Podcasts about space act

Congressman Vince Fong joins the show to discuss his new OUTPACE in Space Act, aimed at strengthening U.S. space leadership amid growing competition from China. The legislation would reduce regulatory hurdles that currently limit airspace access for commercial rocket launches and slow American innovation. Apr 9th 2026 --- Please Like, Comment and Follow 'The Ray Appleton Show' on all platforms: --- 'The Ray Appleton Show’ is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever else you listen to podcasts. --- 'The Ray Appleton Show’ Weekdays 11 AM -2 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 AM & 105.9 KMJ | Website | Facebook | Podcast | - Everything KMJ KMJNOW App | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fresh off raising a monster $15B, Marc Andreessen has lived through multiple computing platform shifts firsthand, from Mosaic and Netscape to cofounding A16z. In this episode, Marc joins swyx and Alessio in a16z's legendary Sand Hill Road office to argue that AI is not just another hype cycle, but the payoff of an “80-year overnight success”: from neural nets and expert systems to transformers, reasoning models, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement. He lays out why he thinks this moment is different, why AI is finally escaping the old boom-bust pattern, and why the real bottleneck may be less about models than about the messy institutions, incentives, and social systems that struggle to absorb technological change.This episode was a dream come true for us, and many thanks to Erik Torenberg for the assist in setting this up. Full episode on YouTube!We discuss:* Marc's long view on AI: from the 1980s AI boom and expert systems to AlexNet, transformers, and why he sees today's moment as the culmination of decades of compounding technical progress* Why “this time is different”: the jump from LLMs to reasoning, coding, agents, and recursive self-improvement, and why Marc thinks these breakthroughs make AI real in a way prior cycles were not* AI winters vs. “80-year overnight success”: why the field repeatedly swings between utopianism and doom, and why Marc thinks the underlying researchers were mostly right even when the timelines were wrong* Scaling laws, Moore's Law, and what to build: why he believes AI scaling laws will continue, why the outside world is messier than lab purists assume, and how startups can still create durable value on top of rapidly improving models* The dot-com crash and AI infrastructure risk: Marc's comparison between today's AI capex boom and the fiber/data-center overbuild of 2000, plus why he thinks this cycle is different because the buyers are huge cash-rich incumbents and demand is already here* Why old NVIDIA chips may be getting more valuable: the pace of software progress, chronic capacity shortages, and the idea that even current models are “sandbagged” by supply constraints* Open source, edge inference, and the chip bottleneck: why Marc thinks local models, Apple Silicon, privacy, trust, and economics all point toward a major role for edge AI* American vs. Chinese open source AI: DeepSeek as a “gift to the world,” why open models matter not just because they're free but because they teach the world how things work, and how open source strategies may shift as the market consolidates* Why Pi and OpenClaw matter so much: Marc's claim that the combination of LLM + shell + filesystem + markdown + cron loop is one of the biggest software architecture breakthroughs in decades* Agents as the new “Unix”: how agent state living in files allows portability across models and runtimes, and why self-modifying agents that can extend themselves may redefine what software even is* The future of coding and programming languages: why Marc thinks software becomes abundant, why bots may translate freely across languages, and why “programming language” itself may stop being a salient concept* Browsers, protocols, and human readability: lessons from Mosaic and the web, why text protocols and “view source” mattered, and how similar principles may shape AI-native systems* Real-world OpenClaw use: health dashboards, sleep monitoring, smart homes, rewriting firmware on robot dogs, and why the most aggressive users are discovering both the power and danger of agents first* Proof of human vs. proof of bot: why Marc thinks the internet's bot problem is now unsolvable via detection alone, and why biometric + cryptographic proof of human becomes necessaryTimestamps* 00:00 Marc on AI's “80-Year Overnight Success”* 00:01 A Quick Message From swyx* 01:44 Inside a16z With Marc Andreessen* 02:13 The Truth About a16z's AI Pivot* 03:29 Why This AI Boom Is Not Like 2016* 06:33 Marc on AI Winters, Hype Cycles, and What's Different Now* 10:09 Reasoning, Coding, Agents, and the New AI Breakthroughs* 12:13 What Founders Should Build as Models Keep Improving* 16:33 AI Capex, GPU Shortages, and the Dot-Com Crash Analogy* 24:54 Open Source AI, Edge Inference, and Why It Matters* 33:03 Why OpenClaw and PI Could Change Software Forever* 41:37 Agents, the End of Interfaces, and Software for Bots* 46:47 Do Programming Languages Even Have a Future?* 54:19 AI Agents Need Money: Payments, Crypto, and Stablecoins* 56:59 Proof of Human, Internet Bots, and the Drone Problem* 01:06:12 AI, Management, and the Return of Founder-Led Companies* 01:12:23 Why the Real Economy May Resist AI Longer Than Expected* 01:15:53 Closing ThoughtsTranscriptMarc: Something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years where that was controversial. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right?Which is like, it's an overnight success ‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.If I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough.swyx: Before we get into today's episode, I just have a small message for listeners. Thank you. We will not be able to bring you the ai, engineering, science, and entertainment contents that you so clearly want if you didn't choose to also click in and tune into our content.We've been approached by sponsors on an almost daily basis, but fortunately enough of you actually subscribed to us to keep all this sustainable without ads, and we wanna keep it that way. But I just have one favor to ask all of you. The single, most powerful, completely free thing you can do is to click that subscribe button.It's the only thing I'll ever ask of you, and it means absolutely everything to me and my team that works so hard to bring the in space to you each and every week. If you do it, I promise you will never stop working to make the show even better. Now, let's get into it.Alessio: Hey everyone, welcome to the Lidian Space Pockets. This is CIO, founder Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by s Swix, editor of Lidian Space.swyx: Hello. And we're in a 16 Z with a, uh, mark G and welcome.Marc: Yes, yes. A and what, half of 16? Something like that. A one. Exactly,swyx: exactly. Uh, apparently this is the, the final few days in your, your current office.You're moving across the road.Marc: Uh, we're, yeah. We have a, we have some, we have some projects underway, but yeah, this is actually, oh, this is the original. We're in actually the original office. We're in the, we're in the, we're, we're in the whole thing.swyx: It's beautiful. Yeah. Great.Marc: Thank you.swyx: So I have to come out, uh, this is a, you know, I wanted to pick a spicy start in October, 2022.I just made friends with Roone and, uh, I wanted to give him something to sort of be spicy about. And I said, uh. Uh, it'll never not be funny. The A 16 Z was constantly going. The future is where the smart people choose to spend their time and then going deep into crypto and not in ai. And that was in October 22nd, 2022.And Ruen says there was an internal meeting in a 16 Z to reorient around Gen ai. Obviously you have, but was there a meeting? What, what was that?Marc: I mean, I don't, look, I've been doing AI since the late eighties.swyx: Yeah.Marc: So I, I don't know, like all that, as far as I'm concerned, this stuff is all Johnny cum lately.Yeah. You, I mean, look, we've been doing ar entire existence. I mean, we've been doing AI machine learning deep, you know, deeply. We've been doing this stuff way from the beginning. Obviously a AI is just core to computer science. I, I, I actually view them as like quite, uh, quite continuous. Um, you know, Ben and I both have computer science degrees.Um, you know, we, we both, Ben, Ben and I actually both are world enough to remember the actual AI boom in the 1980s. Yeah. There was like a, there was a big AI boom at the time. Um, and there was a, was names like expert systems. Um, and they of like lisp and lisp machines. Uh, I, I coded in lisp. I was coding a lisp in 1989.When that was the, the language of the AI future. Um, yeah. So this is something that we're like completely, you completely comfortable with. I've been doing the whole time and are very enthusiastic aboutswyx: is there a strong, like this time is different because, uh, my closest analog was 20 16 17. It was an AI boom.Mm-hmm. And it petered out very, very quickly. Um, we, it just, it just in terms of investingMarc: sort of, sort of,swyx: yeah. Investment, investment excitement.Marc: Although that's really when the, the, the Nvidia phenomenon really, it was, I would say it was in that period when it was very clear that at, at the time it, the vocabulary was more machine learning, but it, it was very clear at that time that machine learning was hitting some sort of takeoff point.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Well, and as you guys, you guys have talked about this at length on, on your thing, but, you know, if you really track what happened, I think the real story is, it was, it was the Alex net, uh, basically breakthrough in like 2013. That was the, that was the real knee in the curve. Um, and then it was obviously the transformer breakthrough in 17.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: Um, and then everything that followed. But, but, you know, look, machine learning, you know, there were, you know, look, uh, I mean look, I've been working, you know, I've been working with, uh, one of my, you know, kind of projects working with Facebook since 2004. Um, and on the board since 2007, and of course, you know, they, they started using machine learning very early, um, and, you know, have used it basically, you know, for like 20 years for, you know, content, you know, feed optimization and advertising optimization.And obviously many, you know, financial services. You know, many, many, many companies, many different sectors have been doing this. And so it's like one of these things, it's like, it's not a, it's not a single thing. Like it's, it's like, it's like layers, right? Yeah. Um, and, and the layers arrive at different paces and, but they kind of build up.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Uh, they kind of build up over time and then, and then, yeah. And then look, in retrospect, it was 2017 was kind of the, you know, the key, the key point with the trans transformer and then. And then as you guys know, there was this really weird like four year period where it's like the, the transformer existed and then it was just like,swyx: let's go.Yeah.Marc: Well, but, but it was just, but, but between 2020, but between 2017 and 2021, I mean, that was the era of which like companies like Google had internal chat Botts, but they weren't letting anybody use them.swyx: Yeah.Marc: Right. And then, you know, and then OpenAI developed Chat GT or GPT two, and then they told everybody, this is way too dangerous to deploy.Right. Yeah. You know, we can't possibly let normal people, normal people use this thing. And then you, you guys, I'm sure remember AI Dungeon, um mm-hmm. So the o for, there was like a year where like the only way for a normal person to use GP T three was in, in AI dungeon.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: And so you, you, we would do this, you'd go in there and you'd pretend to play Dungeons and Dragons.In reality, you're just trying to talk to talk to GPT. And so there was this, you know, there was this long, you know, and I, you know, the big, big companies, you know, big companies are cautious and, you know, the big companies were cautious. It, it, by the way, it took open ai. You know, they, they, they talk about this, it took open AI time to actually adjust, you know, kind of re redirect their researchswyx: path.I, I think, uh, let say Rosewood, right? Uh, the, the dinner that founded OpenAI was right there.Marc: Right, right. But that, that dinner would've taken place in 20swyx: 18Marc: 19. The formation of OpenAI Uhhuh as late as 2018.swyx: Uh, uh, sorry. Uh, no, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm wrong. Probably It should be 20. Yeah. They just celebrated a 10 year anniversary, so it it is 2025.Yeah, so, so 2015?Marc: Yeah. 2015. Yeah. 2015. But then, uh, um, Alec Radford did G PT one in what, probablyswyx: mm-hmm. 17, 18,Marc: yeah. 17, 18. So it, yeah. For, and then, and then they didn't really, and then GPT three was what? 2020? 2020.swyx: 2020.Marc: Because that became copilot immediately. Even open ai, which has been, you know, the leader of, of this thing in the last decade, you know, e even they had to adapt and, and, and lean into the new thing.And so. Um, yeah, I, I think it's just this process of basically sort of wave after wave layer after layer, you know, building on itself. And then you kind of get these catalytic moments where, where the whole thing pops and, and obviously that's what's happening now.swyx: Is it useful to think about will there be any ai, winter?‘cause there's always these patterns. Like, is this, in the summer is something I constantly think about because do I get, do I just like. Just get endlessly hyped and just trust that I will only be early and never wrong or right. Well, are we, will there be a winter?Marc: So there's something about, say the following.There's something about AI that has led to this repeated pattern. Um, and, and, and you guys know this,swyx: it's summer, winter, summer,Marc: winter, summer, winter, summer, winter. And it goes back 80 years. Yeah. 80 years. Uh, so the original neural network paper was 1943. Right. Which is, which is amazing. Uh, that it was, it was far back that long.And then there was you, if you guys have ever talked about this on your show, but there was this, uh, there was a big, uh, there was an a GI conference at Dartmouth University in 1950. 55. 55, yeah. And they got a NSF grant to, uh, for the, all the AI experts at the time to spend the summer together. And they figured if they had 10 weeks together, they could get a GI, uh, at the other end.And they got their, by the way, they got the grant, they got the 10 weeks and then, you know, 1955, you know. No, no. A GI. And like I said, I, I lived through the eighties version of this where there was a big, a big boom and a crash. And so, so there is this thing, and there, there is something about AI that causes the people in the field, I would say, to become both excessively utopian and excessively apocalyptic.Um, and, and it's probably on both sides of like the, the, the boom bus cycle. You, you kind of see that play out. Having said that, I think what's actually happened is like just, and you know, and we now know in retrospect like an enormous amount of technical progress that built up over time. And like for, for example, we now know that neural network is the correct architecture.And I, I will tell you like there was a 60 year run where that was like a, you know, or even 70 years or that was controversial. And, and we now know that that's the case. And so we, we now, you know, everything we're building on today just sort of derives from the original idea in 1943. And so, so in retrospect, we, we now know that like, these, these guys are right.They, they, you know, they would get the timing wrong and they thought, you know, capabilities would arrive faster, or they were, it could be turned into businesses sooner or whatever, but like, they were fundamentally, the, the scientists who worked on this over the course of decades were fundamentally correct about what they were doing.And, and the, and the payoff from, from, from all their work is happening now. And so, so the way I think about what's happening is basically, I think, I think about basically the, the, the period we're in right now is it's, I call it 80 year overnight success, right? Which is like, it's an overnight success.‘cause it's like bam, you know, chat, GPT hits and then, and then oh one hits, and then, you know, open claw hits and like, you know, these are open, these are, these are like overnight, like radical, overnight transformative successes, but they're drawing on an 80 year sort of wellspring backlog, you know, of, of, of, of ideas and thinking it's not just that it's all brand new, it's that it's an unlock of all of these decades of like very serious, hardcore research.Um, and thinking, and look, there were AI researchers who spent their entire lives. They got their PhD. They, they worked for, they've researched for 40 years. They retired in a lot of cases, they passed away and they never actually saw it work.swyx: Yeah. It's all sad.Marc: It is. It is sad. It's sad. Knewswyx: Jeff Hinton was like the last guy.Marc: Yeah. Yeah. Well, there were the guys, uh, was a guy, Alan Newell. I mean, there's tons of John McCarthy. You know, John McCarthy was like one of the inventors in the field. He's one of the guys who organized the Dartmouth Conference and you know, he taught at Stanford for 40 years. Wow. And passed, you know, passed away, I don't know, whatever, 10, 10 years ago or something.Never, never actually go. Got to see it happen. But like, it is amazing in retrospect, like, these guys were incredibly smart and they worked really hard and they were correct. So anyway, so then it's like, okay, you know, say history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. It's like, okay, does that mean that there's gonna be another, like, you know, basically boom buzz cycle.And I, I will tell you, like, let, like in a sense, like yes, everything goes through cycles and, you know, people get overly enthusiastic and overly depressed and there's, there's a time, there's a timelessness to that. Having said that, there's just no question. Um, so the form, the foremost dangerous words in investing this time are, this time is different.Do you know the 12 most dangerous words investing? No. The four most d foremost dangerous words in investing are this time is different. Yeah. Um, the 12 most dangerous words. And so like, I'll tell you what's different. Like now it's working like, like there's just no, I mean, look, there's just no question.And by the way, I, I'll just give you guys my take. Like L LLMs, like from, from basically the Chad G PT moment through to spring of 25. I think you could still, I think well intention, well, and of. Form skeptics could still say, oh, this is just pattern completion. And oh, these things don't really understand what they're doing.And you know, the hall hallucination rates are way too high. And, you know, this is gonna be great for creative writing and creating, you know, Shakespeare and so sonnets and, you know, as, as rap lyrics or whatever, like, it's gonna be great and all that stuff, but we're not gonna be able to harness this to make this relevant in, you know, coding or in medicine or in law or in, you know, you know, kind of feels that, you know, kind of really, really matter.And I think basically it was the reasoning breakthrough. It, it was oh one and then R one that basically answered that question basically said, oh no, we're gonna be able to actually turn this into something that's gonna work in the real world. And, and then obviously the coding breakthrough over the, over basically the coding breakthrough that kind of catalyzed over the holiday break was kind of the third step in that.Mm-hmm. Where you're just like, alright, if, if, you know, if Linus Tova is saying that the AI coding is no better than he is like. Like, that's, that's never happened before. That's theswyx: benchmark.Marc: Yeah. That's never happened before. And so now we know that it's, it's gonna sweep through coding and, and then, and then we, we know, you know, we know that if it's gonna work in coding, it's gonna work in everything else.Right. It's just then, because that's, that's like, that's like, that's like the hardest in many ways. That's the hardest example. And how everything else is gonna be a, a derivative of that. And then on top of that, we just got the agent breakthrough, you know, with Open Claw, which is fantastic. Which is amazing and incredibly powerful.And then we just got the, the, um, the auto research, uh, you know, the, the self-improvement. You know, we're now into the self-improvement breakthrough. And so the, so the way I think about it is we've had four fundamental breakthroughs in functionality, l OMS reasoning, uh, agents, um, and then, uh, and, and then now RSI, um, and, and they're all actually working.Um, and so I'm, I'm just, as you like, you can tell I'm jumping outta my shoes. Like, like this is, like this is it like this, this is the culmination of 80 years worth of worth of work, and this is the time it's becoming real.Alessio: Yeah.Marc: I, I'm completely convinced.Alessio: I think the anxiety that people feel is like during the transistor era, yet Mors law, and it's like, all right, we understand why these things are getting better.We understand the physics of it. Yeah. With ai, it's. It's so jagged in