Podcasts about Space Shuttle

Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham get up-close with a Moon lander taking shape at Astrobotic in Pittsburgh. The first woman to pilot and command the Space Shuttle, Eileen Collins, discusses a new film about her life: Space Woman. Plus, two new space quilts, complete with UFOs, at the Royal Astronomical Society... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Sue Nelson and Richard Hollingham get up-close with a Moon lander taking shape at Astrobotic in Pittsburgh. The first woman to pilot and command the Space Shuttle, Eileen Collins, discusses a new film about her life: Space Woman. Plus, two new space quilts, complete with UFOs, at the Royal Astronomical Society... Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

The path to progressing as a leader isn't always linear. SUMMARY Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott shows how a childhood dream can evolve into a lifetime of impact—from commanding in uniform to leading innovation in healthcare and national defense. Hear more on Long Blue Leadership. Listen now!   SHARE THIS PODCAST LINKEDIN  |  FACEBOOK   MIKE'S LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS A leader worth his or her salt should be comfortable not being the smartest person in the room. Striving for a lack of hubris is essential in leadership. Setting a clear vision is a fundamental leadership skill. Moving people without authority is crucial for effective leadership. Resource management is key to achieving organizational goals. Acknowledging what you don't know is a strength in leadership. Effective leaders focus on guiding their teams rather than asserting dominance. Leadership is about influencing and inspiring others. A successful mission requires collaboration and shared vision. True leadership is about empowering others to succeed.   CHAPTERS 00:00: Early Inspiration 06:32: Academy Years 13:17: Military Career Transition 21:33: Financial Services Journey 31:29: MOBE and Healthcare Innovation 40:12: Defense Innovation Unit 48:42: Philanthropy and Community Impact 58:11: Personal Growth and Leadership Lessons   ABOUT MIKE OTT BIO Mike Ott is the Chief Executive Officer of MOBĒ, a U.S.-based company focused on whole-person health and care-management solutions. He became CEO in April 2022, taking the helm to lead the company through growth and operational excellence following a distinguished career in both the military and corporate sectors.  A graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, Mike served as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves before shifting into financial services and healthcare leadership roles including private wealth management at U.S. Bank and executive positions with UnitedHealth Group/Optum. His leadership ethos emphasizes alignment, acceleration, and human potential, building cultures where teams can thrive and leveraging data-driven models to improve health outcomes.   CONNECT WITH MIKE LinkedIn MOBE CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LEADERSHIP PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org Ted Robertson | Producer:  Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org    Ryan Hall | Director:  Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org  Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor:  Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer:  Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org      ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS     OUR SPEAKERS Guest, Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott '85  |  Host, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99   FULL TRANSCRIPT Naviere Walkewicz 0:00 A quick programming note before we begin this episode of Long Blue Leadership: This episode will be audio-only, so sit back and enjoy the listen. Welcome to Long Blue Leadership, the podcast where we share insights on leadership through the lives and experiences of Air Force Academy graduates. I'm Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. Today, on Long Blue Leadership, we welcome Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott, Class of 1985, a leader whose vision was sparked at just 9 years old during a family road trip past the Air Force Academy. That childhood dream carried him through a 24-year Air Force career, culminating in retirement as a colonel and into a life of leadership across business, innovation and philanthropy. Mike is the CEO of MOBE, a groundbreaking company that uses data analytics and a revolutionary pay-for-results model to improve health outcomes while reducing costs. He also serves as a senior adviser to the Defense Innovation Unit, supporting the secretary of defense in accelerating commercial innovation for national security. A member of the Forbes Councils, Mike shares his expertise with leaders around the world. A former Falcon Foundation trustee and longtime supporter of the Academy, Mike has given generously his time, talents and resources to strengthen the Long Blue Line. His story is one of innovation and service in uniform, in the marketplace and in his community. Mike, welcome to Long Blue Leadership. We're so glad to have you here.   Mike Ott 1:29 Naviere, thanks a ton. I'm glad to be here. Naviere Walkewicz 1:31 Yes, yes. Well, we're really excited. I mean, you're here for your 40th reunion.   Mike Ott 1:35 Yeah, it's crazy.   Naviere Walkewicz1:37 You came right in, and we're so pleased that you would join us here first for this podcast.   Mike Ott 1:39 Right on. Thanks for the time.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:41 Absolutely. Well, let's jump right in, because not many people can say at 9 years old they know what they want to do when they grew up, but you did. Mike Ott 1:48 Yeah. I guess some people can say it; might not be true, but for me, it's true, good or bad. And goodness gracious, right? Here for my 40th reunion, do the math team, and as a 9-year-old, that was 1972, And a lot was going on in the world in 1972 whether it was political unrest, Vietnam and all of that, and the Academy was in the thick of it. And so we had gone — It was our first significant family vacation. My father was a Chicago policeman. We drove in the 1968 Buick LaSabre, almost straight through. Stopped, stayed at a Holiday Inn, destination Colorado, simply, just because nobody had ever seen the mountains before. That was why. And we my parents, mom, mom and dad took myself. I have two younger sisters, Pikes Peak, Academy, Garden of the Gods, Royal Gorge. And I remember noon meal formation, and the bell going off. Guys at the time — we hadn't had women as cadets at that point in time — running out in their flight suits as I recall lining up ready to go. And for me, it was the energy, right, the sense of, “Wow, this is something important.” I didn't know exactly how important it was, but I knew it was important, and I could envision even at that age, there was they were doing good, Naviere Walkewicz 3:21 Wow. Nine years old, your family went on vacation, and it just struck you as this is important and something that I want to do. So what did that conversation look like after that experience that you had as a 9-year-old and kind of manifest this in yourself? How did that go with your parents? Mike Ott 3:36 Well, I didn't say too much about it, as I was in grammar school, but as high school hit, you know, I let my folks know what my plans were, and I had mom and dad — my mother's still alive, my father passed about a year ago. Very, very good, hard-working, ethical people, but hadn't gone to college, and we had been told, “Look, you know, you need to get an education.” They couldn't. I wish they had. They were both very, very, very bright, and so I knew college was a plan. I also knew there wasn't a lot of money to pay for it. So I'm certain that that helped bake in a few things. But as I got into high school, I set my sights. I went to public high school in Chicago, and I remember freshman year walking into my counselor's office, and said, “I want to go to the Air Force Academy,” and he kind of laughed.   Naviere Walkewicz 3:21 Really?   Mike Ott 3:22 Well, we had 700 kids in my class, and maybe 40% went on to college, right? And the bulk of them went to community college or a state school. I can count on one hand the number of folks that went to an academy or an Ivy League school or something of that. So it was it was around exposure. It had nothing to do with intelligence. It was exposure and just what these communities were accustomed to. A lot of folks went into the trades and pieces like that. So my counselor's reaction wasn't one of shock or surprise insofar as that's impossible. It was, “We haven't had a lot of people make that commitment this early on, and I'm glad to help.”   