans in the mix, humans are very hard to keep alive in space. Space is a very dangerous place for lots of reasons. Even when there aren't humans in space, operating in space, even autonomously, is obviously quite hard, whether it's asteroid mining or other things. It's not as though, all of a sudden, all of our biggest dreams are immediately going to be realized. I do think that part of what's so exciting, part of the reason we wrote the book, is that there is a new renaissance of enthusiasm of startups building a bit on the SpaceX model of having a big dream, being really cost-conscious as you build it, moving fast and experimenting and iterating, who are going after some of these dreams you mentioned..So whether it's an asteroid mining company — actually, in my course later this week, we're having Matt Gialich, who's the CEO of AstroForge, and they're trying to reboot the asteroid mining industry. He's coming in to talk to our students. Or whether it's lunar mining, we have Rob Meyerson who ran Blue Origin for more than a decade, now he's started up a company that's going to mine Helium 3 on the moon; or whether you're talking about commercial space stations, which could eventually house tourists, manufacturing, R&D, a whole new push to bring the cost savings from the launch sector into the destinations sector, which we really haven't had.We've had the International Space Station for 20 plus years, but it wasn't really designed for commercial activity from the start and costs are pretty high. So there is this amazing flowering, and we'll see. I guess I would say that, in the short run, if you're trying to build a business in space, it's still mostly about satellites. It's still mostly about data to and from space. But as we look out further, we all hope that those bigger dreams are becoming more of a reality.Expanding space entrepreneurship (14:42)The laws of supply and demand do not depend on gravity.To me, it is such an exciting story and the story of these companies, they're just great stories to me. They're still, I think, pretty unknown. SpaceX, if you read the books that have been published, very harrowing, the whole thing could have collapsed quite easily. Still today, when the media covers — I think they're finally getting better —that anytime there'd be a SpaceX rocket blow up, they're like, “Oh, that's it! Musk doesn't know what he's doing!” But actually, that's the business, is to iterate, launch again, if it blows up, figure out what went wrong, use the data, fix it, try again. It's taken a long time.To the extent people or the media think about it, maybe 90 percent of the thought is about SpaceX, a little bit about Blue Origin, but, as you mentioned, there is this, no pun intended, constellation of other companies which have grown up, which have somewhat been enabled by the launch costs. Which one? Give me one of those that you think people should know about.There's so many actually, very much to your point. We wrote the book partly to give folks inside the industry a view they might not have had, which is, I'm an economist. We thought there was room to just show people how an economist thinks through this amazing change that's happening.Economics is not earthbound! It extends above the surface of the planet!The laws of supply and demand do not depend on gravity. We've learned that. But we also wrote the book for a couple other groups of people. One, people who are kind of on the margins of space, so their business isn't necessarily involved in space, but once they know all the activity that's happening, including the companies you're hinting at there, they might think, “Wait a minute, maybe my business, or I personally, could actually use some of the new capabilities in space to drive my mission forward to have an impact through my organization or myself.” And then of course the broader population of people who are just excited and want to learn more about what's going on and read some great stories.But I'll give you two companies, maybe three because I can't help myself. One is Firefly, which just landed successfully on the moon . . . 24 hours ago maybe? What a great story. It's now the second lander that's successfully landed, this one fully successfully after Intuitive Machines was a little bit tipped over, but that's a great example of how this model that includes more of a role for the commercial sector succeeds not all the time — the first lunar lander in the program that was supporting these didn't quite succeed — but try, try again. That's the beauty of markets, they find a way often and you can't exactly predict how they're going to work out. But that was a huge success story and so I'm very excited about what that means for our activity on the moon.Another really fascinating company is called K2. A lot of your listeners who follow space will have heard of it. It's two brothers who basically realized that, with the drop in launch costs being promised by Starship, the premium on building lightweight small satellites is kind of going away. We can go back to building big satellites again and maybe we don't need to always make the sacrifices that engineers have had to make to bring the mass down. So they're building much bigger satellites and that can potentially really increase the capabilities even still at low cost. So that's really exciting.Finally, I'll just mention Varda, which is a really fun and exciting startup that is doing manufacturing in automated capsules right now of pharmaceutical ingredients. What I love about them, very much to your point about these startups that are just flowering because of lower launch costs, they're not positioning themselves really as a space company. They're positioning themselves as a manufacturing company that happens to use microgravity to do it cheaper. So you don't have to be a