like the jumps where like, like you said, it's like in three months you have like this huge jump like, and people are like, well this can keep happening. Right? But then it keeps happening,Marc: it'll keep happening.Alessio: And so like how do you think about also timelines of like what's we're building?I think we always have this question with guests, which is like, you know, should you spend time building harness for a model versus like the next model just gonna do it one shot in the lead space. Right. And how does that inform, like how you think about the shape of the technology? You know, you talk about how it's a new computing platform.If you have a computing platform, then like every six months it like drastically changes in what it looks like. It's hard to build companies on top of it.Marc: Yeah. So, so a couple things. So one is like, look, the, the Moore's law was what we now call a scaling law. Like Moore's Law was a scaling law and for your younger viewers, more Moore's Law was every chip chip chips either get twice as powerful or twice as cheap every, every 18 months.And that, and that and that, you know, that it's gotten more complicated in the last few years. But like that, that was like the 50 year trajectory of, of, of the computer industry. And then, and then by the way, and that's what took the mainframe computer from a $25 million current dollar thing into, you know, the phone in your pocket being, you know, a million times more powerful than that.Like that, you know, for, for 500 bucks. And so that, that was a scaling law. And then, and then, and then key to any scaling law, including Moore's Law and the AI scaling laws is, you know, they're not really laws, right? They're, they're, they're, they're predictions, but when they work, they become self-fulfilling predictions because they, they, they, they, they set a benchmark and, and then the entire industry, right?All the smart people in the industry kind of work to make sure that, that, that actually happens. And so they, they kind of motivate the breakthroughs that are required to, to keep that going. And, and in and in chips, that was a 50 year, that was a 50 year run. Right. And it, it was amazing. And it's still happening in, in some areas of, of chips.I think the same thing is happening with the, the core scaling laws. The core scaling laws. In, in, in ai, you know, they're, they're not really laws, but like they, they are basically. There are predictions and then they're motivating catalysts for the research work that is required to be. And, and, and, and by the way, also the investment, uh, dollars, um, uh, you know, required to basically keep, you know, keep the curves going and, and look, it, it is, it's gonna be complicated and it's gonna be variable and they're, you know, there're gonna be walls that are gonna look like they're fast approaching, and then they're gonna be, you know, engineers are gonna get to work and they're gonna figure out a way to punch through the walls.And obviously that's, you know, that's been happening a lot, you know, and then look, there's gonna be times when it looks like the walls have, you know, the, the, the laws have petered out and then they're gonna, they're gonna pick up again and surge and then, and then, and then it, it appears what's happening to the eyes is there's not multiple, you know, multiple scaling laws.Um, there's multiple areas of improvement. And, and I think, you know, I don't know how many more there are already yet to be discovered, but there are probably some more that we don't know about yet. You know, they, like, for example, there's probably some scaling law around, um, world models and robotics that we don't fully understand, you know, kind of acquisition of data at scale in the real world that we don't fully understand yet.So that, that, that one will probably kick in at some point here. There's a bunch of really smart people working on that. Um, and so, yeah, I, I think the expectation is that, that, you know, the, the scaling laws generally are gonna continue. Yeah. The, the pace of improvement will continue to move really fast.Um. To your question on like what to build. So, uh, I'm a complete believer the scaling laws are gonna continue. I'm a complete believer the capabilities are gonna keep getting amazing, um, you know, leaps and bounds. Uh, the part where I kind of part ways a little bit with how, what I would describe as the AI purists, um, you know, which is, which I would characterize as like the people who are.In many ways, the smartest people in the field, but also the people who spend their entire life, like at a lab, um, and have, have, I would say, have very little experience in the outside world. Um, the, the, the nuance I would offer is the outside world of 8 billion people and institutions and governments and companies and economic systems and social systems is really complicated.Um, and, um, and doesn't, you know, it it 8 billion people making collective decisions on planet Earth is not a simple process of like, just like you see this happening now. It's like a bunch of AI CEOs have this thing, which is just like, well, there's just this, they just all have this kind of thing when they talk in public where they're just like, well, there's these, these obvious set of things that so society to do.Alessio: Mm-hmm.Marc: And then they're like, society's not doing any of those things. Right. And it's like, how can society not, you know, what, whatever their theory is, how can society not see x, y, Z? Mm-hmm. And the answer is, well, society is number one. There's no single society, it's like 8 billion people. And they like all have a voice, and they all have a vote, like at the end of the day of how they, they react to change.And then, you know, it just like, it's just human reality is just really complicated and messy. Um, and, and, and so the specific answer to your question is like, as usual, it depends. Um, you know, it, it depends. Look, pe there's no question people are gonna, like, there's no question they're gonna be companies.It's already happening. There are companies that think that they're building value on top of the models and then they're just gonna get blissed by the, by the next model. There's no question that's happening. But I think there's no question also that just the process of adaptation of any technology into the real and into the real messy world of humanity is, is just going to be messy and complicated.It's, it's not going to be simple and straightforward. It's gonna be messy and complicated. And there are gonna be a lot of companies and a lot of products, um, uh, and in, in fact entire industries that are gonna get built to, to, to basically actually help all of this technology actually reach real people.Alessio: The amount of capital going into these companies, I mean, Dario talked about it on the Door Cash podcast and Door Cash was like, why don't you just buy 10 x more GPUs? And he is like, because I'm gonna go bankrupt if the model doesn't exactly hit the, the performance level. How do you think about that?Also as a risk on, you know, you guys are investors, open AI and thinking machines and world apps. It seems like we're leveraging the scaling loss at a pretty high rate, right? Like how comfortable, I guess, do you feel with the downside scenario, like, and say like things Peter out, you think you can kind of like restructure uh, these build outs and uh, you know, capital investments.Marc: Yeah. So should start by saying, so I live through the.com crash, um, and I can tell you stories for hours about the.com crash and it was horrible. No, it was awful. It was, it was, it was apocalyptic by the way. The, a lot of the.com crash was actually at the time, it was actually a telecom crash. It was a bandwidth crash.Like the, the thing that actually crashed, that wiped out all the money with the tele, the telecom companies.swyx: GlobalMarc: crossing. Global, global, yeah.swyx: I'm from Singapore and they, they laid so much cable o over over our oceans.Marc: Actually there was a scaling law in the.com. Era. And it was literally the, the US Commerce Department put out a report in 1996 and they said internet traffic was doubling every quarter.Um, and, and actually in 1995 and 1996, internet traffic actually did double every quarter. And so that became the scaling law. And so what all these telecom entrepreneurs did was they went out and they raised money to build fiber, anticipating that the demand for bandwidth is gonna keep doubling every quarter.Doubling every quarter though is like, you know, grains of chess and the chessboard, like at some point the numbers become extremely large. Right. And, and, and it really, and really what happened was the internet. The internet by the way, continuously kept growing basically since inception. And it's, you know, it's, it's continuously grown.It's never shrunk. And it's grown really fast compared to anything else. Mm-hmm. You know, in, in, in human history. But it wasn't doubling every quarter as of 19 98, 19 99. And so there was this gap in the expectation of what they thought was a scaling law versus reality. And that's actually what caused the.com crash, which was the, it they, they way over companies like global crossing way overbuilt fiber, which is sort of the, and by the way, fiber, telecom equipment, you know, so all the, all the networking gear, you know, and then, and then by the way, the actual physical data centers, like that was the beginning of the, of the, of the data center build and then, and the data center overbuild.And so you had that, but it was, it was literally, I think it was like $2 trillion got wiped out, right? It was like Jesus, it was like a big, it was. And by the way, the other, the other subtlety in it was the internet companies themselves never really had any debt. ‘cause tech, tech companies generally don't run on debt, but the telecom companies run on debt.Physical infrastructure companies run on debt. And so the companies like Global Crossing not just raise a lot of equity, they also raise a lot of debt. So they're highly levered. And so then you just do the thing. It's just like, okay, you have a highly levered thing where you're, you're just over, you're overbuilding capacity.Demand is growing, but not as fast as you hoped. And then boom, bankrupt. Right. And, and then it, and then it's like they say about the hotel industry, which is, it's always the third owner of a hotel that makes money. It has to go bankrupt twice, right? You have to wash out all of the over optimistic exuberance before it gets to actually a stable state.And then it makes money. So by the way, all of those data centers and all of those, all the fiber that they're in use, it's all in use today. Yeah. But 25 years later. But it, it, it took, and actually the elapsed time was, it took 15 years. It took 15 years from 2000 to 2015 to actually fill, fill up all that capacity.The cautionary warning is the, the overbuild can happen. Um, and, and, and, and, you know, you, you get into this thing where basically everybody, everybody who basically has any sort of institutional capital, it's like, wow. It's just, I, I don't know how to invest in these crazy software things. For sure I can put build data centers and for sure I can buy GPUs that I can deploy, you know, compute grids and, and all these things.Um, and so, you know, if you're a pessimist, you could look at this and you could say, wow, this is like really set up to be able to basically replicate, you know, what we went through, what we went through in 2000. Obviously that would be bad. The counter argument, which is the one I I agree with, which is the counter on, on the other side is a couple things.One is the companies that are investing all the, the companies that are investing the money are like the bluest chip of companies. And so back, back, back in the, in the do, like Global Crossing was like a, it was like an entrepreneur. It was like a, a new venture, but like the money that's being deployed now at scale is Microsoft, and, you know, and Amazon and Google, Facebook and Facebook and Nvidia and, you know, these, these, these, and, and now you know, by the way, open ai philanthropic, which are now at like, you know, really serious size, um, you know, as companies with, you know, very serious revenue.These are very large scale companies with like, lots, lots of cash, lots of debt capacity that they've, they've never used. And so th this is institutional in a way that, that really wasn't at the time. And then the other is, at least for now, every dollar that's being put into anything that results in a running GPU is being turned into revenue right away.Like so, and you guys know this, like everybody's starved for capacity, everybody's starved for compute capacity and then, you know, all the associated things, memory and, and, and interconnected and everything else. Um, data center space. And so e every dollar right now that's being put into the ground is turning into revenue.And, and it, and in fact, I actually think there's an interesting thing happening, which is because everybody starve for capacity, the models that we actually have that we can use today are inferior versions of what we would have if not for the supply constraints. That's true. Um, if Right pose a hypothetical universe in which GPUs were 10 times cheaper and 10 times more plentiful mm-hmm.The models would be much better. ‘cause you would just allocate a lot more money to training and you'd just build better models and they would be better. Um, and so we're, we're actually getting the sandbag version of the technology.swyx: Yeah. No. Everything we use is quantized because the, the labs have to keep the, the full versions,Marc: right?swyx: LikeMarc: we're not even getting the good stuff.swyx: Yeah.Marc: But, but getting the good stuff, it's, it's just, even if technical progress stops. Once there's like a much bigger build of like GPU manufacturing capacity and memory, you know, all, all the things that have to happen in the course of the next five or 10 years.Once it happens, even the current technology is gonna get, gonna get much better. And then as you know, like there's just like a million ways to use this stuff. Like there's just like a million use cases for this. Mm-hmm. Like, it, it, you know, this isn't just sending packets across a, a thing, whatever, and hoping that people find something to do with it.This is just like, oh, we apply intelligence into every domain of human activity. And then it works like incredibly well. Yeah. Um. Here's what I know, here's what I know. Um, in the next three or four year, it's like somewhere between three or four years out, basically everything is selling out. So like the, the entire supply chain is, is, is, is sold out or, or, or selling out.And so there, there's no, like, we're just gonna have like chronic supply shortage for, you know, for years to come. Um, there's going to be a response from the market that's gonna result in an enormous, you know, it's happening now. An enormous flood of investment in a new fab capacity and ev you know, every, everything else to be able to do that, at some point the supply chain constraints will unlock, you know, at least to some degree that will be another accelerant to industry growth when that happens.‘cause the products will get better and everything will get cheaper. Um, and so, so I know that's gonna happen. I know that, you know, the deployments, you know, the, the actual use cases are like really compelling. And then, like I said, you know, with reasoning and agents and so forth, like, I know they're just gonna get like much, much better from here.And so I, I, I know the capabilities are like really real and serious. I also know that the technical progress is not going to stop. It. It, it is excel. It is, is accelerating. Like the, the breakthroughs are are tremendous. I mean, even just month over month, the breakthroughs are really dramatic. And so, you know, I think if you were a cynic and there, there are cynics, you can look at 2000, you can find echoes.But I can't even imagine betting it that this is gonna like somehow disappoint and, you know, at least for years to come, I think it would be essentially suicidal to make that bet. Yeah. Um, it was that Michael Burry, uh, uh, that'sswyx: anMarc: interesting guy, huh? We'll pick on a guy. We'll pick, let's pick on one guy.We'll pick. Well ‘cause he did, he he came out with, it was, it was the, heswyx: doesn't mind.Marc: It was the Nvidia short. Right. He came with the Nvidia short. And then if you guys probably talked about this, which is the, the analysis now that like the current models are getting better faster at such a rate that if you are running an Nvidia, if you're running an Nvidia inference chip today, that's three years old, you're making more money on it today than you did three years ago because the pace of improvement of the software is, is faster than the, the, the depreciation cycle, the chip.And then my understanding is Google is running. I don't if they've, I don't know exactly what, uh, these are rumors that I've heard or maybe it's public, but, um, I think Google's running very old TPUs, very profitably. Ference. Yeah. And very profit and very profitably. Yeah. Um, and so, so it actually turns out, as far as I can tell, it's actually the opposite of the Beery thesis is actually.He was actually 180 degrees wrong. It's actually the, the, the, the old Nvidia chips are getting more valuable, which is something that's like literally never happened before. Like it's never been the case that you have an older model chip that becomes more valuable, not less valuable. And that, and again, that's an expression of the just ferocious pace of software progress.Ferocious pace of capability payoff. Yeah. Uh, that you're getting on the other side of this. And so I just, the idea of betting against that, like.swyx: Yeah. Yeah. Well, one ofMarc: my, it seems like an invitation to get your face ripped up.swyx: One of my early hits was like modeling the lifespan of the H 100 and h two hundreds and, and going like, you know, usually they advise like four to seven years and it was, you know, maybe you sort of realistically haircut cut it down to two to three.Yeah. But actually it's going up and not down. Yeah. And, and uh, that's, I mean that's, I think that's the dream. Uh, we are finding utilization and I think utilization solves all problems. Like, you can, you can find use, use cases for even like the poor, like even memory, we're having a shortage. Right. And, and even like the, the shittier versions of, of memory that we do have, we are finding use cases for it.So like That's great.Marc: Yeah.Alessio: How, how important is open source AI and kinda like edge inference in a world in which you have three years of supply crunch. Like, do you think in the, like, you know, if you fast forward like five years, like how do you think about inference, uh, in the data center versus at the edge?Marc: Well, so just to start, yeah. So I think, I think open source is very important for a bunch of reasons. I think edge, edge inference is very important for a bunch of reasons. I, I think just practically speaking, if we're just gonna have fundamental construc, supply crunches for the next, I mean, you, you guys know if you just project forward demand over the next three years, right?Yeah. Relative to supply, one of the, its main predictions you can do is what's gonna, what, what's gonna happen to the cost of, of inference in the core, uh, over the next three years? And like, it may rise dramatically, right? Like, so, so what is, and then is, is, you know, like the, the, the big model competition are subsidizing heavily right now.Right? Right. And so, so what's the, what will be the average person's, you know, per day, per month token cost, you know, three years from now to do all the things that they want to do. And I, I don't know, it's gonna. I mean, I have, you guys probably have friends, I have friends today who are paying a thousand dollars a day for open claw, for claw tokens to run open claw.Right? And so, okay. $30,000 a month. Right? And, and by the way, those, those friends have like a thousand more ideas of the things that they want their claw to do, right? Yeah. And so you, you could imagine there, there's like latent demand of up to, I don't know, five or $10,000 a day of, of, of tokens for a fully deployed, you know, per personal agent.Uh, and obviously consumers can't pay that, right? And so, so, but it gives you a sense of the fu of the fu of the future scope of demand, right? And so, so even, even if there's a 10 x improvement in price performance, that still, you know, goes to a hundred dollars a day, which is still way beyond what people can pay.Mm-hmm. So there's just gonna be like. Ferocious to me, by the way. The agent thing, the other interesting thing is I think the agent thing, so up until now, a lot of the constraints of GGPU constraints, I think the agent thing now also translates into CPU constraints. Mm-hmm. Right?swyx: CPU memory.Marc: Yes. CPU memory, right?And so, like the entire chip ecosystem is just gonna get wait,swyx: wait for network constraints, that that will be the killer.Marc: It's all bottleneck potentially for years. And so, so I, I think that Brad, and, and I think it's actually possible, I mean, generally inference costs are gonna keep coming down, but I think the, let's put it this way, the rate of decline, I think may level out here for a bit because of these supply constraints.And then at some point, maybe the lab stops subsidizing so much and that, that, that again, will be, be an issue. And