Naviere Walkewicz 5:18 Oh, I love that.   Mike Ott 5:19 Which is wonderful, and what I had known at the time, Mr. Needham...   Naviere Walkewicz 5:23 You Remember his name?   Mike Ott 5:24 Yeah, he was in the Navy Reserves. He was an officer, so he got the joke. He got the joke and helped me work through what classes to take, how to push myself. I didn't need too much guidance there. I determined, “Well, I've got to distinguish myself.” And I like to lean in. I like a headwind, and I don't mind a little bit of an uphill battle, because once you get up there, you feel great. I owe an awful lot to him. And, not the superintendent, but the principal of our school was a gentleman named Sam Ozaki, and Sam was Japanese American interned during World War II as a young man, got to of service age and volunteered and became a lieutenant in the Army and served in World War II in Europe, right, not in Asia. So he saw something in me. He too became an advocate. He too became someone that sought to endorse, support or otherwise guide me. Once I made that claim that I was going to go to the Academy. Naviere Walkewicz 6:30 Wow. So you mentioned something that really stuck with me. You said, you know, you didn't mind kind of putting yourself out there and doing the hard things, because you knew when you got to the top it was going to feel really great. Was that something you saw from your father? Was that something, there are key leaders in your life that emulated that? Or is that just something that you always had in yourself? Mike Ott 6:51 I would say there's certainly an environmental element to it — how I was raised, what I was exposed to, and then juxtaposition as to what I observed with other family members or other parts of the community where things didn't work out very well, right? And, you know, I put two and two together. y father demonstrated, throughout his entire career what it means to have a great work ethic. As did mom and, you know, big, tough Chicago cop for 37 years. But the other thing that I learned was kindness, and you wouldn't expect to learn that from the big, tough Chicago cop, but I think it was environment, observing what didn't occur very often and how hard work, if I apply myself, can create outcomes that are going to be more fulfilling for me. Naviere Walkewicz 7:48 Wow, you talked about kindness. How did you see kindness show up in your journey as a cadet at the Air Force Academy? Or did you? Mike Ott 7:58 Yeah, gosh, so I remember, started in June of 1981, OK, and still connected with many of the guys and women that with whom I went to basic training and all that. The first moment of kindness that I experienced that it was a mutual expression, but one where I recognized, “Wow, every one of us is new here. None of us has a real clue.” We might have some idea because we had somebody had a sibling or a mother that was in the military or father that went to the academy at the time, but none of us really knew, right? We were knuckleheads, right? Eighteen years old. Maybe there were a couple of prior-enlisted folks. I don't recall much of that, but I having gone to a public high school in Chicago, where we had a variety of different ethnicities. I learned how to just understand people for who they are, meet them for who they are, and respect every individual. That's how I was raised, and that's how I exhibited myself, I sought to conduct myself in high school. So I get to the Academy, and you're assigned, you know, the first couple three nights, the first few weeks before you go to Jacks Valley, you're assigned. It was all a alphabetical, and my roommate was an African American fellow named Kevin Nixon. All right, my God, Kevin Nixon, and this guy, he was built. I mean, he was rock solid, right? And he had that 1000-yard stare, right? Very intimidating. And I'm this, like, 6-foot-tall, 148-pound runner, like, holy dork, right? And I'm assigned — we're roommates, and he just had a very stoicism, or a stoic nature about him. And I remember, it was our second night at the Academy, maybe first night, I don't quite recall, and we're in bed, and it's an hour after lights out, and I hear him crying, and like, well, what do you do? Like, we're in this together. It was that moment, like we're both alone, but we're not right. He needs to know that he's not alone. So I walked around and went over his bed, and I said, “Hey, man, I miss my mom and dad too. Let's talk. And we both cried, right? And I'll tell you what, he and I were pals forever. It was really quite beautiful. And what didn't happen is he accepted my outreach, right? And he came from a very difficult environment, one where I'm certain there was far more racial strife than I had experienced in Chicago. He came from Norfolk, Virginia, and he came from — his father worked in the shipyards and really, really tough, tough, tough background. He deserved to be the Academy. He was a great guy, very bright, and so we became friends, and I tried to be kind. He accepted that kindness and reciprocated in ways where he created a pretty beautiful friendship. Naviere Walkewicz 7:48 Oh, my goodness. Thank you for sharing that story. And you got me in the feels a little bit, because I remember those nights, even you know me having family members that went through the Academy. There's just something about when you're in it yourself, and in that moment, it's raw.   Mike Ott 11:13 Raw is a good word. Naviere Walkewicz 11:15 Oh, thank you for that. So you're at the Academy and you end up doing 24 years. I don't mean to, like, mash all that into one sentence, but let's talk… Mike Ott 11:22 I didn't do very much. It was the same year repeated 24 times over. Like, not a very good learner, right? Not a very good learner. Naviere Walkewicz 11:30 Yeah, I was gonna ask, you know, in that journey, because, had you planned to do a career in the Air Force? Mike Ott 11:36 Well, I didn't know, right? I went in, eyes wide open, and my cumulative time in the Air Force is over 24 but it was only it was just shy of seven active duty, and then 22, 23, in the Reserves, right? I hadn't thought about the Reserves, but I had concluded, probably at the, oh, maybe three-year mark that I wanted to do other things. It had nothing to do with disdain, a sense of frustration or any indignation, having gone to the Academy, which I'm very, very proud of, and it meant an awful lot to who I am. But it was, “Wait, this is, this is my shot, and I'm going to go try other things.” I love ambiguity, I'm very curious. Have a growth mindset and have a perhaps paradoxical mix of being self-assured, but perhaps early on, a bit too, a bit too, what's the word I was thinking of? I wrote this down — a bit too measured, OK, in other words, risk taking. And there were a few instances where I realized, “Hey, man, dude, take some risk. What's the downside? And if it isn't you, who else?” So it was that mindset that helped me muscle through and determine that, coupled with the fact that the Air Force paid for me to go to graduate school, they had programs in Boston, and so I got an MBA, and I did that at night. I had a great commander who let me take classes during the day when I wasn't traveling. It was wonderful. It was there that I was exposed to elements of business and in financial services, which ultimately drew me into financial services when I separated from active duty. Naviere Walkewicz 13:17 Well, I love that, because first you talked about a commander that saw, “How can I help you be your best version of yourself?” And I think the other piece of financial service, because I had to dabble in that as well — the second word is service. And so you've never stopped serving in all the things that you've done. So you took that leap, that risk. Is that something that you felt developed while you're at the Academy, or it's just part of your ethos. Mike Ott 13:41 It developed. It matured. I learned how to apply it more meaningfully at the Academy after a couple, three moments, where I realized that I can talk a little bit about mentoring and then I can come back to that, but mentoring — I don't know, I don't recall having heard that term as a mechanism for helping someone develop. I'm sure we used it when I was a cadet at the