space enthusiast to want your supply chain to be cheaper and they're part of that.Do you feel like we have a better idea of why there should be commercial space stations, or again, is that still in the entrepreneurial process of figuring it out? Once they're up there, business cases will emerge?I was just having a conversation about that this morning, actually, with some folks in the sector because there is a wide range of views about that. It is, as you were sort of implying, a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem, it's hard to know until you have a space station what you might do with it, what business cases might result. On the other hand, it's hard to invest in a space station if you don't know what the business case is for doing it. So it is a bit tricky.I tend to actually be slightly on the optimistic end of the spectrum, perhaps just because, as an economist, I think you are trained to know that the market can't be predicted and that at some level that is the beauty of the market. If we drive down costs, there's a ton of smart entrepreneurs out there who I think will be looking very hard to find value that they can create for people, and I'm still optimistic we'll be surprised.If I had to make the other side of the case, I would say that we've been dreaming about using microgravity for many decades, the ISS has been trying, and there hasn't been a killer app quite found yet. So it is very true that there are reasons to be skeptical despite my optimism.Space sector sustainability (20:06)Space does face a sort of structural problem with investing. The venture capital industry is not really built for the time horizons and the level of fundamental uncertainty that we're talking about with space.It's also a sector that's gone through a lot of booms and busts. That certainly has been the case with the idea of asteroid mining among other things. What do you see as the sustainability? I sort of remember Musk talking about there was this kind of “open window to space,” and I don't know what he thought opened that window, maybe it was low interest rates? What is the sustainability of the financial case for this entire sector going forward?It is true that the low interest rate environment of the early 2020s was really supportive to space in a way that. Again, opinions vary on whether it was so hot that it ended up actually hurting the sector by creating too much hype, and then some people lost their shirts, and so there was some bad taste in the mouth there. On the other hand, it got a lot of cash to a lot of companies that are trying to make really hard things happen. Space does face a sort of structural problem with investing. The venture capital industry is not really built for the time horizons and the level of fundamental uncertainty that we're talking about with space. We don't really know what the market is yet. We don't really know how long it's going to take to develop. So that's I think why you see some of these more exotic financing models in space, whether it's the billionaires or the so-called SPAC boom of the early 2020s, which was an alternative way for some space companies to go public and raise a big pile of cash. So I think people are trying to solve for how to get over what might be an uncomfortably long time before the kind of sustainable model that you're talking about is realized.Now, skeptics will say, “Well, maybe that's just because there is no sustainable model. We're hoping and hoping, but it's going to take 500 years.” I'm a little more optimistic than that for reasons we've talked about, but I think one part we haven't really mentioned, or at least not gone into that yet, which is reassuring to investors that I talked to and increasingly maybe an important piece of the puzzle, is the demand from the public sector, which remains quite robust, especially from the national security side. A lot of startups these days, even when capital markets are a bit tighter, they can rely on some relatively stable financing from the national security side, and I think that will always be there in space. There will always be a demand for robust, innovative technologies and capabilities in space that will help sustain the sector even through tough times.The role of Artemis (22:45)Artemis is a really good example of the US space enterprise, broadly speaking, trying to find its way into this new era, given all the political and other constraints that are, of course, going to impinge on a giant government program. I can imagine a scenario where most of this book is about NASA, and Artemis, and what comes after Artemis, and you devote one chapter to the weird kind of private-sector startups, but actually it's just the opposite. The story here is about what's going on with the private sector working with NASA and Artemis seems like this weird kind of throwback to old Apollo-style way of doing things. Is Artemis an important technology for the future of space or is it really the last gasp of an old model?It's a very timely question because obviously with all the change going on in Washington and especially with Elon's role —Certainly you always hear rumors that they'll cancel it. I don't know if that's going to happen, but I certainly see speculations pop-up in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times from time to time.Exactly, and you probably see debates in Congress where you see some Congress-people resistant to canceling some contracts and debates about the space launch system, the SLS rocket, which I think nobody denies is sort of an older model of how we're going to get to space. On the other hand, it's an incredibly powerful rocket that can actually get us to the moon right now.There's a lot of debate going on right now. The way I think about it is that Artemis is a really good example of the US space