so there's just gonna be so much more demand for inference than, than can be satisfied. Um, you know, kind of with the centralized model. And then, and then, you know, you guys know this, but like all the, just the dramatic, I mean just the dramatic innovations that have happened in the Apple silicon to be able to do, uh, inferences, it's quite amazing the level of effort being put.Like the open source guys are putting incredible effort into getting, you know, this recurring pattern where the big model will never run on a pc, and then six months later mm-hmm. Oh, it runs in a pc, right? It's like amazing. And there's very smart people working on that. So there's all that. And then look, there's also, you know.There's also like other, there's other motivators. There's other motivators which is just like, okay, how much trust are the big centralized model providers? You know, how much trust are they building in the market versus, you know, how much are, you know, at least for, in certain cases with some people, for certain use cases, people being like, well, I'm not willing to just like, turn everything over.So there, there, there's all the trust issues. Um, by the way, there's also just like straight up price optimization. There's many uses of AI where you don't need Einstein in the cloud. You just need like a, a a, a smart local model. There's also performance issues where you want, you know, you want, you know, you're gonna want your doorknob to have an AI model in it.Right. You know, to be able to, you know, do, um, you know, to be able to do access control. Um, obviously like everything with a chip is gonna have an AI model in it. Mm-hmm. And it, a lot of those are gonna be local. Um, and so, yeah. No, like I think, I think you're gonna have ti and then you're gonna, by the way, also wearable devices, you know, you don't wanna do a complete round trip.You want, you know, you, whatever your smart devices are, you want it to be like super low latency. Yeah.swyx: The question, do we care who makes it? Yeah. One of the biggest news this week was the collapse of AI two, the Allen Institute. Mm-hmm. One of the actual American open source model labs. Yeah. Um, and, uh, I'm not that optimistic on, on American open source.Yeah. Like you, you guys invested in MIS trial and MIS trial's doing extremely well outside of China. That's about it.Marc: Yeah. We'll see. We'll see. I look, I, number one, I do think we care. Uh, I do think we, I do think we care who makes it. Um, I would say this, the, the, the, the previous presidential administration wanted to kill it in the us Oh yeah.They wanted to drown in the bathtub. Um, and so they wanted to kill it. So at least we have a government now that actually like, actually wants it wants it to happen. And youswyx: earned to councilMarc: and Yeah. And the new and the P pcast. Yeah. So the, the, you know, this admin for whatever other political issues people have, which are many, you know, this administration has, I think a very enlightened view and in particular an enlightened view on AI and in particular on open source ai.Uh, and so they're very supportive. Um, my read is the Chi. The Chinese have a very, the various Chinese companies have a very specific reason to do open source, which is, they, they, they don't fundamentally, they don't think they can sell commercial, uh, AI outside of China right now. And or at least specifically not, not in the US for a combination of reasons.And so they, they kind of view, I think, open source AI as a bit of a loss leader against basically domestic, uh, you know, paid, paid services. And then kind of an, you know, kind of an ancillary products. You know, they're, they're very excited about it, by the way. I think it's great. I think it's great that they're doing it.Um, you know, I think Deeps seek was like a gift to the world. Um, I think. The great thing about open source, open source, the, the, the impact of open source is felt two ways. One is you, you get the software for free, but the other is you get to learn how it works, right? And so like the paper, the paper, the paper and, and the code, right?And the code. And so, like, for example, I thought this was amazing. So open comes out with L one and it's an amazing technical breakthrough, and it's just like, absolutely fantastic. But of course they don't explain how it works in detail. And then of course they hide the, they hide the reasoning traces, right?And, and then, and then, and then everybody's like, okay, this is great, but like, who's gonna be able to replicate this? Are other people gonna be able to do this? You know, is their secret sauce in there? And then our one comes out and it's just like, there's the code and there's the paper, and now the whole world knows how to do it.And then, you know, three months later, every other AI model is, is adding reasoning. And so, so you get this kind of double, like even if the Chinese models themselves are not the models that get used, the education that's taken place to the rest of the world, the information diffusion, you know, is incredibly powerful.So that happens and then, I don't know. We'll, we'll see. You know, there are a bunch of American, you know, open source, you know, ai, uh, model companies. I mean, look, there's gonna be tremendous, you know, there already is. There's, you know, there's gonna be tre there's tremendous competition, uh, among the primary model companies.You know, there's, depending on how you count, there's like four or five, you know, big co model companies now that are, you know, kind of neck and neck, uh, in different ways. Um, uh, you know, and, and, and, um, you know, and then obviously Bo Bo both X and then MetAware involved are, you know, both have huge, you know, huge attempts to, you know, kind of, to kind of leapfrog underway.And then you've got, you know, a whole fleet of startups, new companies, including a whole bunch that we're backing, that are, you know, trying to come out with different approaches. And then you've got whatever it is. I don't know how, how many, how many, like main line foundation model companies are there in China at this point?It's probably six. It'sswyx: five Tigers is what they call it. Yeah. Uh, Quinn is in questionable because there's change in leadership,Marc: right?swyx: Yeah.Marc: But that, does that include, that includes like Moonshot,swyx: yes. Can deep seek, uh, uh, ZI, um, Quinn oh one is in there.Marc: Right. And then, um, and by dance and, and then you see,swyx: ance would be like the next tier ance.They weren't as prominent. They weren't, didn't haveMarc: a leading. Yeah. But they, you at least, you know, ance is very inspiring and presumably they have more stuff coming and Tencent probably has more stuff coming and, and so forth. And so, so, so like, look, here, here would be a thing you can anticipate, which is there are not these markets, there are not going to be between the US and China right now, there's like a dozen primary foundation model companies that are like at scale, at, at some level of a critical mass.It's not gonna be a dozen in three years, right? Like, it just because these industries don't bear a dozen, it's, it's gonna be three or you know, there's gonna be three or four big winners or maybe one or two big winners. And so there's gonna be like a whole bunch of those guys that are gonna have to figure out alternate strategies.Um, and I think like open source is one of those strategies. And so I, I think you could see like a whole, i, I, I think the questions like, who's gonna do open source? I think that could change really fast. I, I think that, that, that's a very dynamic thing. I think it's very hard to predict what happens. And, and I think it's very important.swyx: NVIDIA's doing a lot.Marc: Well, I was gonna say. Well, exactly. And then you're got Nvidia and then, and then, you know, just to, again, indu, there's an old thing in business strategy, which is called, uh, commoditize Compliments. Commoditize the compliment. That's right. And so if your Jensen is just kind of obvious, of course, you wanna commoditize the software.Yeah. And he's, and to his enormous credit, he's putting enormous resources behind that. And so maybe it, maybe it's literally Nvidia and I think that would be great.Alessio: Yeah. Uh, narrative violation to European projects, uh, in the, uh, damn.swyx: I'm hosting my, uh, Europe, uh, conference soon. And I got both of them.Alessio: They got us.They got us. MarkMarc: finished. They got us, us. Well, wait a minute. Where was Peter? So where was Steinberger when he did? In AustriaAlessio: was, yeah, yeah, yeah.Marc: He was in what? He was in Vienna. Oh, he was in Vienna. And then where is he now?swyx: Uh, he's moving to sf.Marc: Okay. Okay. Alright. Okay, there we go. And then, yeah, the PI guy, right?The PI guys are European.swyx: Yeah, they're also, they're buddies inAlessio: Australia. Mario's also there. Yeah.Marc: Right. And are they, yeah, they haven't announced yet. Any sort of change changed or have theyAlessio: No, they're, they have a company there.Marc: Okay. Got, okay. Good.Alessio: Good, good,good.Alessio: Um,Marc: yeah, good.swyx: Anyways, I think pie and open cloud very important software things and, and I just wanted you to just go off on what you think.Marc: Yeah. So I think in co the, the combination of the two of them I think is one of the 10 most important softwares. Openswyx: Claw got all the attention, but Right. Talk about pie,Marc: pi pie's, kind of the Yeah. PI's, PI's kind of the architectural breakthrough for those of us who are older. There was this whole thing that was very important in the world of software basically from like 1970 to, I don't know, it still is very important, but like 19, from 1973 to like basically the creation of Linux, which is basically this, this thing used to call like the Unix mindset.Like so, so, ‘cause there were all these different, you know, theories. There are all these different operating systems and mainframes and, and then you know, all these windows and Mac and all these things. And then there was this, but kind of behind it all was this idea of kind of the Unix mindset. And the Unix mindset was this thing where basically you don't have these, like, like in the old days, like, like the operating system that like made the computer industry really work, like in the 1960s mm-hmm.Was this thing called o os 360, which was this big operating system that IBM developed that was supposed to basically run everything. And it was this like giant monolithic architecture in the sky. It was like a, you know, it was like a giant castle. Um, of software. And, and by the way, it worked really well and they were very successful with it.But like, it was this huge castle in the sky, but it was this thing, it was almost unapproachable, which is like, you had to be kind of inside IBM or very close to IBM. And you had to really understand every aspect, how the system worked. And then the, the Unix sky is originally out of at and t and then out out of Berkeley, um, you know, came out and they said, no, let's have a completely different architecture.And the way architecture's gonna work is we're gonna have, we're gonna have a, a prompt and, and a, and a shell. And then, and then we're gonna, all, all the functionality is gonna be in the form of these discreet modules, and then you're gonna be able to chain the modules together. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And so like the, the, the op, it's almost like the operating, operating system itself is gonna be a programming language.Um, and then that led led to the, the, the sort of centrality of the shell. Um, and then that led to sort of, uh, you know, basically chaining together Unix tools. And then that led to the emergence of these, these scripting languages like Pearl, where you, you could basically kind of very easily do this, and then the shells got more sophisticated and then, and then, and then look like, you know, that, that, that number one, that worked and that, that was the world I grew up in.Like I was, I was a Unix guy. You know, sort of from, call it 1988 to, you know, kind of all, all the way through my work and it worked really well. It, it's in the background, um, you know, nor normal people don't need to, didn't need to necessarily know about it, but like, if you were doing like system architecture, application development, you, you, you knew all about it.Um, and then, you know, it's been in the background ever since. And, you know, look, your Mac still has a Unix shell, you know, kind of in there, and your iPhone still has a Unix shell kind of buried in there somewhere. So they're kind of in there. And then, you know, the Windows shell is kind of a, you know, sort of a weird derivative of that.But, um, you know, but look, the inter, the internet runs on Unix, um, and that smartphones, actually, both iOS and Android are Unix derivatives. And so, you know, kind of Unix did end up winning. But, but anyway, and then we just started taking that for granted. And then, and then so, so basically the, the way I think about what happened with Pie and then with Open Claw is basically what those guys figured out is, I always say the, the great breakthroughs are obvious in retrospect, right?Which is the best kind, the best kind. They weren't obvious at the time or somebody else would've done them already. Um, and so there is a, like a real conceptual leap, but then you look at it sort of the backwards looking and you're just like, oh, of course. Mm-hmm. Like the, the, to me those are always the best breakthroughs.Well, actually language models themselves are like that. It's just like, oh, next token completion. Oh, of course.swyx: Yeah. What other objective mattered?Marc: Yeah, exactly. But, but like it, right. But she's even saying it wasn't obvious until somebody actually did it. Right. And so the conceptual breakthrough is real and deep and powerful and, and very important.And so the way I think about pie and olaw is it's basically marrying the, the language model mindset to the un to the Unix, basically shell prompt mindset. And so it's, it's basically this idea that what, what, so what is an agent, right? And as, as, and as you know, like many smart people who have been trying to figure out what an agent is for, for, for decades, and they've had many architectures to build agents and the whole thing.And it turns out what is an agent. So it turns out what we now know is an agent is the following. It's, so it's a language model. And then above that, it's a ba, it's a bash shell. Um, so it's a, it's a Unix shell, and then it's, and then the agent has access, uh, has access to, to the shell. And, you know, hopeful, hopefully in a sandbox, maybe in, maybe in a sandbox.So it's, it's the model. Um, it's the shell. Um, and then it's a fi, it's a file system. Um, and then the state is stored in files. And then, you know, there's the markdown format for the, you know, for, for the files themselves. And then, and then there's basically what in Unix is called Aron job. There's a loop and then there's a heartbeat for the, there's heartbeat and, and the thing basically Wake Wakes up.Wakes up. So it's basically LLM plus shell, plus file system, plus markdown, plus kron. And it turns out that's an agent. And, and, and every part of that, other than the model is something that we already completely know and understand. And in fact, it turns out that like the latent power of the Unix shell is like extraordinary because basically like all, like, there's just like an, there's just enormous latent power in the shell.There's enormous numbers of Unix commands, there's enormous number of command line interfaces into all kinds of things already in the, you know, your entire, I mean your entire, just to start with, your computer runs on a shell. If you're running a Mac or a, or, or a phone, your computer, your computer's running on a shell, uh, already.And so like the full power of your computer is available at the command line level. Um, and then it turns out it's really easy to expose other functions as a command line interface. And so like this whole idea where we need like MCP and these like product mm-hmm. Fancy protocols, whatever, it's like, no, we don't, we just need like a command, command line thing.So that's the architecture. And then it turns out what is your agent? Your agent has a bunch of files starting a file system. And then there's the thing that just like completely blew my mind when I write my head around it as a result of this, which is like, okay. This means your agent is now actually independent of the model that it's running on.Because you can actually swap out a different LLM underneath your agent and your, your agent will change personality somewhat. ‘cause the model is different, but all of the state stored in the files will be retained.swyx: Yeah. Different instruction set, but you just compiledit.Marc: Right, exactly. And it's all right.It's like right. Swapping out a ship and recompiling, but it's, it's still, it's still your agent with all of its memories. Um, and with all of its capabilities. And then by the way, you can also swap out the shell, uh, so you can move it to a different execution environment that is also, is also a b shell, by the way, you can also switch out the file system, right.Uh, and you can, and you can, and you can swap out the, the, the heartbeat for the, the crown framework, the, the loop that the agent framework itself. And so your agent basically is ba basically at the end of the day, it's just. It's just, its files. Um, and then, and then there's of course it a openswyx: call.Marc: Yeah, it's, it's basically, it's, it's just the files.Um, and then by the way, as a consequence of that, the agent and then the agent itself, it turns out a couple important things. So one is it, it's, it, it can migrate itself, right? And so you're, you can instruct your agent, migrate yourself to a different, uh, runtime environment, migrate yourself to a different file system, migrate yourself to a different, you know, swap out the language model.Your agent will do all that stuff for you. And then there's the final thing, which is just amazing, which is the agent is the agent actually has full introspection. It actually, it actually knows about its own files and it could rewrite its own files. Right. Which by the way, is basically no widely deployed software system in history where the, the, the thing that you're using actually has full introspective knowledge of how it itself works and is able to modify itself.Like that, that, I mean, there have been toy systems that have had that, but there, there's never been a widely deployed system that has that capability and then that leads you to the capability. That just like completely blew my mind when I wrap my head around it, which is you can tell the agent to add new functions and features to itself and it can do that.Extend yourself. Yeah. Right? Extend, extend yourself. Like extend yourself. Give yourself a new capability. Right? And so, and so literally it's just like you run into somebody at a party and they're like, oh, I have my open claw, do whatever, connect to my eat, sleep bed, and it gives me better advice and sleep.And you go home at night and you tell your claw, or if they're at the party, by the way, you tell your claw, oh, add this capability to yourself. And your claw will say, oh, okay, no problem. And it'll go out on the internet and it'll figure out whatever it needs and then it'll go out to claw code or whatever.It'll write whatever it needs. And then the next thing you know, it has this new capability. And so you don't even have to, like, you can have it upgrade itself without even having to, without having to do anything other than tell it that you want it to do that. And so anyway, so the, the combination of all this is just, I mean, this is just like a massive, incredible, I mean, it's just incredible.Like if I, if I were, if I were 18, like this is a hundred, this is what I would be spending all of my time on. This is like such an incredible conceptual breakthrough. Yeah. And again, pe people are gonna look at it and they already get this response. People are gonna look at it and they're gonna say, oh, well, where's the breakthrough?‘cause these, the, all of these components were already known before. Mm-hmm. But, but this is the key, the key to the breakthrough was by using all these components that were known before, you get all of the underlying capability of that's buried in there. And so all, and so for example, computer use all of a sudden just kind of falls, trivi, trivial.Of course it's gonna be able to use your computer. It has full access to the shell. Right. And then, and then you just, you, you give it access to a browser, and then you've got the computer and the browser and, and often away it goes. And, and then you've got all the abilities of the browser also. Um, yeah.And so, and so the capability unlock here is profound. My friends who are, you know, deepest into this, are having their claw do like a, like, literally like a thousand things in their lives. They have new ideas every day. They're just like constantly throwing new challenges at the thing. And by the way, it's early and, you know, these are, you know, these are prototypes and there are, you know, as you guys know, there's security issues.Yeah. And, and so, you know, there's a bunch of stuff to be ironed out, but the, the unlock of capability is just incredible.swyx: Yeah.Marc: And I, I have absolutely no doubt that everybody in the world is gonna, is gonna have at least, you know, an agent like this, if not an entire family of agents. And w