Academy and out of the Academy, and having been gone through different programs and banking and different graduate programs, the term comes up an awful lot. You realize, wow, there's something there helping the next generation, but also the reciprocity of learning from that generation yourself. I didn't really understand the whole mentoring concept coming out of Chicago and getting here, and just thought things were very hierarchical, very, very command structure, and it was hit the standards or else. And that that's not a bad mindset, right? But it took me a little while to figure out that there's a goodness factor that comes with the values that we have at the Academy, and it's imbued in each one of you know, service excellence, all of those pieces. But for the most part, fellow cadets and airmen and women want to help others. I mean, it's in service. It's in our DNA. Man that blew right past me. I had no idea, and I remember at one point I was entering sophomore year, and I was asked to be a glider instructor. I'd done the soaring and jumping program over the summer, and like, “Hey, you know you're not too bad at glider. You want to be an instructor?” At the time, that was pretty big deal, yeah, glider instructors. Like, “Yeah, no, I'm not going to do that, you know? I've got to study. Like, look at my GPA.” That didn't really matter. “And I'm going to go up to Boulder and go chase women.” Like, I was going to meet women, right? So, like, but I didn't understand that, that that mechanism, that mentoring mechanism, isn't always bestowed upon a moment or a coupling of individuals. There are just good people out there that see goodness in others that want to help them through that. I had no clue, but that was a turning point for me.   Naviere Walkewicz 15:56 Because you said no.   Mike Ott 15:58 I said no, right? And it was like what, you know, a couple months later, I remember talking with somebody like, “Yep, swing and a miss,” right? But after that, it changed how I was going to apply this self-assuredness, not bravado, but willingness to try new things, but with a willingness to be less measured. Why not? Trust the system. Trust the environment that you're in, the environment that we're in, you were in, I was in, that we're representing right now, it is a trusted environment. I didn't know that. And there were a lot of environments when I was being raised, they weren't trusted environments. And so you have a sort of mental callous mindset in many ways, and that that vigilance, that sense of sentinel is a good protection piece, but it prevents, it prevents... It doesn't allow for the membrane to be permeated, right? And so that trust piece is a big deal. I broke through after that, and I figured it out, and it helped me, and it helped me connect a sense of self-assuredness to perhaps being less measured, more willing to take ambiguity. You can be self-assured but not have complete belief in yourself, OK? And it helped me believe in myself more. I still wish I'd have been glider instructor. What a knucklehead. My roommate wound up becoming one. Like, “You, son of a rat, you.”   Naviere Walkewicz 17:29 So tell me, when did the next opportunity come up where you said yes, and what did that look like in your journey? Mike Ott 17:36 I was a lieutenant. I was a lieutenant, and I was looking for a new role. I was stationed at Hanscom Field, and I was working at one program office, and I bumped — I was the athletic officer for the base with some other folks, and one of the colonels was running a different program, and he had gotten to know me and understand how I operated, what I did, and he said, “Hey, Ott, I want you to come over to my program.” And I didn't know what the program was, but I trusted him, and I did it blindly. I remember his name, Col. Holy Cross. And really good guy. And yeah, I got the tap on the shoulder. Didn't blink. Didn't blink. So that was just finishing up second lieutenant. Naviere Walkewicz 18:26 What a lesson. I mean, something that stuck with you as a cadet, and not that it manifested in regret, but you realized that you missed that opportunity to grow and experience and so when it came around again, what a different… So would you say that as you progress, then you know, because at this point you're a lieutenant, you know, you took on this new role, what did you learn about yourself? And then how did that translate to the decision to move from active duty to the Reserve and into… Mike Ott 18:56 You'll note what I didn't do when I left active duty was stay in the defense, acquisition, defense engineering space. I made a hard left turn…   Naviere Walkewicz 19:13 Intentionally.   Mike Ott 19:14 Intentionally. And went into financial services. And that is a hard left turn away from whether it's military DOD, military industrial complex, working for one of the primes, or something like that. And my mindset was, “If I'm not the guy in the military making the decision, setting strategy and policy…” Like I was an O-3. Like, what kind of policy am I setting? Right? But my point was, if I'm not going to, if I may, if I decided to not stay in the military, I wasn't going to do anything that was related to the military, right, like, “Let's go to green pastures. Set myself apart. Find ways to compete…” Not against other people. I don't think I need to beat the hell out of somebody. I just need to make myself better every day. And that's the competition that I just love, and I love it  it's greenfield unknown. And why not apply my skills in an area where they haven't been applied and I can learn? So as an active-duty person — to come back and answer your question — I had worked some great bosses, great bosses, and they would have career counseling discussions with me, and I was asked twice to go to SOS in-residence. I turned it down, you know, as I knew. And then the third time my boss came to me. He's like, “OK, what are you doing? Idiot. Like, what are you doing?” That was at Year 5. And I just said, “Hey, sir, I think I'm going to do something different.” Naviere Walkewicz 20:47 Didn't want to take the slot from somebody else.   Mike Ott 20:49 That's right. Right. And so then it was five months, six months later, where I put in my papers. I had to do a little more time because of the grad school thing, which is great. And his commander, this was a two-star that I knew as well, interviewed me and like, one final, like, “What are you doing?” He's like, “You could have gone so far in the Air Force.” And I looked at the general — he was a super-good dude. I said, “What makes you think I'm not going to do well outside of the Air Force?” And he smiled. He's like, “Go get it.” So we stayed in touch. Great guy. So it had nothing to do with lack of fulfillment or lack of satisfaction. It had more to do with newness, curiosity, a challenge in a different vein. Naviere Walkewicz 21:30 So let's walk into that vein. You entered into this green pasture. What was that experience like? Because you've just been in something so structured. And I mean, would you say it was just structured in a different way? Mike Ott 21:48 No, not structured. The industry… So, I separated, tried an engineering job for about eight months. Hated it. I was, I was development engineer at Ford Motor Company, great firm. Love the organization, bored stiff, right? Just not what I wanted to do, and that's where I just quit. Moved back to Chicago, where I'm from, and started networking and found a role with an investment bank, ABN AMRO, which is a large Dutch investment bank that had begun to establish itself in the United States. So their headquarters in Chicago and I talked fast enough where somebody took a bet on me and was brought into the investment banking arm where I was on the capital markets team and institutional equities. So think of capital markets, and think of taking companies public and distributing those shares to large institutions, pensions funds, mutual funds, family offices.   Naviere Walkewicz 22:48 So a lot of learning and excitement for you.   