enterprise, broadly speaking, trying to find its way into this new era, given all the political and other constraints that are, of course, going to impinge on a giant government program. It's a mix of the old and the new. It's got some pieces like SLS or Gateway, which is a sort of station orbiting the moon to provide a platform for various activities that feel very much like the model from the 1980s: Shuttle and International Space Station.Then it's got pieces that feel very much like the more modern commercial space era with the commercial lunar payload services clips contracts that we were briefly talking about before, and with some of the other pieces that are — whether it's the lander that's also using commercial contracts, whether it's those pieces that are trying to bring in the new. How will it all shake out? My guess is that we are moving, I think inexorably, towards the model that really does tap into the best of the private sector, as well as of the public, and so I think we'll move gradually towards a more commercial approach, even to achieving the sort of public goods missions on the moon — but it'll take a little bit of time because people are naturally risk averse.Challenges to success (25:28)We're going to have some setbacks, some things aren't going to go well with this new model. There's going to be, I'm sure, some calls for pulling back on the commercial side of things, and I think that would be a real lost opportunity. . .How do we not screw this up? How do we not end up undermining this momentum? If you want to tell me what we can do, that's great, but I'm also worried about us making a mistake?There are threats to our ability to do this successfully. I'll just name two which are top of mind. One is space debris. That comes up in virtually every conversation I have. Especially with the increasing number of satellites, increasing number of actors in space, you do have to worry that we might lose control of that environment. Again, I am on the relatively more optimistic end of the spectrum for reasons we explain in the book, and I think the bottom line there is: The stakes are pretty high for everybody who's operating up there to not screw that part up, so I hope we'll get past it, but some people are quite worried.The second, honestly, is national security. Space has always been a beacon, we hope, of transcending our geopolitical rivalries, not just extending them up there. We're in a difficult time, so I think there is some risk that space will not remain as peaceful as it has — and that could very much short-circuit the kind of growth that we're talking about. Sadly, that would be very ironic because the economic opportunities that we have up there to create benefit for everybody on Earth and are part of what hopefully would bring people together across borders up in space. It's one of those places where we can cooperate for the common good.How could we screw this up? I think it's not always going to be smooth sailing. We're going to have some setbacks, some things aren't going to go well with this new model. There's going to be, I'm sure, some calls for pulling back on the commercial side of things, and I think that would be a real lost opportunity. I hope that we can push our way through, even though it might be a little less clearly charted.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* The Case Against Tariffs Is Getting Stronger - Bberg Opinion* NYC's Congestion Pricing Is Good for the US - Bberg Opinion* Musk and DOGE Are Doing It Wrong - Project Syndicate▶ Business* With GPT-4.5, OpenAI Trips Over Its Own AGI Ambitions - Wired* Google is adding more AI Overviews and a new ‘AI Mode' to Search - Verge* Home Depot Turns to AI to Answer Online Shoppers' Questions - Bberg▶ Policy/Politics* Trump Set to Meet With Technology Leaders Early Next Week - Bberg* EU Lawmakers Push Back on U.S. Criticism of Tech Antitrust Regulation - WSJ* China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act - Ars* Rebuilding the Transatlantic Tech Alliance: Why Innovation, Not Regulation, Should Guide the Way - AEI* A New Way of Thinking About the N.I.H. - NYT Opinion▶ AI/Digital* You knew it was coming: Google begins testing AI-only search results - Ars* Are Large Language Models Ready for Business Integration? A Study on Generative AI Adoption - Arxiv* Turing Award Goes to 2 Pioneers of Artificial Intelligence - NYT* ChatGPT for President! Presupposed content in politicians versus GPT-generated texts - Arxiv* Chat-GPT4 Does Enhance Creativity. But Human Ego Can Hamper its Potential - SSRN▶ Biotech/Health* Alzheimer's could be treated by enhancing the brain's own immune cells - NA* Will NIH Cuts Boost Public Health—or Destroy It? - Free Press▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* Many Chinese See a Cultural Revolution in America - NYT▶ Substacks/Newsletters* On the US AI Safety Institute - Hyperdimensional* What is Vibe Coding? - AI Supremacy* In defense of Gemini - Strange Loop Canon* Economic Uncertainty in the US Economy - Conversable EconomistFaster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Derrick Michael Reid BS JD Esq Reid graduated from UC Berkeley Engineering with 10 years design experience working on Shuttle, F16, and cruise missile navigation. Reid graduated from WSU Law School and was a patent litigator and prosecutor for 25 years. Reid has 10 years of monetary, 20 years of military, 20 years of geopolitical self education. Reid has 3 years of emulatory combat experience. Reid ran for US Presidency in 2016 and the US Senate in 2018. Reid is an engineer, lawyer, systems analyst, monetarist, politician, military scientist, geopolitical analyst, theologian, philosopher and Libertarian running for the 2028 US Presidency.  Reid's X.com: @DerrickMReid Reid's FaceBook Group: Libertarian US President 2028