REVIEW — Bob Zimmerman — European Union Space Act: Regulatory Overreach Against Private Enterprise. Zimmerman discusses a proposed European Union Space Act, characterizing this legislation as "egregious" regulatory overreach that would systematically harm private enterprise innovation and commercial space development. Zimmermanprovides a 50-word summary: Zimmerman critiques the law because the EU is attempting to impose its regulatory sovereignty on non-European companies, specifically dictating satellite construction and launch methodologies for American firms having no European operational presence or connection. Despite unprecedented opposition from the U.S. State Department, the European Space Agency, private American space companies, and the Progressive Policy Institute (a leftist policy organization), Zimmerman warns that the EU characteristically ignores substantive objections and pursues its own regulatory agenda unilaterally, functioning analogously to a Homeowners Association attempting to enforce paint color requirements on properties located in completely different cities outside their jurisdictional authority.

Réunis à Brême en Allemagne, les 23 États membres de l'Agence spatiale européenne (ESA) doivent définir d'ici ce soir les priorités et le budget spatial du continent jusqu'en 2028. Dans un contexte de forte concurrence internationale et de retard technologique accumulé, l'Europe tente de préserver sa souveraineté face aux États-Unis, à la Chine.  La statistique est saisissante et mérite d'être notée. Sur les 261 lancements de fusées réalisés dans le monde en 2024, l'Europe n'en compte que trois. Une faiblesse historique, qui contraste avec les 156 tirs américains et les 68 chinois. C'est dans ce contexte que les ministres de l'Espace se réunissent à Brême. L'ESA réclame 22 milliards d'euros pour la période 2026-2028, soit 5 milliards de plus que lors du cycle précédent, afin d'éviter un décrochage durable.  Malgré cette hausse, le continent reste très en dessous des grandes puissances : l'Europe ne pèse que 10 % du financement spatial public mondial, loin derrière les États-Unis et la Chine. Pourtant, l'enjeu est crucial : sans satellites, pas de météo fiable, pas de GPS européen, pas d'Internet sécurisé, pas de gestion de crise. Pas de souveraineté, tout simplement. Un continent fragmenté face aux ambitions spatiales  Si l'Europe veut redevenir une puissance spatiale, elle devra d'abord résoudre un problème politique : elle ne parle pas d'une seule voix. La France, longtemps locomotive du spatial européen grâce à Ariane, Kourou, Airbus ou Thalès, passe désormais au troisième rang des contributeurs derrière l'Allemagne et l'Italie. Berlin accélère, notamment dans le spatial militaire, tandis que Rome mise sur les mini-lanceurs et les constellations, profitant d'une base industrielle solide.  Pourtant, les succès européens existent. Citons Copernicus, programme d'observation du climat; Galileo, le GPS européen ; IRIS², future constellation de connectivité sécurisée ou encore l'incontournable Ariane 6, le nouveau lanceur du continent. Mais contrairement aux États-Unis, où les acteurs privés sont devenus centraux, comme SpaceX, le spatial européen repose principalement sur de l'argent public.  À lire aussiLa France peut-elle rattraper son retard dans le secteur spatial? L'Europe s'organise face à SpaceX et au NewSpace américain  Face au succès de SpaceX et de tout l'écosystème du NewSpace américain, l'Europe tente de structurer son propre marché. L'ESA a sélectionné cinq mini-lanceurs pour développer une offre commerciale. En parallèle, la Commission européenne a présenté un « Space Act européen » destiné à harmoniser les règles, renforcer la compétitivité et aligner les stratégies nationales encore trop dispersées.  Car malgré ses divisions, l'Europe conserve des atouts majeurs : une industrie performante, des ingénieurs de haut niveau et des centres spatiaux d'excellence. Reste désormais à transformer ces atouts en puissance collective. Encore faut-il parler d'une seule voix et se donner enfin les moyens de se faire entendre.  À lire aussiL'Europe affine sa stratégie pour retrouver le chemin de l'espace

The US Space Force's (USSF's) X37-B spaceplane is scheduled to lift off for its eighth mission on August 21. Firefly Aerospace is targeting a valuation of about $5.5 billion in its US initial public offering. Boeing's Defense, Space and Security Division reported $6.6 billion in revenue for Q2, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Cinematographer Kevin Curran. You can connect with Kevin on LinkedIn. Selected Reading US Space Force scheduled to launch eighth X-37B mission Firefly Aerospace seeks $5.5 billion valuation in IPO as US space race heats up- Reuters Boeing Reports Second Quarter Results Russia's Roscosmos, NASA to hold first in-person talks at heads level since 2018, Russia says- Reuters Team Led By MDA Space Selected For Canada's Lunar Utility Vehicle Study Spire Global Awarded European Space Agency Contract for Weather Data Journey Joins Starlab to Design the Commercial Space Station Experience National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended) - NASA T-Minus Crew Survey Complete our annual audience survey before August 31. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Eisenhower Signs Act Creating NASAOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law, officially creating NASA. The legislation emerged in response to growing Cold War tensions and the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik the previous year. It marked a pivotal shift in U.S. federal priorities, establishing a civilian-led space agency to coordinate scientific exploration, aeronautics research, and peaceful uses of space. NASA began operations on October 1, 1958, absorbing the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and ushering in a new era of government-backed technological ambition.Over the decades, NASA has become a symbol of American innovation, from landing astronauts on the moon to deploying the Hubble Space Telescope. Its work has catalyzed advancements not only in spaceflight, but also in climate science, materials engineering, and telecommunications. The legal framework underpinning NASA reflects a national consensus that science and exploration are critical public goods deserving of federal investment and support.But 67 years later, that consensus is showing strain. Just yesterday, NASA announced that nearly 4,000 employees—about 20% of its workforce—are leaving the agency through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program. This mass exodus follows proposed budget cuts and internal restructuring driven by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in Trump's effort to slash the federal workforce.The timing couldn't be worse. The administration has called for both sweeping workforce reductions and a significant budget cut of nearly 24% for FY 2026, even as it touts long-term funding increases in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Scientists and space advocates, including The Planetary Society, have criticized the inconsistency, calling it a direct threat to American leadership in space. A group of over 300 NASA employees echoed that concern in a public letter this week, denouncing the changes as "rapid and wasteful" and warning that they jeopardize the agency's mission.What began as a proud moment of bipartisan support for science and exploration now faces a political climate where expertise is undervalued and institutional stability is sacrificed for short-term optics.Nearly 4,000 NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation programIn her latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ghislaine Maxwell argues that her 2021 federal sex trafficking conviction should be overturned because it violated a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) originally struck between Jeffrey Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida. Maxwell contends that the agreement, which shielded Epstein and his unnamed co-conspirators from federal charges in exchange for his state-level plea, should have also barred her later prosecution in New York. The Justice Department disputes this, saying the NPA applied only to the Southern District of Florida and does not merit Supreme Court review. Maxwell's brief criticizes the DOJ for focusing on Epstein's misconduct rather than the legal scope of the deal, framing the issue as one of government accountability to its promises. The Second Circuit previously upheld her conviction, finding no evidence that the NPA was meant to apply nationally. However, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed a brief supporting Maxwell, arguing that even atypical agreements must be honored if made by the government. Political tensions surrounding the Epstein case continue to complicate matters, as Maxwell recently met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche amid renewed scrutiny of the Trump administration's handling of Epstein's prosecution. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether to hear the case in late September.Ghislaine Maxwell Tells Supreme Court Epstein Deal Shielded HerThe Trump administration has filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of violating judicial ethics by expressing concerns that the administration might defy court rulings, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis. The complaint centers on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March meeting of the judiciary's policymaking body, which included Chief Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department argues that these remarks, later echoed in his rulings, undermined judicial impartiality—particularly in a case where Boasberg blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants using wartime powers under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration claims Boasberg acted on a political bias when he found probable cause to hold it in criminal contempt for defying his deportation order. The DOJ has asked the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case and refer the complaint to a special investigative panel. Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama after an earlier nomination to the D.C. Superior Court by President George W. Bush, has not publicly responded. The D.C. Circuit stayed his contempt finding, and a final ruling is still pending.Trump administration files misconduct complaint against prominent judge Boasberg | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the suspension of 98-year-old Judge Pauline Newman for another year, citing her continued refusal to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation to assess her fitness to serve. Despite submitting medical reports from her own experts asserting she is mentally competent, the court concluded that those reports were insufficient and contained inaccuracies, including concerns about memory issues and fainting episodes. Newman's legal team criticized the court's swift decision, arguing that their evidence and arguments were not seriously considered following a recent hearing. Newman, a respected patent law jurist appointed by President Reagan in 1984, is the oldest active federal judge who has not taken senior status and has been a prominent dissenter on the Federal Circuit. The court originally suspended her in 2023 after Chief Judge Kimberly Moore raised concerns about her cognitive and physical condition. Newman sued over the suspension, but her case was dismissed; it is now under review by a separate federal appeals court. The latest ruling reaffirms the court's insistence on comprehensive testing before any reconsideration of her judicial role.US appeals court extends suspension of 98-year-old judge in fitness probe | ReutersDonald Trump has asked a federal court to expedite a deposition of Rupert Murdoch in his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over a July 17 article linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The article claimed Trump sent Epstein a 2003 birthday greeting that included a suggestive drawing and cryptic references to shared secrets—allegations Trump calls fabricated. In a court filing, Trump's lawyers said he informed Murdoch before publication that the letter was fake, and Murdoch allegedly responded that he would “take care of it,” which they argue demonstrates actual malice—a necessary legal threshold in defamation cases involving public figures. Trump's team is seeking Murdoch's testimony within 15 days, and Judge Darrin Gayles has ordered Murdoch to respond by August 4. The article's release has intensified political scrutiny of Trump's handling of the Epstein investigation. Legal analysts note Trump faces an uphill battle given the stringent standards for proving defamation, especially against media outlets. Dow Jones, which publishes the Journal, said it stands by its reporting and intends to vigorously defend the case.Trump asks for swift deposition of Murdoch in Epstein defamation case | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the latest shift in federal tax law—the move from the global intangible low-taxed income (GILTI) regime to the net controlled foreign corporation tested income (NCTI) system—should push states to reassess their habitual conformity to the Internal Revenue Code. NCTI expands the scope of taxable foreign income for U.S. multinationals, reflecting a broader federal effort to combat base erosion and bolster global competitiveness. But when states automatically conform to these changes—especially through rolling conformity—they risk inheriting complex, federally motivated rules that don't align with their economic interests or legal authority.Rolling conformity is a mechanism by which a state automatically updates its tax code to reflect changes in the federal Internal Revenue Code as they occur, without requiring separate legislative action. While rolling conformity can reduce administrative friction, it's increasingly problematic in an era of aggressive and frequent federal tax rewrites. States adopting NCTI may find themselves without key federal mechanisms like foreign tax credits or Section 250 deductions, exposing them to potential legal challenges over extraterritorial taxation and apportionment. These lawsuits could be expensive, prolonged, and ultimately hinge on issues that federal tax policy has already moved past. I argue that states need to move beyond passive conformity and take an intentional, sovereign approach to tax policy—reviewing conformity statutes now, decoupling where necessary, and preparing to defend their fiscal independence in the face of Washington's rapid policy swings.Trump Tax Law Should Spur States to Split From Federal ‘Pendulum' This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 Praying for Chris Arps as he is in Israel 16:59 SEG 2 Dr. Bob Onder, Congressman for Missouri’s 3rd District | TOPIC: Bob Onder's bill, H.R. 3424, the Shared Property Agency and Collaboration and Engagement Act of 2025 (SPACE) Act passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday | The Army’s 250th anniversary parade on Trump’s birthday | Big Beautiful Billonder.house.gov/x.com/BobOnderMO 34:27 SEG 3 https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

THE TIM JONES AND CHRIS ARPS SHOW 0:00 SEG 1 Praying for Chris Arps as he is in Israel 16:59 SEG 2 Dr. Bob Onder, Congressman for Missouri’s 3rd District | TOPIC: Bob Onder's bill, H.R. 3424, the Shared Property Agency and Collaboration and Engagement Act of 2025 (SPACE) Act passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday | The Army’s 250th anniversary parade on Trump’s birthday | Big Beautiful Billonder.house.gov/x.com/BobOnderMO 34:27 SEG 3 https://newstalkstl.com/ FOLLOW TIM - https://twitter.com/SpeakerTimJones FOLLOW CHRIS - https://twitter.com/chris_arps 24/7 LIVESTREAM - http://bit.ly/NEWSTALKSTLSTREAMS RUMBLE - https://rumble.com/NewsTalkSTL See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