Mike Ott 22:51 Super fun. And so the industry is very structured. How capital is established, capital flows, very regulated. We've got the SEC, we've got the FDIC, a lot of complex regulations and compliance matters. That's very, very, very structured. But there was a free-wheelingness in the marketplace. And if you've seen Wolf of Wall Street and things like that, some of that stuff happened. Crazy! And I realized that with my attitude, sense of placing trust in people before I really knew them, figuring that, “OK, what's the downside? I get nipped in the fan once, once or twice. But if I can thrust trust on somebody and create a relationship where they're surprised that I've trusted them, it's probably going to build something reciprocal. So learn how to do that.” And as a young fellow on the desk, wound up being given more responsibility because I was able to apply some of the basic tenets of leadership that you learned and I learned at the Academy. And face it, many of the men and women that work on Wall Street or financial services simply haven't gone to the Academy. It's just, it's the nature of numbers — and don't have that experience. They have other experiences. They have great leadership experiences, but they don't have this. And you and I may take it for granted because we were just four years of just living through it. It oozed in every moment, every breath, every interaction, every dialog, it was there.But we didn't know it was being poured in, sprinkled across as being showered. We were being showered in it. But I learned how to apply that in the relationships that I built, knowing that the relationships that I built and the reputation that I built would be lasting and impactful and would be appropriate investments for the future endeavors, because there's always a future, right? So it wasn't… again, lot of compliance, lot of regulations, but just the personalities. You know, I did it for the challenge, right? I did it because I was curious. I did it because I wanted to see if I could succeed at it. There were other folks that did it simply because it was for the money. And many, some of them made it. They might have sold their soul to get there. Some didn't make it. Maybe it wasn't the right pursuit for them in the first place. And if I go back to mentoring, which we talked about a little bit, and I help young men and women, cadets or maybe even recent grads, my guidance to them is, don't chase the money, chase the environment, right? And chase the environment that allows you to find your flow and contribute to that environment. The money will come. But I saw it — I've seen it with grads. I've seen it with many of the folks that didn't make it in these roles in financial services, because I thought, “Hey, this is where the money is.” It might be. But you have to go back to the basis of all this. How are you complected? What are your values? Do they align with the environment that you're in? And can you flow in a way where your strengths are going to allow success to happen and not sell your soul? Naviere Walkewicz 26:26 Yeah, you said two things that really stood out to me in that —the first one was, you know, trusting, just starting from a place of trust and respect, because the opportunity to build a relationship faster, and also there's that potential for future something. And then the second thing is the environment and making sure it aligns with your values. Is that how you got to MOBE? Mike Ott 26:50 Yeah, I would say how I got to MOBE, that certainly was a factor. Good question.   Naviere Walkewicz 26:57 The environment, I feel, is very much aligned Mike Ott 27:00 Very much so and then… But there's an element of reputation and relationship that allowed me to get there. So now I'm lucky to be a part of this firm. We're 250 people. We will do $50 million of revenue. We're growing nicely. I've been in health care for four years. Now, we are we're more than just healthcare. I mean, it's deep data. We can get into some of that later, but I had this financial services background. I was drawn to MOBE, but I had established a set of relationships with people at different investment banks, with other families that had successfully built businesses and just had relationships. And I was asked to come on to the board because MOBE, at the time, great capabilities, but struggled with leadership during COVID. Lot of companies did. It's not an indictment as to the prior CEO, but he and the team struggled to get through COVID. So initially I was approached to come on to the board, and that was through the founders of the firm who had known me for 20 years and knew my reputation, because I'd done different things at the investment bank, I'd run businesses at US Bank, which is a large commercial bank within the country, and they needed someone that… They cared very little about health care experience, which is good for me, and it was more around a sense of leadership. They knew my values. They trusted me. So initially I was asked to come onto the board, and that evolved into, “No, let's just do a whole reset and bring you on as the CEO.” Well, let's go back to like, what makes me tick. I love ambiguity. I love a challenge. And this has been a bit of a turnaround in that great capabilities, but lost its way in COVID, because leadership lost its way. So there's a lot of resetting that needed to occur. Corpus of the firm, great technology, great capabilities, but business model adaptation, go to market mechanisms and, frankly, environment. Environment. But I was drawn to the environment because of the people that had founded the organization. The firm was incubated within a large pharmaceutical firm. This firm called Upsher-Smith, was a Minnesota firm, the largest private and generic pharmaceutical company in the country, and sold for an awful lot of money, had been built by this family, sold in 2017 and the assets that are MOBE, mostly data, claims, analysis capabilities stayed separate, and so they incubated that, had a little bit of a data sandbox, and then it matriculated to, “Hey, we've got a real business here.” But that family has a reputation, and the individuals that founded it, and then ultimately found MOBE have a reputation. So I was very comfortable with the ambiguity of maybe not knowing health care as much as the next guy or gal, but the environment I was going into was one where I knew this family and these investors lived to high ethical standards, and there's many stories as to how I know that, but I knew that, and that gave me a ton of comfort. And then it was, “We trust you make it happen. So I got lucky. Naviere Walkewicz 30:33 Well, you're, I think, just the way that you're wired and the fact that you come from a place of trust, obviously, you know, OK, I don't have the, you know, like the medical background, but there are a lot of experts here that I'm going to trust to bring that expertise to me. And I'm going to help create an environment that they can really thrive in. Mike Ott 30:47 I'm certain many of our fellow alum have been in this experience, had these experiences where a leader worth his or her salt should be comfortable not being the smartest gal or guy in the room. In fact, you should strive for that to be the case and have a sense of lack of hubris and proudly acknowledge what you don't know. But what I do know is how to set vision. What I do know is how to move people without authority. What I do know is how to resource. And that's what you do if you want to move a mission, whether it's in the military, small firm like us that's getting bigger, or, you know, a big organization. You can't know it all. Naviere Walkewicz 31:30 So something you just mentioned that I think a lot of our listeners would really like, would love a little bit to peel us back a little bit. You said, “I know how to set a vision. I know how to…” I think it was move…   Mike Ott 31:45 Move people without authority and prioritize.   