Will SpaceX eventually consume NASA? Are there asteroids at Lagrange points in front and behind the Earth? Can we track the Space Force's secret X37 shuttle? Answering all these questions and more in this Q&A show.

Will SpaceX eventually consume NASA? Are there asteroids at Lagrange points in front and behind the Earth? Can we track the Space Force's secret X37 shuttle? Answering all these questions and more in this Q&A show.

Hugh covers the news of the day and talks with Noah Rothman, David Drucker, Bret Baier, Sen. Tom Cotton, Andrew C. McCarthy, Byron York, and James Lileks.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Want to watch this episode? Click here.As EU bureaucrats continue to reel from Vice President Vance's speech last week, the adults in the room are brokering a deal to bring the Russia-Ukraine war to an end. President Trump has his envoys laying the groundwork for peace through a series of meetings that are reminiscent of Henry Kissinger's "shuttle diplomacy" in the Middle East during the 1970s. Former Missouri Senator Jim Talent, my regular guest and personal PoliSci professor, joins me to discuss that and much more.Thanks as always to the good folks over at Best Hot Grills for sponsoring this podcast.

Episode: 1326 Lift-off: Reflections on the launch of NASA Flight STS-91.  Today, we all count 3-2-1.

Seth and Sean discuss Pac Man Jones cussin' up a storm on In the Loop yesterday, their excitement to talk to Darryl "Moose" Johnston later this morning and discuss Seth's shuttle drill demo video that Figgy posted on social media.

Send us a textIf you are interested in the Daily Bible Devotional, you can find it at the links below:Amazon - (paperback, hardcover, and Kindle)Spiritbuilding.com - (premium quality paperback)Youtube Video Introducing the ContentFeel free to reach out with any questions: emersonk78@me.comSponsors:  Jon Cunningham, Owner, Cunningham Financial GroupWebsite:  www.cunninghamfinancialgroup.com   Phone:  205-326-7364Tyler Cain, Senior Loan Officer, Statewide MortgageWebsites: https://statewidemortgage.com/https://tylercain.floify.com/Phone: 813-380-8487I'd like to include the text from Philippians 2:1-5 - Think about the changes Jesus made and why He did so. What if He hadn't done that? What if He waited for us to get to Him? What if He wasn't willing to take the hit since none of this was His fault? Jesus was humble, loving, and exhibited the perfect attitude. Let's learn about that and put it into practice in our lives and relationships. 2:5 Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be [f]grasped, 7 but [g]emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and [h]being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death [i]on a cross. 9 For this reason also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In this episode of The Astro Ben Podcast, Ben speaks with astronaut and mission assurance expert Dr. John "Danny" Olivas from Intuitive Machines HQ. The conversation centers around the IM-2 Lunar Lander mission, set to land at the Moon's south pole in early 2025. Danny shares exclusive insights into the technology on board, including NASA's PRIME-1 drill, Nokia's Lunar Surface Communications System, and Intuitive Machines' Micro Nova Hopper. The discussion also explores the critical role of engineering in lunar infrastructure, the challenges of operating in the Moon's extreme environment, and Danny's experiences as a NASA astronaut, including his iconic spacewalks and space shuttle repair missions. This weeks episode is sponsored by Sky Fi. Check them out: https://skyfi.com/ OUTLINE: Here's approximate timestamps for the episode. 00:00 Intro to Episode 00:22 This weeks episode is sponsored by Sky Fi 00:42 Introducing Astronaut Dr. John "Danny" Olivas 01:28 Ben tries streaming for the first time (successfully) 02:04 Intuitive Machines IM-2 04:22 Challenges of landing on the lunar South Pole? 06:41 Micro Nova Hopper 09:19 First cellular network on the moon 11:50 IM-2 fitting in with Artemis 15:08 Engineering Innovations of IM-2 17:47 Spacewalks and lunar exploration 21:28 IM-2 to IM-4 24:05 Humanities relationship with the Moon 27:30 Space experience effecting everyday life 32:35 Words of wisdom 34:55 Wrap Up and Socials Follow Dr John "Danny" Olivas: Website: https://uniphigood.com/portfolio_page/john-danny-olivas/ IM-2 Mission Details: https://www.nasa.gov/event/intuitive-machines-clps-flight-im-2/ Intuitive Machines: https://www.intuitivemachines.com/ Stay connected with us! Use #Astroben across various social media platforms to engage with us! Youtube: www.youtube.com/@astrobenpodcast Website: www.astroben.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/astrobenpodcast/ X: https://x.com/Gambleonit Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@astrobenpodcast LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/astrobenpodcast/

The Disgruntled Shuttle Driver by Maine's Coast 93.1

On episode 364, former NASA astronaut Fred Haise discusses his experiences from Apollo 13 and beyond.