#201: UHCL's NASA Partnership + UT System's Enterprise AI Strategy [EDUCAUSE 2024]Brought to you by:SentinelOne—Learn how SentinelOne empowers this state to stay secure.Verizon Frontline—The advanced network that keeps first responders connected when it matters most.Carahsoft—The Trusted Public Sector IT Solutions Provider™, supports government agencies and education/healthcare markets. Contact your Carahsoft rep today to access special discount pricing exclusively through the TechTables + Carahsoft partnership!Featuring:- Dr. LeeBrian Gaskins, Senior Associate Vice President of IT/CIO at University of Houston-Clear Lake- William Huang, Deputy CIO, University of Texas SystemWhat You'll Learn:Student-Centered Innovation in Higher EdUT System declared 2024 as "the year of the student," implementing the 25-year-old Archer Center Fellows program that brings 30-40 undergraduate, graduate, and medical students to Washington D.C. for leadership developmentThe UT System's 12-week summer internship program provides students with 9 hours weekly of professional development alongside functional work in IT, business, accounting, and legal areasUHCL prioritizes graduate education growth through collaborative approaches with other Houston institutions, rejecting the "zero-sum game" mentality in student recruitment to create shared student successEnterprise AI Implementation StrategyUT Health Houston formalized a major partnership with OpenAI to provide advanced AI tools for medical students and clinical faculty, representing one of several mission-specific AI implementationsUT System has deployed a multi-node private AI cluster at their shared data center for all 14 institutions to develop business use cases, creating a secure on-premises AI environmentUHCL is developing 24/7 AI tutoring systems that help students identify knowledge gaps before exams and using AI analytics to mine historical student data for previously unrecognized improvement opportunitiesCross-Campus Collaboration FrameworkThe UT System achieves economies of scale by site-licensing Microsoft tools for all 256,000 students, faculty, staff and clinicians across its 14 institutionsUHCL collaborates with neighboring Houston campuses to create consistent experiences for faculty who teach across multiple institutions and share licensing resourcesRegional partnerships between campuses with similar demographics (like Hispanic-serving institutions) enable targeted technology solutions for specific student populationsSpace & AI Educational InnovationUHCL was established through direct partnership with NASA, whose director requested graduate education facilities near the space center 50 years agoThe university houses NASA archives through the Space Act and maintains strong aerospace engineering and space exploration business programsUT San Antonio and UT Health San Antonio jointly created one of the first programs combining a medical degree with a master's in AI, featuring three years of medical education, one year of AI focus, and a capstone integration yearTimestamps01:37 - William Huang's background and DJ experience02:00 - 2024: "The Year of the Student" and Archer Center Fellows04:42 - Enterprise AI Strategy across UT System07:58 - UHCL's AI Policy and Student Success Applications10:53 - Balancing System-Wide Initiatives Across 14 UT Institutions12:00 - Regional Collaboration Between Houston Area Campuses16:24 - UHCL's NASA Connection and Aerospace Focus19:25 - How AI Will Transform Digital TransformationConnect

Exploring Space Law: Insights from Experts at Space Tech Expo 2024Welcome to the inaugural episode of our Space Law miniseries, recorded live at the Space Tech Expo in Bremen on November 22, 2024. Moderated by Torsten Kriening of SpaceWatch.Global, this episode delves into the interplay between procurement and national space laws. This session offers a comprehensive exploration of innovative procurement strategies, anchor customer roles, Liechtenstein's Space Act, and the Dutch legal framework for space activities. Tune in to understand how these legal structures foster innovation and robust growth in the space industry. The Workshop was organized by Prof. Dr. Lesley Jane Smith, Leuphana University & Dr. Ingo Baumann, BHO Legal.Part 1 – SPACE PROCUREMENT AND NATIONAL SPACE LAWFranck Germes, ESA - Innovative procurement and procurement for innovation within ESADr. Oliver Heinrich, BHO Legal - The role of the Anchor Customer in space industry developmentDr. Bianca Lins, Liechtenstein Office for Communications - The Liechtenstein Space ActDr. Dimitra Stefoudi, Leiden University - The Dutch legal framework for space activitiesSpace Café Radio brings you talks, interviews, and reports from the team of SpaceWatchers while out on the road. Each episode has a specific topic, unique content, and a personal touch. Enjoy the show, and let us know your thoughts at radio@spacewatch.globalWe love to hear from you. Send us your thought, comments, suggestions, love lettersYou can find us on: Spotify and Apple Podcast!Please visit us at SpaceWatch.Global, subscribe to our newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn and X!

The President helps set NASA's agenda and determine what our nation's space goals will be.

India's Minister of Science and Technology and Earth Sciences says that an ISRO astronaut will be going to the International space station some time “after August”. US lawmakers fail to pass FY2025 appropriations bills affecting NASA, NOAA and the FAA. Rocket Lab has completed integration and testing of two spacecraft destined for Mars orbit, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our weekly intelligence roundup, Signals and Space, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Mike Cassidy, CEO of D-Orbit USA. You can connect with Mike on LinkedIn and learn more about D-Orbit on their website. Selected Reading 65 Years Ago: The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 Creates NASA One Gaganyatri Will Travel To ISS After August, Says Space Minister Space Budget 2024: Government announces Rs 1000 crore to boost space technology - Times of India What's Happening in Space Policy July 28-August 3, 2024 Rocket Lab Completes Integration and Testing of Twin Spacecraft for NASA Mars Mission- Business Wire Redwire Signs MOU with Consolidated Safety Services, Inc. to Support International Space Station Services Contract- Business Wire CesiumAstro to Power Lunar Navigation With NASA Contract for LunaNet Technology- Business Wire SpaceX completes 300th booster reflight during first of planned back-to-back Falcon 9 launches Press Release and Press Coverage- First Street International Space Station Research And Development Conference Kicks Off Monday In Boston NASA astronauts hold their own Summer Olympics in space (video) T-Minus Crew Survey We want to hear from you! Please complete our 4 question survey. It'll help us get better and deliver you the most mission-critical space intel every day. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: NASA CreatedOn July 29, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, officially establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This landmark legislation was a response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik in 1957, which marked the beginning of the space race. The act represented a significant shift in U.S. priorities, emphasizing the importance of space exploration for national security, scientific advancement, and international prestige. NASA was charged with the responsibility of conducting civilian space research and development, distinguishing it from military operations in space.The creation of NASA consolidated several existing organizations, including the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), into a single entity focused on space exploration. This integration aimed to foster innovation and streamline efforts in advancing aerospace technology. NASA's establishment marked the start of an era of unprecedented achievements, including the Apollo moon landings, the development of the Space Shuttle, and numerous scientific missions to explore our solar system and beyond.The act also emphasized the peaceful exploration of space, setting a tone for international cooperation. NASA's formation underscored the United States' commitment to leading the world in space exploration and scientific discovery. This pivotal moment in legal and scientific history laid the groundwork for decades of exploration, research, and technological advancements that have had profound impacts on society and our understanding of the universe.President Joe Biden plans to propose significant reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court, including term limits for justices and a binding code of conduct. Announced during a speech at former President Lyndon B. Johnson's library, these reforms also include a constitutional amendment to remove broad presidential immunity. Biden's proposals follow a series of Supreme Court rulings that countered his policies and come shortly after he ended his reelection bid, endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.Biden emphasized the principle that no one is above the law, including the president and Supreme Court justices. His reforms would require justices to disclose gifts, avoid political activities, and recuse themselves from cases with conflicts of interest. The proposals come after the Court adopted a non-binding code of conduct in response to undisclosed travel by Justice Clarence Thomas and other controversies.However, the reality is passing these reforms through a divided Congress is unlikely. The proposed constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity would be particularly challenging, requiring broad legislative support and state ratifications.Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law - The Washington PostBiden Calls for Strict New Limits on US Supreme Court JusticesBiden to propose Supreme Court term limits, binding code of conduct | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has urged a federal appeals court to uphold a law mandating that China-based ByteDance sell TikTok's U.S. assets by January 19 or face a ban. The DOJ asserts that TikTok's Chinese ownership poses a significant national security risk, citing potential data access and covert content manipulation by the Chinese government. Despite TikTok's denials of sharing user data with China, the DOJ emphasized the threat's seriousness. The Biden administration seeks to dismiss lawsuits from TikTok, ByteDance, and TikTok creators opposing the law.The government highlighted extensive national security concerns, even though it admitted no evidence that China had accessed U.S. user data. TikTok criticized the government for not providing proof and acting on secret information. A classified document with further security concerns has also been submitted. ByteDance's source code, comprising 2 billion lines, is deemed too extensive for a thorough review.The law, signed by President Biden, aims to end Chinese ownership of TikTok on national security grounds without banning the app outright. The DOJ dismissed TikTok's First Amendment claims, noting other social media alternatives. TikTok's proposed $2 billion data protection plan was considered insufficient by the DOJ. The legal challenge's oral arguments are set for September 16, just weeks before the presidential election.Justice Dept. asks court to reject TikTok challenge to crackdown law | ReutersBritish drugmaker GSK has confidentially settled a lawsuit in Illinois claiming its discontinued heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer. Zantac, first approved in 1983 and once the world's best-selling medicine, faced scrutiny after the FDA requested its market withdrawal in 2020. The FDA's concerns centered on ranitidine, Zantac's active ingredient, potentially degrading into a carcinogen. GSK, along with Pfizer, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, faces over 70,000 lawsuits in Delaware and numerous other claims.Despite the settlement, GSK did not admit liability and plans to defend itself in remaining cases. Following the settlement news, GSK's shares rose by 0.8%.GSK settles another heartburn drug lawsuit in Illinois | ReutersMaryland has enacted the Gift Card Scams Prevention Act of 2024, the nation's first law to protect against gift card fraud, specifically card draining. Card draining involves criminals stealing gift cards from stores, capturing their numeric codes, and then replacing them for unsuspecting customers to purchase. When loaded with money, these cards allow thieves to steal the balance online. This new law mandates secure packaging for most gift cards sold in stores to prevent tampering.The legislation faced significant industry opposition, with retailers and gift card manufacturers lobbying against it. Despite this, the law requires both open-loop (e.g., Visa, Mastercard) and closed-loop (e.g., Target, Applebee's) cards to have secure packaging that shows signs of tampering. The bill's passage marks a significant step in addressing the surge in gift card fraud that escalated during the pandemic.Maryland's law is expected to have a national impact, as companies typically prefer to use uniform packaging across all states. This could lead to widespread adoption of more secure packaging practices. The law goes into effect next June, giving companies a year to comply. The hope is that this measure will significantly reduce the incidence of gift card fraud, benefiting consumers nationwide.The Nation's First Law Protecting Against Gift Card Draining Has Passed. Will It Work? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Voyager one's four science instruments are now fully functioning allowing the probe to resume gathering information about interstellar space. NASA and Boeing are extending the Starliner capsule's stay on the International Space Station until at least June 22.  The U.S. Space Force has awarded Blue Origin, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance spots on a potential 10-year contract to provide launch services as part of the third phase of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, and more.  Our 2024 N2K CyberWire Audience Survey is underway, make your voice heard and get in the running for a $100 Amazon gift card. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our weekly intelligence roundup, Signals and Space, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest Our guest today is Bailey Reichelt, founding partner at Aegis Law and board member at the Association of Commercial Space Professionals (ACSP).  You can connect with Bailey on LinkedIn, and learn more about Aegis and ACSP on their websites. Selected Reading Voyager 1 Returning Science Data From All Four Instruments Boeing Starliner undocking, return to Earth set for June 22, NASA says NASA Announces New System to Aid Disaster Response Blue Origin, SpaceX, ULA Win Positions on $5.6B IDIQ for USSF National Security Space Launch Phase 3 Lane 1 - GovCon Wire New CISA report addresses zero trust in space, boosting security for satellites and ground infrastructure - Industrial Cyber Historic Approach to Space Debris: Astroscale's ADRAS-J Closes in by 50 Meters NATO Space Operations Commanders' Conference Future Security and Warfare Space Florida, Business and Aerospace Entities to Congress: Support the Secure U.S. Leadership in Space Act to Boost Investment in American Spaceports Starship-Super Heavy launches on the Space Coast: Some residents submit environmental concerns Redwire Hires Distinguished Aerospace Executive and Corporate Attorney Aaron Futch as General Counsel- Business Wire Aerojet Rocketdyne Delivers 1,000th THAAD Solid Rocket Boost Motor and Divert and Attitude Control System Ahead of Schedule- Business Wire Dr. Kalpana Chawla Scholarship Project Sends Iconic Image to the Moon T-Minus Crew Survey We want to hear from you! Please complete our 4 question survey. It'll help us get better and deliver you the most mission-critical space intel every day. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Show Notes:0:00 M.C. Sungaila discussing history / preservation of space exploration 1:50 Sungaila's Portia Project Podcast interview with Space Law Expert Michelle Hanlon 2:45 Sungaila's experience with University of Mississippi School of Law's Air and Space Program 5:30 unclear language related to space law8:00 mining on the moon9:40 lessons from Holocaust-era restitution cases like Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation12:30 For All Moonkind 13:30 International Symposium on Cultural Heritage in War and Peace: Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage through Past, Present and Future 16:45 Sungaila's proposed framework to create space cultural heritage commission22:45 The Artemis Accords24:50 Italian Opera added to UNESCO intangible cultural heritage list25:15 treaty requiring registration of space objects 25:35 For All Moonkind's moon registry 26:10 One Small Step To Protect Human Heritage in Space Act 27:40 Sungaila's projection 29:30 Dubai space court31:25 urgency of space cultural heritage preservation32:40 definition of justice 35:40 9th Cir's 9 Jan 2024 opinion in Cassirer and the question of ethics and law39:45 Mismatch between domestic law and international obligations 42:10 Institute on Space Law and Ethics 44:00 issues related to satellites, drones, air taxisPlease share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comTo hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.Music by Toulme.To view rewards for supporting the podcast, please visit Warfare's Patreon page.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2024]

From the very beginning, NASA was defined as a civilian agency that would share its many discoveries with the tax-paying public.

Town Square with Ernie Manouse airs at 3 p.m. CT. Tune in on 88.7FM, listen online or subscribe to the podcast. Join the discussion at 888-486-9677, questions@townsquaretalk.org or @townsquaretalk. On July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 establishing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Today, in 2022, we celebrate more than six decades of space exploration and the successes of the nation's space program. With several new developments on the horizon for NASA, the James Webb Telescope is giving us new images and information from space, and it may have just unearthed the most distant galaxies ever seen.  Also, the Artemis 1 Space Program, a human spaceflight program to explore the moon, eventually sending the first astronauts to Mars, is set to launch next month. For those who don't understand space, our experts in this conversation will provide understanding of our place in the world and environment we live in, as we explore all of this and more on NASA's 64th birthday. Guests: Brian C. Odom, PhD, MLIS Acting NASA Chief Historian, NASA History Division Dr. David Law Associate Astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute Katheryn Vazquez Docking Systems, Hatches and Mechanisms Subject Matter Expert for Gateway's “Deep Space Logistics” at Kennedy Space Center Town Square with Ernie Manouse is a gathering space for the community to come together and discuss the day's most important and pressing issues. We also offer a free podcast here, on iTunes, and other apps.

Welcome back to Moving Hardstyle Forward, the Hardstyle Report Podcast. It's almost time for Intents Festival 2022! Are you ready to reach that high score?! Enjoy our fresh new podcast featured with the latest bangers of the moment. Ready, set, go and play it loud!