Naviere Walkewicz 31:47 But can we talk a little bit about that? Because I think that is really a challenge that some of our you know younger leaders, or those early in their leadership roles struggle with. Maybe, can you talk a little bit about that? Mike Ott 32:01 For sure, I had some — again, I tried to do my best to apply all the moments I had at the Academy and the long list of just like, “What were you thinking?” But the kindness piece comes through and… Think as a civilian outside looking in. They look at the military. It's very, very, very structured, OK, but the best leaders the men and women for whom you and I have served underneath or supported, never once barked an order, OK? They expressed intent, right? And you and I and all the other men and women in uniform, if we were paying attention, right, sought to execute the mission and satisfaction of that intent and make our bosses' bosses' jobs easier. That's really simple. And many outsiders looking in, we get back to just leadership that are civilians. They think, “Oh my gosh, these men and women that are in the military, they just can't assimilate. They can't make it in the civilian world.” And they think, because we come from this very, very hierarchical organization, yes, it is very hierarchical — that's a command structure that's necessary for mission execution — but the human part, right? I think military men and women leaders are among the best leaders, because guess what? We're motivating men and women — maybe they get a pat on the back. You didn't get a ribbon, right? Nobody's getting a year-end bonus, nobody's getting a spot bonus, nobody's getting equity in the Air Force, and it's gonna go public, right? It's just not that. So the best men and women that I for whom I've worked with have been those that have been able to get me to buy in and move and step up, and want to demonstrate my skills in coordination with others, cross functionally in the organization to get stuff done. And I think if there's anything we can remind emerging graduates, you know, out of the Academy, is: Don't rely on rank ever. Don't rely on rank. I had a moment: I was a dorky second lieutenant engineer, and we were launching a new system. It was a joint system for Marines, Navy and Air Force, and I had to go from Boston to Langley quite often because it was a TAC-related system, Tactical Air Force-related system. And the I was the program manager, multi-million dollar program for an interesting radio concept. And we were putting it into F-15s, so in some ground-based situations. And there was this E-8, crusty E-8, smoked, Vietnam, all these things, and he was a comms dude, and one of the systems was glitching. It just wasn't working, right? And we were getting ready to take this thing over somewhere overseas. And he pulls alongside me, and it's rather insubordinate, but it was a test, right? He's looking at me, Academy guy, you know, second lieutenant. He was a master sergeant, and he's like, “Well, son, what are we going to do now?” In other words, like, “We're in a pickle. What are we going to do now?” But calling me son. Yeah, it's not appropriate, right? If I'd have been hierarchical and I'd relied on rank, I probably would have been justified to let him have it. Like, that's playing short ball, right? I just thought for a second, and I just put my arm around him. I said, “Gee, Dad, I was hoping you're gonna help me.” And mother rat, we figured it out, and after that, he was eating out of my hand. So it was a test, right? Don't be afraid to be tested but don't take the bait. Naviere Walkewicz 35:46 So many good just lessons in each of these examples. Can you share a time at MOBE when you've seen someone that has been on your team that has demonstrated that because of the environment you've created? Mike Ott 35:57 For sure. So I've been running the firm now for about three and a half years. Again, have adapted and enhanced our capabilities, changed the business model a bit, yet functioning in our approach to the marketplace remains the same. We help people get better, and we get paid based on the less spend they have in the system. Part of some of our principles at MOBE are pretty simple, like, eat, sleep, move, smile, all right. And then be thoughtful with your medication. We think that medicine is an aid, not a cure. Your body's self-healing and your mind controls your body.   Naviere Walkewicz 36:32 Eat, sleep, move, smile. Love that.   Mike Ott 36:35 So what's happening with MOBE, and what I've seen is the same is true with how I've altered our leadership team. I've got some amazing leaders — very, very, very accomplished. But there are some new leaders because others just didn't fit in. There wasn't the sense of communal trust that I expected. There was too much, know-it-all'ing going on, right? And I just won't have that. So the easiest way to diffuse that isn't about changing head count, but it's around exhibiting vulnerability in front of all these folks and saying, “Look, I don't know that, but my lead pharmacist here, my lead clinician here, helped me get through those things.” But I do have one leader right, who is our head of vice president of HR, a woman who grew up on a farm in southern Minnesota, who has come to myself and our president and shared that she feels liberated at MOBE because, though this firm is larger than one that she served as a director of HR, previously, she's never had to look — check her six, look right, look left and seek alignment to ensure she's harmonizing with people. Naviere Walkewicz 37:49 Can you imagine being in an environment like that? Mike Ott 38:51 It's terrible, it's toxic, and it's wrong. Leaders, within the organization, I think you're judged more by what you don't do and the actions that you don't take. You can establish trust, and you will fortify that trust when you share with the team as best you can, so long as it's nothing inappropriate, where you made a mistake, where we went wrong. What did we learn from that? Where are we going to pivot? How we're going to apply that learning to make it better, as opposed to finding blame, pointing the finger or not even acknowledging? That happens all the time, and that toxicity erodes. And regretfully, my VP of HR in prior roles experienced that, and I don't have time. Good teams shouldn't have time to rehearse the basic values of the firm. We don't have time the speed of business is like this [snaps]. So if I can build the team of men and women that trust one another, can stay in their lanes, but also recognize that they're responsible for helping run the business, and look over at the other lanes and help their fellow leaders make adjustments without the indictful comment or without sort of belittling or shaming. That's what good teams, do. You, and I did that in the Air Force, but it is not as common as you would think. Naviere Walkewicz 39:11 20 we've been talking about MOBE, and you know, the environment you're creating there, and just the way that you're working through innovation. Let's talk a little bit how you're involved with DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit. Mike Ott 39:21 Again, it's reputation in relationships. And it was probably 2010, I get a call from a fellow grad, '87 grad who was living in the Beltway, still in uniform. He was an O-5 I was an O-5. Just doing the Academy liaison work, helping good young men and women that wanted to go to the Academy get in. And that was super satisfying, thought that would be the end of my Reserve career and super fun. And this is right when the first Obama administration came in, and one of his edicts and his admin edicts was, we've got to find ways to embrace industry more, right? We can't rely on the primes, just the primes. So those were just some seeds, and along with a couple other grads, created what is now called Joint Reserve Directorate, which was spawned DIUX, which was DIU Experimental, is spawned from. So I was the owner for JRD, and DIUX as a reserve officer. And that's how we all made colonel is we were working for the chief technology officer of the Defense Department, the Hon. Zach Lemnios, wonderful fellow. Civilian, didn't have much military experience, but boy, the guy knew tech — semiconductors and areas like that. But this was the beginning of the United States recognizing that our R&D output, OK, in the aggregate, as a fund, as a percentage of GDP, whether it's coming out of the commercial marketplace or the military DoD complex, needs to be harnessed against the big fight that we have with China. We can see, you know, we've known about that for 30 years. So this is back 14 years ago. And the idea was, let's bring in men and women — there was a woman in our group too that started this area — and was like, “How do we create essential boundary span, boundary spanners, or dual-literacy people that are experiences in capital markets, finance, how capital is accumulated, innovation occurs, but then also how that applies into supporting the warfighter. So we were given a sandbox. We were given a blank slate.   Naviere Walkewicz 41:37 It's your happy place.   