The first space race, between the United States and the Soviet Union, was a geopolitical and ideological struggle between superpowers. Now five decades in the past, it pushed the limits of technology to extremes and realized some long-held dreams of humanity, like putting a human on the moon. But after the enormous gains of the 1950s and 60s, space exploration advanced more gradually. More countries developed space programs, but between 1961 and 2000, only the Soviet Union, the United States and China put humans into space. After the U.S.'s Apollo program came to an end, humans never returned to the moon, and ambitious plans to expand human exploration to other planets were shelved. And with the end of NASA's Space Shuttle program, the U.S. seemed to become disinterested in the final frontier, even contracting human launches out to Russia. Over the past decade, something changed. In 2004, U.S. Congress required NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration to legalize private spaceflight. Then, in 2015, it passed the Spurring Private Aerospace Competitive and Entrepreneurship Act, better known as the SPACE Act, which expanded the rights to explore and exploit space to private citizens in the U.S.  During that same time, an internet entrepreneur named Elon Musk founded the aerospace company SpaceX with the goal of developing cheaper and more reliable access to space and, ultimately, to build a colony on Mars. Today, SpaceX has developed and launched its partially reusable rocket, Falcon 9, more than 150 times. The company is on the cusp of introducing a fully reusable launch system, Starship, with a lift capacity of more than 100 tons to low-Earth Orbit. SpaceX and other private companies have also developed vehicles that can put humans into space, as well as “mega-constellations” of satellites that promise to provide high quality and affordable internet access independent of terrestrial infrastructure. At the same time, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has brought an end to decades of cooperation between Washington and Moscow in space, putting even the future of the International Space Station into question. Meanwhile, China is aggressively pushing its space program, as are India and other nations. Arguably, the world is already in the age of a new Space Race. And this time, it is multipolar, with everyone from superpowers to startups participating.  Joining Trend Lines to discuss all this and more is Eric Berger, a senior space editor at Ars Technica and author of “Liftoff,” a book on the rise of SpaceX. Relevant articles on World Politics Review: As New Space Powers Emerge, NASA More Unreliable as Partner  Colonizing Space Is Not the Solution to Our Problems on Earth  Small States Can Play a Big Role in Space  The U.S. Space Program Is Back, but It Can't Go It Alone  China's Space Ambitions Have Washington on Edge    Trend Lines is produced and edited by Peter Dörrie, a freelance journalist and analyst focusing on security and resource politics in Africa. You can follow him on Twitter at @peterdoerrie.   To send feedback or questions, email us at podcast@worldpoliticsreview.com

On November 19, 2021, the Hudson Mohawk Magazine Network Roaming Labor Correspondent Willie Terry attended "CodePink Congress Calling Party and Zoom Discussion." The topic of the discussion was Abolish The Space Force. In this labor segment, you will hear comments from Congresswoman Maxine Waters on the bill, H.R 5335, "No Militarization of Space Act."

“How can you change the world if no one knows you exist?” – Izzy House    When it comes to marketing, Izzy knows a thing or two. And when it comes to marketing for space, Izzy House wrote the book on it- literally! Her new book, Space Marketing aims to empower companies within the space industry promote space, generate excitement, and implement marketing strategies and tactics to help companies thrive. The space business model is changing, and the companies that are successful right now do ONE THING CONSISTENTLY. On this week's episode, Izzy shares with Beth one of the simplest marketing strategies that works, yet so many companies just don't do…      Here's more about the book Space Marketing:  https://izzy.house/space-marketing-book/ From Izzy's website: Since the 2015 SPACE Act opened the doors for commercial companies, the space sector has exploded with activity. There are thousands of new players. As of 2018 data, over 72 countries have launched new governmental space agencies. As a result, unprecedented competition levels grow as countries ramp up their programs and the cost for entry into the industry reduces. Subsequently, Many of the space industry professionals have not had to maneuver in these waters before now. NASA's not the only game in town anymore. ESA, India, Israel, China, United Arab Emirates, and many other countries are going into space. Therefore, it is going to get even more competitive as these counties pour funds into their space programs and their country's businesses as they reach for a piece of this powerful industry. Marketing will become a necessity if you want to run in the space race. About Izzy: Izzy House utilizes creativity and her extensive marketing experience to help her business partners grow. The marketing strategies that she creates are attractive, produce results, and create income streams that have benefited 600+companies for over 20 years. From websites to print to video, her award-winning campaigns connect companies to their audience. With an extensive marketing background, she turns the lens of marketing onto the space industry. Armed with experience in public affairs, outreach, and marketing, she aims to empower space companies and further their dreams of space exploration.  https://www.ilsehouse.com/

Space law is the body of law governing space-related activities, encompassing both international and domestic agreements, rules, and principles. Parameters of space law include space exploration, liability for damage, weapons use, rescue efforts, environmental preservation, information sharing, new technologies, and ethics. Other fields of law, such as administrative law, intellectual property law, arms control law, insurance law, environmental law, criminal law, and commercial law, are also integrated within space law. The origins of space law date back to 1919, with international law recognizing each country's sovereignty over the airspace directly above their territory, later reinforced at the Chicago Convention in 1944. The onset of domestic space programs during the Cold War propelled the official creation of international space policy (for example, the International Geophysical Year) initiated by the International Council of Scientific Unions. The Soviet Union's 1957 launch of the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, directly spurred the United States Congress to pass the Space Act, thus creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Because space exploration required crossing transnational boundaries, it was during this era where space law became a field independent from traditional aerospace law. International principles and declarations. The five treaties and agreements of international space law cover "non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by space objects, the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, the prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation and the exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes". The United Nations General Assembly adopted five declarations and legal principles which encourage exercising the international laws, as well as unified communication between countries. The five declarations and principles are: The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (1963). All space exploration will be done with good intentions and is equally open to all States that comply with international law. No one nation may claim ownership of outer space or any celestial body. Activities carried out in space must abide by the international law and the nations undergoing these said activities must accept responsibility for the governmental or non-governmental agency involved. Objects launched into space are subject to their nation of belonging, including people. Objects, parts, and components discovered outside the jurisdiction of a nation will be returned upon identification. If a nation launches an object into space, they are responsible for any damages that occur internationally. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Welcome to another episode of Action and Ambition. Today’s guest is Tim Chrisman, Executive Director at Foundation For the Future, author of the book Humanity in Space, and a former Army special operations officer. With passaging the SPACE Act of 2021, Foundation for The Future is focused on the creation of a secure, sustainable, and efficient gateway to outer space in collaboration with the US Space Port Authority. The organization holds monthly virtual events that bring together industry leaders from both the public and private sectors. Tim holds two master’s degrees in Intelligence Studies, and one in International Relations and Affairs. Join us in this episode and learn more about Tim’s mission and story!

In 1958, in the wake of the Soviet Union launching Sputnik 1 – the world’s first artificial satellite – into space, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act into law. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, was born. And the space race was underway.In the following decades, the world would see the first man in space, the first spacewalk, and astronauts landing on the surface of the moon. Across eight different programs, the United States would fly 239 space missions, with 135 of those representing the space shuttle program.On August 31, 2011, the United States’ shuttle program was officially ended, and the United States government was out of the business of space exploration and travel.Today, private companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin are leading the way into the final frontier. Elon Musk has announced his plan is to have 1 million people living in a colony on Mars by the year 2050. As a new space race to settle on Mars and, perhaps, beyond takes flight, significant ethical questions remain unclear and unanswered. Today, we talk with Joel Sercel, an entrepreneur and space technologist, who argues that we need to start building international consensus on questions surrounding bioethics, property rights, laws governing space travel and space settlements, and stewardship of God’s creation outside of the Earth’s atmosphere.Subscribe to Acton Institute Events podcastTransAstra CorpWould Kuyper go to Mars? - Dylan PahmanThe frontier spirit of ‘The Martian’ - Dylan PahmanThe stewardship of space - Jordan BallorThe new space capitalists - Jordan BallorThe cultural mandate and the final frontier - Dylan Pahman See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

À l’initiative des États-Unis, huit pays viennent de signer l’accord d’Artemis, du nom de la prochaine expédition américaine sur la Lune, prévue en 2023. Ce nouveau texte juridique autorise l’exploitation et la possession privée des ressources de l’espace. À l’image du Homestead Act qui avait lancé la conquête de l’Ouest américain au XIXe siècle, l’accord d’Artemis ouvre la voie à la conquête des ressources de l’espace. L’initiative vient de la Nasa. L’agence spatiale américaine prépare une expédition vers la Lune pour y installer une base pérenne, étape avant le grand voyage vers Mars. Elle entend extraire et utiliser sur place les ressources naturelles dont elle aura besoin. Des métaux comme le fer et le titane ont été identifiés en plus grande quantité que prévu sur la Lune, et surtout de la glace, qui permettra de fournir l’eau, l’oxygène, l’hydrogène aux communautés humaines qui s’y installeront. Glace et métaux Mais à qui appartiennent ces matières premières ? Le traité sur l’espace de 1967 règle bien le problème de la propriété des planètes et des corps célestes : aucun État ne peut en revendiquer la souveraineté, mais il n’aborde pas la question de leurs ressources. Le traité de 1979 exige lui une répartition équitable des ressources entre tous les États, avec une attention spéciale pour les pays en développement, mais il n’a été signé par aucune puissance spatiale. C’est ce qui a permis à des sociétés privées américaines de s’engouffrer dans la brèche. Dès 2015, Planetary Ressources expose publiquement ses ambitions sur les matières premières de l’espace. Le président américain de l’époque, Barack Obama, leur donne même une caution légale avec le Space Act, qui les autorise à extraire, posséder, transporter, utiliser et vendre des ressources spatiales. Les États-Unis proposent des zones de sécurité Aujourd’hui, l’administration Trump va plus loin avec un texte proposé aux autres États, qui autorise la création de « zone de sécurité » pour protéger les activités des pays et des compagnes privées sur un corps céleste. Aucune grande nation spatiale n’a signé, ni la Chine, ni la France, ni la Russie. Moscou juge qu’Artemis est une initiative trop américano-centrée. Mais sept États ont déjà paraphé le document : l’Australie, le Canada, l’Italie, le Japon, le Luxembourg, les Émirats arabes unis et le Royaume-Uni. Parmi eux, certains ont déjà montré leur intérêt pour l’exploitation privée des ressources spatiales.

On this day in 1958, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Learn about the dreams of Carl Sagan to make understanding space science accessible to everyday Americans. Today is July 29, 2020. This is the Librarian's Almanac. Feel free to check out more from the Librarian's Almanac on their website: http://www.librariansalmanac.com/ I'd also love to hear from you directly. Feel free to send me an email at librarians.almanac@gmail.com

When President Dwight Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act in 1958, Charles "Pete" Conrad '53 was training as a U.S. Navy test pilot. Eleven years later, he’d become the third person to walk on the moon. Nov. 19 marks the 50th anniversary of Conrad’s moonwalk, part of the Apollo 12 mission, and to mark the occasion, PAWcast spoke with Jordan Bimm, a historian of science and postdoc in Princeton’s sociology department.

Saturday, October 5th is the 132nd birth anniversary of rocket pioneer Robert H. Goddard. His was the first liquid-fueled rocket to prove the concept that allowed for the exploration of space as we know it today. He launched the first liquid-fueled rocket in March 1926. The maximum altitude he achieved was 1.7 miles. His technology eventually was adopted in America soon after his death in 1945. October 5th is also the 61st anniversary of the founding of NASA. It was originally established as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, and had 8000 employees and three laboratories. President Dwight Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act in August 1958 in response to the launch of Sputnik on October 4th, 1957. Congress created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on October 1st, 1958. Along with our seasonal weather change comes the now obvious changes in sun time. We’re down to 11 hours 36 minutes of sun above the horizon vs 15 hours on June 21. We’ll still lose another 2 hours and 15 minutes between now and December 21 with Halloween as the halfway point to Winter Solstice. This is a great time for stargazers because they can start early enough and be warm enough to see three seasons of constellations from sunset to sunrise. Jupiter and Saturn are still the showpiece items of the evening sky. On Sunday night at 8 p.m., 60 degrees up in the NorthEast, the International Space Station will be visible.

On this episode, we talk about the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act, along with its ramifications to the Outer Space Treaty. Sources: HR. 2809 The Week Article Outer Space Treaty Moon Express SPACE Act of 2015 Paper on Outer Space Treaty Republic Policy Committee Kevin McCarthy House Speech Music: (in chronological order) Pacific Hike -- Silent Partner Bumblebee -- Quincas Moreira Night Vision -- Bird Creek

Legally Insane – Episode 31 Matt and Tony start off the show with a friendly argument regarding who knows more about the law. After all, these days a quick Google search can reveal quite a lot. In other news the guys have a live show coming up May 3rd at The Hollywood Improv. There will be a live podcast recording and a ton of great stand up comics. Stay tuned for this week’s episode on the legalities of laying claim to outer space. Highlights: [07:20] – In 2015 The SPACE Act was passed to allow US citizens to explore the moon and exploit planets. [09:00] – Space is free for exploration but nobody can claim sovereignty over it. [11:17] – In 1936 Dean Lindsay went to the Pittsburgh Notary office and tried to lay claim to everything in space, naming it Lindsay’s Archipelago. [11:47] – James Thomas Mangan founded the nation of Celestial Space, he tried to lay claim to the planets and stars. [20:20] – Alexander The Great and King Frederick and their space wishes. [23:02] – Jergens soap or lotion? Hollywood Improv Ticket Link: https://www.ticketweb.com/event/legally-insane-with-nick-thune-hollywood-improv-the-lab-tickets/8216265?pl=hollyimprov&REFID=hollywoodimprov&_ga=2.136525936.1919426937.1522706538-541958136.1519503963 Twitter: @mattritter1 @toekneesam Website: www.cascademedia.com

  While the History Fangirl Podcast has typically gone around the world to find the most fascinating stories, today we're taking our eyes off the Earth and casting our gaze starward. Today's guest is Valerie Stimac, an accomplished travel writer in her own right, who has started a unique site at spacetravelguide.com. While she isn't quite making recommendations for the burgeoning field of travel into space, Valerie does specialize in covering travel destinations that are of interest to space geeks around the world. In this week's episode we talk about the history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, how Houston became such an important part of its mission, and what happened on the ground during the most dramatic moments in American space exploration. We have liftoff Valerie provides the Cliffs Notes version of NASA history in this week's episode of the History Fangirl Podcast, starting with its founding in 1958, following President Dwight D. Eisenhower's signing of the National Aeronautics and Space Act. NASA started with a budget of about $100 million and three large facilities and two small research facilities. But in 1963, it was clear those facilities would not be able to handle all of the development that needed to happen (Langley Aeronautical Laboratory in Virginia you may remember from the movie Hidden Figures), which led to the establishment of what was eventually called Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Houston, we have a space center When the U.S. federal government was looking for a city where they could build a mission-critical space center, it wasn't too unlike the way corporations now search for their headquarters. They had various cities wooing them, and NASA factored in several different facets when conducting their search: it had to be near a big city, it had to be near a large university with resources for research, etc. And it had to be away from other NASA centers around D.C. and Florida. We couldn't have all of our brain trust in one place for, well, safety reasons. Phoning home If you quote or paraphrase any astronaut (as I did above), you're likely quoting mission control in Houston, or something an astronaut said to them. “Houston, the eagle has landed,” “Houston, we have a problem”; those are quotes from two different Apollo missions. As Valerie tells me in this episode, with all manned spacecraft being operated from Houston, some of the most iconic moments in space have filtered through Johnson Space Center. Of course Johnson is much more than mission control, there are numerous buildings in the complex that includes engineering and simulation and more, all of which can be called upon to help solve problems in space. Mission control The Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas is an amazing place that for the last 60 years has launched some of the most incredible feats of human ingenuity, and helped those feats stay on track once they're out of our atmosphere. As Valerie tells me in this episode, you can actually visit the historic mission control center where NASA staffers on the ground kept Apollo astronauts in the heavens alive. But that's just the beginning of what you can see there. It's a truly rare historic site, and even if you don't think of Houston as a historic city, the space center is a must-see. Outline of This Episode [1:07] Why Valerie founded SpaceTourismGuide.com [5:39] Brief history of NASA [10:09] How Houston got a space center [16:03] Important historic events at Johnson [22:06] How Houston helped Apollo 13 [27:16] How it became a tourist attraction [28:48]] What to see at the space center Resources Mentioned Space Tourism Guide Space Tourism Guide Twitter Johnson Space Center Connect With Stephanie stephanie@historyfangirl.com https://historyfangirl.com Support Stephanie on Patreon   Featuring the song “Places Unseen” by Lee Rosevere. More info and photographs for this episode at: https://historyfangirl.com/space-tourism-in-houston-texas/

The black letter law discussed in this episode is: George Washington University Space Policy Institute https://spi.elliott.gwu.edu/ Center for Space Policy and Strategy http://www.aerospace.org/policy/ OECD Study Space 2030: Tackling Society’s Challenges https://www.keepeek.com//Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/space-2030_9789264008342-en#page1 Dr. Hertzfeld’s TED talk “Who Owns The Moon” https://youtu.be/XU_jlTjL9dQ UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html 1967 Outer Space Treaty http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html Agreement on Rescue and Return of Astronauts http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/rescueagreement.html Convention on Registration of Objects http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/registration-convention.html Convention on Liability http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/liability-convention.html Moon Agreement http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html SPACE Act of 2015 https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ90/PLAW-114publ90.pdf SpaceX http://www.spacex.com/ Journal of Space Law http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/jsl/ German Journal of Air and Space Law http://www.english.zlw.heymanns.com/journal/ UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) http://www.unoosa.org/ Dr. Hertzfeld is a professor at George Washington University https://elliott.gwu.edu/hertzfeld

Episode Links: Russian Soyuz, with 3-man crew, set for Friday trip to space station (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-man-soyuz-crew-set-for-friday-launch-to-space-station/) The Discovery of Eris (http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/) STS-51-F Mission Summary (https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-f/mission-51-f.html) 9 Weird Things That Flew on NASA's Space Shuttles (https://www.space.com/12128-9-weird-nasa-space-shuttle-cargo-mementos-countdown.html) National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html) President Eisenhower Presents NASA Commissions (https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1139.html) Why We Explore- The Birth of NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/whyweexplore/Why_We_29.html)

The Space Act helps many American companies bring new products to market with technology transferred from NASA.

On this episode of Mars Ascend is Air and Space Law Instructor Andrea Harrington of the University of Mississippi School of Law.  Andrea is also a lawyer and instructor at the International Space University and the Executive Editor of the Journal of Space Law. She is a doctoral candidate in the field of Air and Space Law. In this Part 2 of a 2 Part series we discuss the national U. S . Space Act signed into law in 2015 and it’s relationship to the international Outer Space Treaty. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space or COPUOS oversees the Outer Space Treaty.

What follows is an edited transcript of my interview with Alex Salter about the economics of space. The first half deals primarily with the issue of space debris, while the second half deals with the possibility of private governance in space. There's something in this episode for everyone to enjoy, so I hope you'll listen, read, and share it with your friends. Petersen: My guest today is Alex Salter of Texas Tech University. Alex, welcome to Economics Detective Radio. Salter: Thanks very much for having me. Petersen: Our topic today is the economics of space. Alex has written two papers on the subject. The first is entitled, "Space Debris: A Law and Economics Analysis of the Orbital Commons." The second is, "Ordering the Cosmos: Private Law and Celestial Property Rights." So Alex, let's start by talking about space debris. What is it and why does it matter? Salter: So space debris is basically junk in space that no longer serves any useful purpose. So as you can imagine, since the first piece of space debris launched up in 1957---which was the rocket body from Sputnik I---a lot of orbits around the Earth, especially low Earth orbit, have become kind of cluttered with space junk. And the reason it gets cluttered is because no one has an incentive to clean it up. It's a problem because a lot of this stuff is big enough and moving fast enough that if it strikes something like a communications satellite, it can take it out. So the probability of a collision right now that will cause serious damage is currently low, but there are a lot of worries among scientists who study the problem that as debris occasionally collides with more debris, you get a sort of snowballing effect of the clutter. So if we're going to get a handle on it, it needs to be earlier rather than later. Petersen: I think intuitively it seems like the sky is so big and satellites are so small that we'd never have to worry about collisions. So why is that not the case? Salter: So there's obviously quite a bit of room up there, but the problem is that some orbits are more valuable than others. In particular, geosynchronous orbit, which is I think 36 thousand kilometers above the Earth, is a really valuable place for specific satellites. And also low Earth orbit is a valuable place for specific satellites. Now, there's still a lot of room there, but it's significantly restricted. If my communications satellite is taking up a particular orbit, your satellite can't be in the same place. So there's only so much of it to go around, and again, what we're really worried about is debris colliding with something, which creates more debris, which can collide with more stuff. We're really worried that snowball effect, which is sometimes called the Kessler syndrome after the scientist who first wrote about it. Petersen: So the odds of a single collision might be low, but given one collision, it becomes much more likely that we'll have two and three and four---a chain reaction of collisions. Salter: Exactly. So right now the probability of collision is pretty low over the life of a satellite, for example in low Earth orbit, it's no more than one in a thousand. But conditional on getting hit, that can cause a pretty serious business disruption and economic losses, and as you said, given that one increases the likelihood of all future collisions, it's kind of like a positive feedback loop. So that can get pretty nasty pretty quick. Petersen: Have there been any collisions in the past? Salter: There have been many collisions in the past. I think the most notable one was actually intentional. In 2007, China performed an anti-satellite test, where it purposefully took out one of its old satellites that was no longer useful. And it created, I think, about a hundred and fifty thousand new pieces of space debris with that one anti-satellite test. So I'm not aware of any instances of grave, private sector disruptions caused by space debris collisions, but honestly unless there's some means of cleaning this stuff up or it de-orbits on its own, it really is only a matter of time. Petersen: So, you make a distinction in the paper between access to orbit and particular orbits. Can you explain what those are? Salter: Right. So access to orbit is basically getting your payload up into space. If you have a communications satellite, it's getting it to the orbit you want. And economically that has the characteristics of a public good. The standard definition of a public good in economics is anything that we like which is not rivalrous in consumption and non-excludable. So if I consume one more unit of it, that doesn't stop you from consuming more. And also non-excludable, the second part, means it's costly or very difficult for me to stop other people from enjoying that. So both of those characteristics fit getting a satellite into your desired orbit---going through space to get to where you want to go. Once your satellite is in position though, a particular orbit has the properties of what we call a common-pool resource. It's rivalrous---if I have it you can't also have it---but it's also non-excludable. I can't really stop you from using it. As orthodox public finance theory will tell you, sometimes the provision of those goods, public goods and common-pool resources, are difficult because if they're non-excludable you can't stop people from enjoying the benefits and so that limits the incentive for producers to make the stuff in the first place. Petersen: Right, so in order to prevent someone from launching a satellite into your orbit, you'd have to somehow police every potential launch site on the globe, which of course we can't do. And that's what makes it [non-excludable]. Salter: It's incredibly expensive and therefore not really feasible. Petersen: Right, so from reading your paper I know other researchers have looked at this problem and they suggested taxing people who create space debris. So do you want to comment on that suggestion, and maybe what are the pros and cons of taking that approach? Salter: Sure. Let me first start by saying that the case for a corrective tax here stems from the fact that we have a common-pool resources problem, or a public goods problem. Nobody owns orbit, and so nobody really has an incentive to worry about how clean it is. If I'm launching a communications satellite, I don't really worry that I'm also imposing a cost on other potential launchers with my useless rocket body. So if everyone thinks that way, then the debris problem becomes unmanageable. So there is a textbook rationale for some correction to what we call this external cost in economics. Because nobody owns orbit or access to orbit, nobody has an incentive to care for it or clean it up. At least not as much as we would like. So the argument for a corrective tax is basically, we want to bring the private costs of polluting space more in line with the social costs of polluting space. So if you tax a polluter, someone who's contributing to space debris, you raise the expensiveness of creating debris. And as economic theory will tell you, when something gets more expensive, all else being equal, people will do less of it. That's the theoretical argument for what's called a Pigouvian or corrective tax. The problem here---and this is not specific to space debris, this is specific to all taxes correcting external cost problems---is that you don't really know how big to make the tax in order to get to the efficient amount of pollution mitigation. And even if you did, you have to take political economy considerations into concern. Corrective taxes are not run and operated by benevolent social planners. They're typically run and operated by bureaucracies, and bureaucrats have their own incentives to which they respond. And the incentives facing politicians and bureaucrats may not be the same as incentives for contributing to social efficiency or maximal wellbeing. Petersen: Right, so we might worry that the body that determines the tax on potentially space-junk-producing private actors might be less concerned with the externality and more concerned with their own revenue and so set the tax not at the social-welfare-maximizing point but at the revenue-maximizing point. Salter: Right, that's one potential worry with that sort of a solution. Again I want to emphasize, though, that's in the abstract. It's still very very difficult---in fact I would even say impossible---to know what the right size of the tax should be. I think that there is an inherent knowledge problem that sometimes gets overlooked at the expense of the incentive problem that you just talked about. Both are very important, and they're related, and they complement each other in terms of the critique, but they are distinct problems. And public policy has to be able to present credible solutions to both of those problems if we're going to argue that a corrective tax would improve social welfare. Petersen: Right, so you launch a satellite, maybe you leave a piece of large debris like a rocket body, but you also create a risk that the satellite will explode or be hit by something and create a snowball effect of more debris. It's really hard to compute the net cost because you not only need to know how likely is it to create more debris and how likely is that debris to impact something. You also need to know the value of the future satellites the debris might impact, which means forecasting the future of space and the future of the economy and all these things into the deep future. Have other researchers at least tried to tackle this problem? Are there some attempts? Salter: There have been some attempts, and as you noted, any estimate is going to be very imprecise because there's a lot of variables moving in the background. But you could look at scientific studies that estimate the damage to useful communications satellite or other valuable space equipment from a collision can range anywhere from 20 to 200 million. That's a reasonable interval for estimating the damages if you count not just the initial collision but also the potential snowballing which can destroy other things. And you can also look at what private companies are doing right now to get an appreciation of the magnitude of the problem. For example, if you're a communications satellite launcher you can buy insurance for your communications satellite. In 2011, market premiums for these kinds of space risks totalled about 800 million dollars. And also in 2011 there were about 600 million in claimed damages. So private actors are spending a lot to insure themselves against risks such as these and that in combination with some of the scientific studies can help build your intuition for understanding that we're talking about a lot of money here: a stream of valuable services into the future which can be risked by space debris. Petersen: So we do have a ballpark estimate, but nothing so precise that we could set an optimal Pigouvian tax even if we had a government that was benevolent enough to try to reach that optimum. So in your paper you suggest alternatives to the Pigouvian route. In particular you suggest potential private solutions. So what private solutions are there to reduce the creation of space debris? Salter: That's a really interesting question because the standard response that economists would give to externality problems seems impractical here. Usually when you have an externality problem, a public goods problem, the solution is to create property rights. Property rights align incentives so if we create property rights to a common pool resource, that will cause people to take better account of the effects of their behaviour on others. But how do you really create a property right to something like an orbit? Is it a specific volume of space? How big is it? Under what conditions can somebody else move through it when your satellite is not in that orbit? I think in this case we have to take seriously the idea that creating property rights to orbit and to access to orbit is simply too costly. It's not feasible given the costs and benefits of the situation. I think the most promising way forward in this particular issue is using market mechanisms to mitigate the problem. So in order to talk about market mechanisms I need to do a little background on international law. There's this treaty, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which basically says among other things that nations retain jurisdiction over the stuff they put in space. Now that's important because if debris is big enough to be tracked, we can tell more or less who made it. So if you have, for example, a piece of Chinese space debris, it's technically contrary to international law for a US organization to go up there and do anything without the Chinese' permission. So if the US wants to do something it has to take care of its own space debris. If the Chinese want to do something, they have to take care of their space debris. Given that constraint, I think one potential is for the US government to auction off contracts to go and mitigate this stuff. Another potential is instead of auctioning off contracts to go remove it, auctioning off a contract to debris itself. One thing that's not often realized about space debris is that a lot of that stuff is valuable metal, material, that's already in orbit. The most costly part of space commerce is actually getting stuff out of Earth's gravity. So if you have debris that's currently up there that can be re-used, perhaps at a later date for in-situ manufacturing and repairs, then that's a valuable asset. Firms should be willing to pay for that. So I think we need to look at market mechanisms within particular nations to address this problem until and unless we can get a more favourable framework in international law. Petersen: So something big like a rocket body has a lot of scrap metal that you don't have to burn fuel to get it there because it's already there. That's really interesting. So it could be a resource in itself. But then there's the issue of much smaller debris, something that isn't a resource in itself. A paint chip or a little fragment of debris that is not useful and is more of just a pure hazard. How would you deal with that? Salter: That's extremely difficult. I'm not sure that there is a good solution to that right now. My guess is there has to be a technological solution in the sense of just developing thicker plating for spacecraft. Because a lot of that stuff is so small that it can't be tracked, but it's still big enough that if it hits you, you're going to be in trouble. I think that the only way to really be safe against something like that is just to wait for material to get more robust. And that's obviously not going to solve the problem but it's going to mitigate it. Petersen: It's too bad. In science fiction they would just say "raise shields" and it would be dealt with, but I guess we can't do that. Salter: That's another imaginative technological innovation and maybe something like that will be feasible some day. There's an actual technological literature on this, of people thinking up contraptions and devices for going out and removing specifically that kind of debris, but none of them are economically feasible and I think most of them aren't even technologically feasible at this point. We just can't even make the stuff apart from economic considerations. Petersen: So there's a future in building technology to deflect or remove tiny bits of debris from Earth orbit. I don't know if you saw the move Wall-E? It was a Pixar film. Salter: Yeah. Petersen: Yeah, humanity had to leave Earth because it was too full of garbage, and there's the scene where not only is Earth covered in garbage but its orbit is full of old satellites. Salter: Right. Petersen: The ship is just sort of pushing its way through comically. But in real life, it could really happen, but it wouldn't be so easy to just push through it. It would be flying so fast and hit you with such force that it would likely cause serious damage unless you could defend against it somehow. Salter: Right, this stuff is moving fast. In low Earth orbit it's going about seven to eight kilometers per second. And there's about 300 thousand pieces of debris that we know about that can destroy a satellite upon impact. So obviously, even if it's small, the fact that it's moving so fast can cause you some serious problems. If we get to the point where we develop strong enough technological---not like energy shielding---but the strength of metal and the strength of materials to push through that, we're a ways off from that. I don't even think that's on the horizon. Petersen: And of course there's the issue that if it makes the satellite heavier, then it becomes much more costly to launch it. So there's the issue of being able to make something strong enough to withstand an impact while light enough to be able to actually launch it in the first place. Salter: Right. As always there are tradeoffs, which is precisely why economics has a valuable perspective to offer on this problem. Petersen: So let's move on to your other paper which deals with property rights in space. It starts with a discussion of the 2015 SPACE Act, signed into law by President Obama. What can you tell me about that act? Salter: So the SPACE Act is largely intended to guarantee that the US government will do something to protect commercial entities' property rights to celestial resources. Celestial property rights, basically. There's no specific commitment to what that protection will look like, it's more a statement of intent to encourage private sector development and exploration of space by the US government saying, "Look, we know this lack of property rights thing is a problem. We just wanted to let you know that in the event of a dispute, we are going to protect your property rights as governments are supposed to do. The problem with that is that we get into some pretty thorny issues with international law. Again, talking about the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was signed by all of the current spacefaring nations, Article II of that treaty states that nation states cannot extend their territorial jurisdiction into outer space. And a lot of legal scholars think if a government is protecting private property rights, it's de facto extended its territorial jurisdiction over those rights. So if deep space industries or planetary resources, asteroid mining companies, eventually go out and claim an asteroid, and Uncle Sam says, "Yep, we'll recognize and defend your claim to that asteroid," many legal scholars say that's a de facto extension of territorial sovereignty to that asteroid, which Article II of the space treaty explicitly forbids. So we're in a bit of a sticky situation international-law wise. At best the legal framework is unclear and at worst the 2015 SPACE Act contains provisions that are not compatible with existing international law. Petersen: It seems like the 1967 treaty was a little bit short sighted in blocking people from owning parts of space. I guess it was during the Cold War and you can see why the Americans would not want to Soviets claiming the moon or vice versa. So recently, Elon Musk unveiled a plan to send colonists to Mars some time during this century. And if you literally have a colony there on Mars you're going to need property rights. And to have a treaty that might be a hundred or more years old at that point blocking that, it seems like a hurdle that we'll need to clear. People could potentially just ignore the treaty once they're on Mars. So, what kind of solutions do you see for this problem in the future? Salter: Well I think that international law on this should be expanded and clarified on this just for clarity's sake. I don't think we need to rely on publically protected and enforced property rights to get things like space commerce or Mars colonies or all that cool science fiction stuff that actually now doesn't seem so infeasible. If you look throughout history, there are many, many examples of legal systems that are purely private and voluntary. And they are purely voluntary because the property claims underlying that legal system are self enforcing. We don't need to rely on the state, a monopoly enforcer of social rules. We don't need to rely on the state to enforce our property rights. Given the situation we find ourselves in, I will respect your property rights because it's in my self-interest to do so and you will respect my property rights because it's in your self-interest to do so. And it seems like that's incredible. If there's no monopoly enforcer protecting things, how can we have a viable legal order? But again if we look throughout history we see lots and lots of examples of these private legal regimes. In fact, one of them exists today. International trade law is almost entirely privately produced. International trade is almost entirely privately governed. And it's not hard to see why: there's no international super sovereign that can enforce property rights over disputes if Al is from one country and Bob is from another country. And so given that problem, traders going all the way back to the middle ages had to come up with a body of voluntary and self-enforcing law if they wanted to exchange across political boundaries. And it turns out that this law has worked out very, very well. The basics haven't changed in pretty much a thousand years and while it's being applied in newer and more interesting ways, the foundation is solid. And I think that the situation in which international traders find themselves in today---"international anarchy" because again there is no international super sovereign---closely matches the situation that commercial entities would find themselves in in doing space commerce. So I think that there's a lot of potential for existing international and commercial trade law to provide a governance framework for outer-space commerce going forward. Petersen: Yeah, there's a quote from your paper I wanted to read, that deals with these international frameworks going back to the middle ages. It says: Following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, the volume of international trade shrank considerably. The legal infrastructure provided by the Empire no longer stood, and the transition away from this order caused significant commercial disruption. By the ninth and tenth centuries, trade was recovering. Across Europe, a professional merchant class emerged and developed mechanisms to resolve disputes over property rights and contract enforcement, even when subjects were from different polities and thus no national court had jurisdiction. So can you explain more about how that system developed, and how something that we developed here on Earth a millennium ago, how can that apply to space? They would seem to be very different settings. Salter: So they're different settings geographically, but I think the economic and legal problem is the same: facilitating coordination and cooperation among disparate entities when there is no possibility of turning to something like a state to serve as an overarching referee and arbiter. And so the medieval law merchant, called the Lex Mercatoria, was basically a self-enforcing system of property law and the legal rules that went along with it. And what's interesting about that is that when we think of law we normally think of a body of rules and then we talk about applying those rules in specific circumstances. This most closely works the other way. Law is created whenever international traders enter a contract. And provided that commercial instrument became widespread and actually helped traders achieve their goals---and was mutually beneficial of course---then arbitration courts overseeing merchant disputes would come to see that sort of contractual arrangement as valid. And so the arbitrator is less making law than recognizing law---a body of rules for coordinating behaviour---that actually exists. So if I'm a trader form some country in medieval Europe and I'm trading with another guy in another country, obviously I can't turn to my king to enforce my property rights because he doesn't have jurisdiction over your country. You can't turn to your king to enforce jurisdiction. In some situations maybe Church court can act as a venue for arbitration and dispute resolution, but most of the time what they did was---if they had a dispute---they would find some neutral third-party merchant who was an expert in the area and say, "Look, we have this dispute. Here is this contract. I think I was supposed to do X, my trading partner disagrees. He thought I was supposed to do Y. Can you help us sort this out?" The arbitrator, using his expertise, would look at it and come to a decision, and for the most part they were complied with voluntarily. Because if you went to commercial arbitration in the Lex Mercatoria system and then you ignored a ruling, you would become known as a defector, as a cheater, as someone who didn't act or uphold his or her word. And international trade was a relatively small and close-knit community and so that information would get around. You'd be branded as someone as not worthy of doing business with. And so you could cheat and get a payoff now, but you would risk that no one would trade with you in the future. So you'd be losing all future business, which is why most agreements, both for the medieval law merchant and the current law merchant---the current system of international commercial law---are actually complied with and adhered to voluntarily. Petersen: OK, so what kind of legal disputes do you see potentially arising in space? What sort of resources might people come to have conflicts over? Salter: Good question. I think the most obvious one, at least to me, is probably with asteroid mining companies. So if I go land on an asteroid and I want to mine it for valuable minerals, do I own the entire asteroid? Do I own just a portion of its surface? What happens if there's water underneath the asteroid and someone wants to go in and get the water while you're getting the minerals? How deep, literally geographically, down into the center of the asteroid do my property claims go? And water, once you're actually in space, is pretty valuable because it's used for making rocket fuel, essentially. And also, water is very heavy. As we discussed earlier, it's really expensive to get water into orbit. So if there's water already in space, in an asteroid, that's a valuable resource. People are going to want that. What happens if you want the minerals and I want the water? But me going to get the water creates a situation where you can't go and get the minerals. Maybe my mining operation is in the way of yours. Those are very real disputes that there are actually very real analogues of here on Earth that we're going to have to go and settle in space. Petersen: I'm reminded of, during the California gold rush they developed an elaborate set of rules for how large a claim an individual gold miner could mine. And how you would draw the lines between different people's claims, and they established de facto courts to deal with claim jumpers. So we're thinking that California during the gold rush might as well have been outer space, it was so far from the rest of civilization. And so we're more or less thinking that something like that would occur. Salter: Exactly. Economically, I think this situation is very closely analogous. Gold miners in California are outside of the reach of the formal US Government. They're in the metaphorical Hobbesian jungle, a state of nature with respect to each other. Orthodox theories of social cooperation says they shouldn't be able to cooperate and yet they clearly did, historically. The gold rush is a really interesting period of American history to study for that. There's also a book by scholars Anderson and Hill called The Not So Wild, Wild West. We have this impression from Hollywood that the American frontier was a violent and lawless place, when in fact most likely the opposite was true, because people knew that they didn't have access to formal dispute resolution mechanisms offered by the US Government they had to come up with their own. And they worked relatively well. And I think that's the situation we find ourselves in in space. There are governments "nearby" but given current international law they can't actually extend their jurisdiction into space and therefore mediate space-related disputes. Or at lease some disputes. And so we have to have space tourism companies coming to agreements with asteroid mining companies coming into agreements with communication satellite providers. There needs to be a body of voluntary and self-enforcing rules, and again I think that there are numerous historical examples you can point to that should lead us to be actually pretty optimistic about this. Private law is not just feasible but it is also desirable because it has some pretty nice consequences in terms of creating incentives for making and stewarding wealth. Petersen: So, the nice thing about private law, you sort of alluded to it earlier but Hayek makes this distinction between law and legislation, and the nice thing is it's adaptive. When you encounter new issues and new problems you set new precedents that can change and adapt with the circumstances. That's one major advantage of private law, right? Salter: It's important to recognize that that's not unique to private law. That also exists in the common law legal system that exists in the Anglo-American tradition. So the benefits of specifically private law---I think we're talking about private law here as opposed to some sort of common-law extension into space which again, Article II of the space treaty seems to say that's not OK. So given that, are these adaptive features of a purely private legal system good enough to facilitate social cooperation and basically get people to not fight with each other? And I think they are. It's sort of a bottom-up process for discovering rather than creating law. There are many rules that are probably equally feasible. It's a question of finding the rules that best give individuals incentives to act in a socially responsible way. And we also want those rules to provide for orderly, quick, and low-cost dispute resolution. People are going to disagree; it's inevitable. What we want is for a legal system that is sufficiently adaptable so it can tend to specific circumstances, but also sufficiently general that individuals can form reliable expectations of their trading partners' behaviour. And as Hayek pointed out, private law is one kind of law that has that dual feature that we like so much: adaptability yet at the same time predictability. So it's not the case that only private law can have that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that private law can have that, and given current international law, that's the only ball game in town. Petersen: So, when you said about clarifying the rules, do you feel that if the governments of the world were to say right now that, "disputes in outer space are not our jurisdiction, you're on your own," and codify that and maybe have another treaty, do you think that would hasten the development of these private mechanisms? strong>Salter: I think it would. The private mechanisms are only going to arise as needed in a private law system. When there's no actual dispute and no actual thing being tested, there doesn't need to be a rule for overcoming one party's disputes or claims against the other. So I personally actually not only think that private law is desirable in space just because of current international law. I would actually like to see space kept "safe" for private law. Because it has all these nice, socially beneficial properties in terms of aligning people's incentives and giving them the information they need to do good things. And if you look at the most likely counterpart---imagine international law were amended---what's likely to happen is there would be some international governance body, a regulatory body that's given authority over space activities. And once we embrace that sort of bureaucratic regulatory solution, that comes with all sorts of political economy and public choice problems. How do the regulators get the information necessary to make good rules? What are the incentives to make good rules? I think that several schools of economics and legal thought have shown that in this case embracing a top-down regulatory solution would actually be pretty dangerous. So I would like to see international law clarified, but I would also like to see private law prevail in space. Petersen: Right, and if we're talking about particularly humans in space, as in the case of a Mars colony, it would seem to be undesirable to bring our baggage and our governance here to a place as distant as Mars. The people there are likely to face all sorts of their own problems. And if there was part of Mars that was governed by, say, the US Government you would almost face the same problems the Thirteen Colonies had being governed by the British. You have this vast gulf between the people who are doing the governing and the people who are being governed. So could a Mars colony function on private law? Salter: Wow, that's a fascinating question and one that I didn't tackle in the paper. That's actually a little beyond my expertise in this area. I don't see any reason why it couldn't, simply because I don't see the economic and legal problems that potential Martian colonists would face are any different than people on the international law merchant scenario would face. Or individuals in medieval Iceland---who had their own body of voluntary and private law---face. I think the best analogy for these sorts of situations is the economic literature for what is sometimes called "analytic anarchy." And people are sometimes scared of it because the word "anarchy" is in there. But all anarchy means in this context is we don't have recourse to a nation state to solve our disputes for us. So if we're going to get governance, we're going to have to find a way to do it ourselves. It has to be voluntary, it has to be agreeable to all parties, and it has to do a good job at facilitating social cooperation. So how do people actually do that when they don't have access to the nation state? Which is again pretty new in human history. So if you're looking at any time prior to 1648, there's got to be some way of generating order. And if you look at history I think you have a lot of examples of proprietary communities and voluntary communities which can be models for a Martian colony. So to make a long point short, I don't see any evidence that a Martian colony cannot be purely privately governed. And I don't think we have any reasons to think so because the problems they're going to face have been faced historically and overcome by people in various times and places. Petersen: Do you have any closing thoughts about the future of space and the role of economics in helping us achieve our goals there? Salter: I think that economics is going to be particularly useful in helping us highlight exactly which potential problems are worth caring about and, of those problems, which ones deserve or merit public policy responses. So, for example, I don't think there's any reason to be afraid of creating a private law governing space. I'm actually encouraged by that prospect. But that doesn't mean that domestic agencies, especially national agencies, don't have a role in making space a formidable and habitable environment. We just spent the first half an hour talking about space debris, right? And there's lots of things that US agencies can do to mitigate space debris for example. Various agencies can have a rule, and there are such rules in place now, saying if you're going to orbit a space craft you’ve got to provide for de-orbiting the debris and also de-orbiting the space craft when it's no longer useful. So economics, and particularly the economic way of thinking, can help us identify, OK this anarchy in space problem is not actually a problem. Private law is viable, so we don't have to worry about that. Oh, space debris is a problem because we have this common pool resources problem, externality problems, and the usual solutions---taxes and or property rights---aren't feasible. So we need to find some other way, maybe harnessing market mechanisms at the margin to address these. And I think the economic perspective is going to do a good job at cautioning us at taking a top-down approach at space governance. The temptation is huge to say, "OK, we're on the verge of major space breakthroughs. Let's sit down and write down a body of rules that's going to govern space." That's really dangerous because there's no way that you and I sitting in our armchairs can see all the eventualities or problems that people will confront in space. And so the rules that we write are almost certainly going to have little to no relationship to those problems, and therefore won't help commercial and or government actors solve those problems. So figuring out what's important and avoiding the temptation to engage in what Hayek called "The Pretense of Knowledge." Thinking that we can learn and know and plan more than we can actually do. Petersen: My guest today has been Alex Salter. Alex, thanks for being part of Economics Detective Radio. Salter: It's been a pleasure. Thanks again for having me.  