Mike Ott 41:38 Oh, super awesome. And began to build out relationships at Silicon Valley with commercial entities, and developed some concepts that are now being deployed with DIU and many other people came in and brought them all to life. But I was lucky enough after I retired from the Reserves as a colonel to be asked to come back as an adviser, because of that background and that experience, the genesis of the organization. So today I'm an unpaid SGE — special government employee — to help DIU look across a variety of different domains. And so I'm sure many of our listeners know it's key areas that we've got to harness the commercial marketplace. We know that if you go back into the '70s, ‘60s and ‘70s, and creation of the internet, GPS, precision munitions and all of that, the R&D dollars spent in the aggregate for the country, 95% came out of DOD is completely flip flopped today. Completely flipped. We happen to live in an open, free society. We hope to have capital markets and access a lot of that technology isn't burdened like it might be in China. And so that's the good and bad of this open society that we have. We've got to find ways. So we, the team does a lot of great work, and I just help them think about capital markets, money flows, threat finance. How you use financial markets to interdict, listen, see signals, but then also different technologies across cyberspace, autonomy, AI. Goodness gracious, I'm sure there's a few others. There's just so much. So I'm just an interloper that helps them think about that, and it's super fun that they think that I can be helpful. Naviere Walkewicz 43:29 Well, I think I was curious on how, because you love the ambiguity, and that's just something that fills your bucket — so while you're leading MOBE and you're creating something very stable, it sounds like DIU and being that kind of special employee, government employee, helps you to fill that need for your ambiguous side.   Mike Ott 43:48 You're right. You're right.   Naviere Walkewicz 43:49 Yeah, I thought that's really fascinating. Well, I think it's wonderful that you get to create that and you just said, the speed of business is this [snaps]. How do you find time in your life to balance what you also put your values around — your health — when you have such an important job and taking care of so many people? Mike Ott 44:06 I think we're all pretty disciplined at the Academy, right? I remain that way, and I'm very, very — I'm spring loaded to ‘no,' right? “Hey, do you want to go do this?” Yeah, I want to try do, I want to do a lot of things, but I'm spring loaded. So like, “Hey, you want to go out and stay, stay up late and have a drink?” “No,” right? “Do you want to do those things?” So I'm very, very regimented in that I get eight hours of sleep, right? And even somebody, even as a cadet, one of the nicknames my buddies gave me was Rip Van Ott, right? Because I'm like, “This is it.” I was a civil engineer. One of my roommates was an astro guy, and I think he pulled an all-nighter once a week.   Naviere Walkewicz 45:46 Oh, my goodness, yeah.   Mike Ott 45:50 Like, “Dude, what are you doing?” And it wasn't like he was straight As. I was clearly not straight As, but I'm like, “What are you doing? That's not helpful. Do the work ahead of time.” I think I maybe pulled three or four all-nighters my entire four years. Now, it's reflected in my GPA. I get that, but I finished the engineering degree. But sleep matters, right? And some things are just nonnegotiable, and that is, you know, exercise, sleep and be kind to yourself, right? Don't compare. If you're going to compare, compare yourself to yesterday, but don't look at somebody who is an F-15 pilot, and you're not. Like, I'm not. My roommate, my best man at my wedding, F-15 pilot, Test Pilot School, all these things, amazing, amazing, awesome, and super, really, really, happy and proud for him, but that's his mojo; that's his flow, right? If you're gonna do any comparison, compare yourself to the man or woman you were yesterday and “Am I better?”. Naviere Walkewicz 44:48 The power of “no” and having those nonnegotiables is really important. Mike Ott 45:53 Yeah, no, I'm not doing that. Naviere Walkewicz 45:56 I think sometimes we're wired for a “we can take on… we can take it on, we can take it on, we can take it on. We got this.” Mike Ott 46:03 For sure. Oh, my goodness. And I have that discussion with people on my team from time to time as well, and it's most often as it relates to an individual on the team that's struggling in his or her role, or whether it's by you know, if it's by omission and they're in the wrong role, that's one thing. If it's by commission, well, be a leader and execute and get that person out of there, right? That's wrong, but from time to time, it's by omission, and somebody is just not well placed. And I've seen managers, I can repatriate this person. I can get him or her there, and you have to stop for a second and tell that leader, “Yeah, I know you can. I'm certain that the only thing you were responsible for was to help that person fulfill the roles of the job that they're assigned. You could do it.” But guess what? You've got 90% of your team that needs care, nurturing and feeding. They're delivering in their function, neglect, there destroys careers, and it's going to destroy the business. So don't, don't get caught up in that. Yeah. Pack it on. Pack it on. Pack it on. You're right. When someone's in the crosshairs, I want to be in the crosshairs with you, Naviere, and Ted, and all the people that you and I affiliate with, but on the day-to-day, sustained basis, right to live, you know, to execute and be fulfilled, both in the mission, the work and stay fit, to fight and do it again. You can't. You can't. And a lot of a little bit of no goes a long way. Naviere Walkewicz 47:40 That is really good to hear. I think that's something that a lot of leaders really don't share. And I think that's really wonderful that you did. I'd like to take a little time and pivot into another area that you're heavily involved, philanthropy side. You know, you've been with the Falcon Foundation. Where did you find that intent inside of you? I mean, you always said the Academy's been part of you, but you found your way back in that space in other ways. Let's talk about that. Mike Ott 48:05 Sure. Thank you. I don't know. I felt that service is a part of me, right? And it is for all of us, whether you stay in the military or not. Part of my financial services jobs have been in wealth management. I was lucky enough to run that business for US Bank in one of my capacities, and here I am now in health care, health care of service. That aligns with wanting things to be better across any other angle. And the philanthropic, philanthropic side of things — I probably couldn't say that word when I was a cadet, but then, you know, I got out and we did different volunteer efforts. We were at Hanscom Field raising money for different organizations, and stayed with it, and always found ways to have fun with it. But recognized I couldn't… It was inefficient if I was going to be philanthropic around something that I didn't have a personal interest in. And as a senior executive at US Bank, we were all… It was tacit to the role you had roles in local foundations or community efforts. And I remember sitting down with my boss, the CFO of the bank, and then the CEO, and they'd asked me to go on to a board, and it had to do with a museum that I had no interest in, right? And I had a good enough relationship with these, with these guys, to say, “Look, I'm a good dude. I'm going to be helpful in supporting the bank. And if this is a have to, all right, I'll do it, but you got the wrong guy. Like, you want me to represent the bank passionately, you know, philanthropically, let me do this. And they're like, “OK, great.” So we pivoted, and I did other things. And the philanthropic piece of things is it's doing good. It's of service for people, entities, organizations, communities or moments that can use it. And I it's just very, very satisfying to me. So my wife and I are pretty involved that way, whether it's locally, with different organizations, lot of military support. The Academy, we're very fond of. It just kind of became a staple. Naviere Walkewicz 50:35 Did you find yourself also gravitating toward making better your community where you grew up? Mike Ott 50:41 Yeah, yeah, yeah. One of my dear friends that grew up in the same neighborhood, he wound up going to the Naval Academy, and so we're we've been friends for 50 years. Seventh grade.   