2015 was a good year for outer space. Star Wars: Episode VII came out, NASA started hiring astronauts again, SpaceX successfully launched and returned a rocket, and the U.S. Congress passed the SPACE Act of 2015—a bill that gives any American who extracts resources from an asteroid legal rights to the bounty they reap. Since no one has yet mined an asteroid this legislation might seem premature, but it’s essential to the future of two Silicon Valley asteroid mining companies. That’s right, they already exist. They’re just waiting for humans to start colonizing space. Reporters Katie Gilbert and Annie Costakis talk to Daniel Faber, the founder of Deep Space Industries, about his dream: to build the space equivalent of Home Depot, as well as fueling stations and manufacturing plants. They also explain a few of the untested theories behind asteroid mining. We wanted to know more about the history of space dreaming and space colonies, so we talked to Patrick McCray, a historian of science and technology and the author of The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future. He says utopian space visions have long filled the heads of scientifically minded dreamers, especially when life on Earth isn’t going so well.   Show Clock: 00:03 Introduction01:26 Will asteroid mining save us?12:40 Who were the visioneers? Credits: Hosts: Michal Meyer and Bob KenworthyGuest: Patrick McCrayReporters: Katie Gilbert and Annie CostakisProducer: Mariel CarrAssociate Producer: Rigoberto Hernandez Music: "Boop" By Podington Bear, courtesy of the Free Music Archive. Additional music courtesy of the Audio Network.   

HAPPY TURKEY-DAY EVERYONE! Wishing you a wonderful Thanksgiving, a day of thanks,food,  football, and more food! A perfect conversation for relaxing, working or traveling this holiday weekend! Alex has the Assistant on again to go over some serious Space Business! From Blue Origin successfully and historically landing their rocket, to Scott Kelley's celebration of his last 100 Days left in Space - all the way to a rundown of what this Space Act of 2015 really is. We take a crack at the new Senate-passed Act - what it is, what it means & why did it get passed so quickly? @StationCDRKelly and @Astro_Kjell shared their Thanksgiving Menu while sending well wishes back to Earth! https://twitter.com/Space_Station/status/668892211434557440 The links to all the articles and information we talk about in this show are available below in Space Links: SUPPORT THE PODCAST HERE: AMAZON.COM! NO COST, JUST CLICK ON THIS & SHOP - THANKS! THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT! SPACE LINKS: BLUE ORIGIN HAS HISTORICAL ROCKET LANDING WITH BLUE SHEPARD VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pillaOxGCo WEBSITE: https://www.blueorigin.com/ ARTICLE: http://www.cnet.com/news/blue-origin-sticks-historic-rocket-landing-lets-go-to-space-yall-tomorrow-daily-277/#ftag=CADf328eec SCOTT KELLY CELEBRATES 100 DAYS LEFT IN YEAR IN SPACE MISSION https://twitter.com/StationCDRKelly/status/669313439534202880 SPACE ACT OF 2015 IN FULL TEXT: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262/text SOURCE: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262

WELCOME TO THE SHOW! Alex talks about his new job and how being a field engineer could be a really exciting job for any new, up-and-coming engineer! He also talks about germs on the ISS, the Andromeda Galaxy and his thoughts on Aliens. ENJOY! THIS PODCAST IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: AMAZON.COM! SUPPORT THE PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE AND SHOPPING! SPACE LINKS: The International Space Station is home to potentially dangerous bacteria http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/10/international-space-station-home-potentially-dangerous-bacteria The Andromeda Galaxy: 1888 vs. Now! https://www.facebook.com/TodayInSpacePodcast/posts/1141343442550090 The Space Act of 2015? Apparently, its real - and no one is talking about it https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262 NASA - Pioneering the Path to Mars http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/journey-to-mars-next-steps-20151008_508.pdf