Naviere Walkewicz 50:53 Same counselor? Mike Ott50:54 Yeah, no. Different counselor, different high school. His parents had a little bit of money, and they, he wound up going to a Catholic school nearby. But great guy, and so he and I, he runs a business that serves the VA in Chicago, and I'm on the board, and we do an awful lot of work. And one of the schools we support is a school on the south side, largely African American students and helping them with different STEM projects. It's not going to hit above the fold of a newspaper, but I could give a rat, doesn't matter to me, seeing a difference, seeing these young men and women. One of them, one of these boys, it's eye watering, but he just found out that he was picked for, he's applying to the Naval Academy, and he just found out that he got a nomination.   Naviere Walkewicz 51:44 Oh my goodness, I just got chills.   Mike Ott 51:46 And so, yeah, yeah, right, right. But it's wonderful. And his parents had no idea anything like that even existed. So that's one that it's not terribly formal, but boy, it looks great when you see the smile on that kid and the impact on that individual, but then the impact it leaves on the community, because it's clear opportunity for people to aspire because they know this young man or this young woman, “I can do that too.” Naviere Walkewicz 52:22 Wow. So he got his nomination, and so he would start technically making class of 2030?   Mike Ott 52:27 That's right. Naviere Walkewicz 52:28 Oh, how exciting. OK Well, that's a wonderful…   Mike Ott 52:27 I hope, I hope, yeah, he's a great kid. Naviere Walkewicz 52:33 Oh, that is wonderful. So you talk about, you know that spirit of giving — how have you seen, I guess, in your journey, because it hasn't been linear. We talked about how you know progression is not linear. How have you grown throughout these different experiences? Because you kind of go into a very ambiguous area, and you bring yourself, and you grow in it and you make it better. But how have you grown? What does that look like for you? Mike Ott 53:02 After having done it several times, right, i.e. entering the fray of an ambiguous environment business situation, I developed a better system and understanding of what do I really need to do out of the gates? And I've grown that way and learn to not be too decisive too soon. Decisiveness is a great gift. It's really, really it's important. It lacks. It lacks because there are too many people, less so in the military, that want to be known for having made… don't want to be known for having made a bad decision, so they don't take that risk. Right, right, right. And so that creates just sort of the static friction, and you've just got to have faith and so, but I've learned how to balance just exactly when to be decisive. And the other thing that I know about me is I am drawn to ambiguity. I am drawn… Very, very curious. Love to learn, try new things, have a range of interests and not very good at any one thing, but that range helps me in critical thinking. So I've learned to, depending on the situation, right, listen, listen, and then go. It isn't a formula. It's a flow, but it's not a formula. And instinct matters when to be decisive. Nature of the people with whom you're working, nature of the mission, evolution, phase of the organization or the unit that you're in. Now is the time, right? So balancing fostering decisiveness is something that that's worth a separate discussion. Naviere Walkewicz 54:59 Right. Wow. So all of these things that you've experienced and the growth that you've had personally — do you think about is this? Is this important to you at all, the idea of, what is your legacy, or is that not? Mike Ott 55:13 We talked a little bit about this beforehand, and I thought I've got to come up with something pithy, right? And I really, I really don't.   Naviere Walkewicz 55:18 Yeah, you don't.   Mike Ott 55:19 I don't think of myself as that. I'm very proud of who I am and what I've done in the reputation that I have built. I don't need my name up in lights. I know the life that I'm living and the life that I hope to live for a lot longer. My legacy is just my family, my children, the mark that I've left in the organizations that I have been a part of.   Naviere Walkewicz 55:58 And the communities that you've touched, like that gentleman going and getting his nomination. I'm sure.   Mike Ott 56:04 Yeah, I don't… having been a senior leader, and even at MOBE, I'm interviewed by different newspapers and all that. Like I do it because I'm in this role, and it's important for MOBE, but I'm not that full of myself, where I got to be up in lights. So I just want to be known as a man that was trustworthy, fun, tried to meet people where they are really had flaws, and sought to overcome them with the few strengths that he had, and moved everything forward. Naviere Walkewicz 56:33 Those are the kind of leaders that people will run through fire for. That's amazing. I think that's a wonderful I mean that in itself, it's like a living legacy you do every day. How can I be better than I was yesterday? And that in itself, is a bit of your living and that's really cool. Well, one of the things we like to ask is, “What is something you're doing every day to be better as a leader?” And you've covered a lot, so I mean, you could probably go back to one of those things, but is there something that you could share with our listeners that you do personally every day, to be better? Mike Ott 57:05 Exercise and read every day, every day, and except Fridays. Fridays I take… that's like, I'll stretch or just kind of go for a walk. But every day I make it a moment, you know, 45 minutes to an hour, something and better for my head, good for my body, right? That's the process in the hierarchy of way I think about it. And then read. Gen. Mattis. And I supported Gen. Mattis as a lieutenant colonel before I wanted to and stuff at the Pentagon. And he I supported him as an innovation guy for JFCOM, where he was the commander. And even back then, he was always talking about reading is leading none of us as military leaders… And I can't hold the candle to the guy, but I learned an awful lot, and I love his mindset, and that none of us can live a life long enough to take In all the leadership lessons necessary to help us drive impact. So you better be reading about it all the time. And so I read probably an hour every night, every day.   Naviere Walkewicz 58:14 What are you reading right now?   Mike Ott 58:15 Oh, man, I left it on the plane! I was so bummed. Naviere Walkewicz 58:17 Oh, that's the worst. You're going to have to get another copy. Mike Ott 58:22 Before I came here, I ordered it from Barnes & Noble so to me at my house when I get home. Love history and reading a book by this wonderful British author named Anne Reid. And it's, I forget the title exactly, but it's how the allies at the end of World War I sought to influence Russia and overcome the Bolsheviks. They were called the interventionalists, and it was an alliance of 15 different countries, including the U.S., Britain, France, U.K., Japan, Australia, India, trying to thwart, you know, the Bolshevik Revolution — trying to thwart its being cemented. Fascinating, fascinating. So that's what I was reading until I left it on the plane today. Naviere Walkewicz 59:07 How do you choose what to read? Mike Ott 59:10 Listen, write, love history. Love to read Air Force stuff too. Just talk to friends, right? You know, they've learned how to read like me. So we get to talk and have fun with that. Naviere Walkewicz 59:22 That's great. Yeah, that's wonderful. Well, the last question I'd like to ask you, before I want to make sure you have an opportunity to cover anything we didn't, is what is something you would share with others that they can do to become better leaders? Maybe they start doing it now, so in the future, they're even stronger as a leader. Mike Ott 59:42 Two things I would say, and try to have these exist in the same breath in the same moment, is have the courage to make it try and make it better every day, all right, and be kind to yourself, be forgiving. Naviere Walkewicz 59:59 That's really powerful. Can you share an example? And I know I that's we could just leave it there, but being courageous and then being kind to yourself, they're almost on two opposite sides. Have you had, can you share an example where I guess you've done that right? You had to be you were courageous and making something better, and maybe it didn't go that way, so you have to be kind to yourself. Mike Ott 1:00:23 Yeah, happy to and I think any cadet will hear this story and go like, “Huh, wow, that's interesting.” And it also plays with the arc of progress isn't linear. I graduated in '85 went to flight school, got halfway through flight school, and there was a RIF, reduction in force. And our class, our flight class, I was flying jets, I was soloing. I was academically — super easy, flying average, right? You know, I like to joke that I've got the fine motor skills of a ham sandwich, right? You know, but, but I didn't finish flight school. And you think about this, here it is. I started in 1981 there were still vestiges of Vietnam. Everyone's going to be a fighter pilot. Kill, kill, kill. Blood makes the grass grow. All of that was there. And I remember when this happened, it was very frustrating for me. It was mostly the major root of frustration wasn't that I wasn't finishing flight school. It was the nature by which the determination that I wasn't finishing was made. And it was, it was a financial decision. We had too many guys and gals, and they were just finding, you know, average folks and then kicking them out. So our class graduated a lower percent than, I think, in that era, it was late '85, '86, maybe '87, but you can look at outflows, and it was interesting, they were making budget cuts. So there was a shaming part there, having gone to the Academy.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:02:02 And knowing since 9 years old. Mike Ott 1:20:04 Right, right, right, and I knew I wanted to go the Academy. I'd like to fly, let's check it out and see if it's for me. I would much rather have been not for me, had I made the decision I don't want to do this or that I was just unsafe and didn't want to do it. The way it turned out is, and this is where I learned a little bit about politics as well. In my class, again, I was very average. Like, nobody's ever going to say, like, yeah, I was going to go fly the Space Shuttle. Like, no way, right? Very, very average, but doing just fine. And a lot of guys and gals wanted to go be navigators, and that's great. I looked in the regs, and I learned this as a cadet, and it's helped me in business, too. If there's a rule, there's a waiver. Like, let me understand the regs, and I asked to go to a board. Instead of just submitting a letter to appeal, I asked to go to a board. And so I went to a board of an O-5 five, couple of threes O-4 four, and ultimately shared the essence of why I shouldn't be terminated in the program. And son of a gun, they agreed, and I still have the letter. The letter says, “Recommend Lt. Ott for reinstatement.” Nobody in my class has that letter, nobody makes the appeal. And I'm like, I'm going downstream. I'm going downstream. And that's the Chicago in me, and that's the piece about… but also move forward, but forgive yourself, and I'll get to that. And so I, I was thrilled, My goodness, and the argument I had is, like, look, you're just not keeping me current. You put me in the sim, and then you're waiting too long to put me in the jet. The regs don't allow for that. And like, you're right. So I'm assigned to go back to the jet. My pals are thrilled. I'm going to stay in the same class. I don't have to wash back. And then I get a call from the DO's office — director of operations — and it was from some civilian person so the DO overrode the board's decision. Heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:04:12 You were so high, you did all of your work. And then… Mike Ott 1:04:15 Yeah, and then heartbreaking and frustrating, and I guess the word is indignant: anger aroused through frustration. In that I figured it out. I knew exactly what's happening. I made the appeal and I won. And it wasn't I was expecting to be assigned to fly a fighter. It was like, “Just let me, let me express the merits of my capabilities. It's how the system is designed.” The son of a gun, I jumped in my car and I ran to base and I waited and reported in. He didn't really know who I was. That's because he didn't make a decision. It was just it was that decision, and that's how life comes at you. That's just how it is. It isn't linear. So how do you take that and then say, “Well, I'm going to be kind to myself and make something out of it.” And he went through, you know, a dissertation as to why, and I asked him if I could share my views, and it's pretty candid, and I just said, If my dad were something other than the Chicago policeman, and maybe if he was a senator or general officer, I wouldn't be sitting here. That lit him up, right? That lit him up. But I had to state my views. So I knew I was out of the program. Very, very frustrating. Could have had the mayor of Chicago call. Didn't do that, right? Like, OK, I understand where this is it. That was very frustrating and somewhat shaming. But where the forgiveness comes in and be kind to yourself, is that I ran into ground. I ran into ground and drove an outcome where I still… It's a moment of integrity. I drove an outcome like, there you go. But then what do you do? Forgive yourself, right? Because you didn't do anything wrong, OK? And you pivot. And I turned that into a moment where I started cold calling instructors at the Academy. Because, hey, now I owe the Air Force five years, Air Force is looking for, you know, things that I don't want to do. And thank goodness I had an engineering degree, and I cold called a guy at a base in Hanscom. And this is another tap on the shoulder.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:06:24 That's how you got to Hanscom. Gotcha.   Mike Ott 1:06:27 There was a friend who was Class of '83, a woman who was in my squadron, who was there. Great egg. And she's like, “Hey, I was at the O Club.” Called her. I said, “Hey, help me out. I got this engineering degree. I want to go to one of these bases. Called Lt. Col. Davis, right? I met him at the O Club. I called a guy, and he's like, “Yeah, let's do this.”   Naviere Walkewicz 1:06:44 Wow, I love that..   Mike Ott 1:06:46 It was fantastic So it's a long winded way, but progress isn't linear. And progressing through that and not being a victim, right, recognizing the conditions and the environment that I could control and those that I can't. Anything that I could control, I took advantage of and I sought to influence as best possible. Ran into ground and I feel great about it, and it turns out to be a testament of one of my best successes. Naviere Walkewicz 1:07:17 Wow. Thank you for sharing

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,China's spacefaring ambitions pose tough competition for America. With a focused, centralized program, Beijing seems likely to land taikonauts on the moon before another American flag is planted. Meanwhile, NASA faces budget cuts, leadership gaps, and technical setbacks. In his new book, journalist Christian Davenport chronicles the fierce rivalry between American firms, mainly SpaceX and Blue Origin. It's a contest that, despite the challenges, promises to propel humanity to the moon, Mars, and maybe beyond.Davenport is an author and a reporter for the Washington Post, where he covers NASA and the space industry. His new book, Rocket Dreams: Musk, Bezos, and the Inside Story of the New, Trillion-Dollar Space Race, is out now.In This Episode* Check-in on NASA (1:28)* Losing the Space Race (5:49)* A fatal flaw (9:31)* State of play (13:33)* The long-term vision (18:37)* The pace of progress (22:50)* Friendly competition (24:53)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Check-in on NASA (1:28)The Chinese tend to do what they say they're going to do on the timeline that they say they're going to do it. That said, they haven't gone to the moon . . . It's really hard.Pethokoukis: As someone — and I'm speaking about myself — who wants to get America back to the moon as soon as possible, get cooking on getting humans to Mars for the first time, what should I make of what's happening at NASA right now?They don't have a lander. I'm not sure the rocket itself is ready to go all the way, we'll find out some more fairly soon with Artemis II. We have flux with leadership, maybe it's going to not be an independent-like agency anymore, it's going to join the Department of Transportation.It all seems a little chaotic. I'm a little worried. Should I be?Davenport: Yes, I think you should be. And I think a lot of the American public isn't paying attention and they're going to see the Artemis II mission, which you mentioned, and that's that mission to send a crew of astronauts around the moon. It won't land on the moon, but it'll go around, and I think if that goes well, NASA's going to take a victory leap. But as you correctly point out, that is a far cry from getting astronauts back on the lunar surface.The lander isn't ready. SpaceX, as acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy just said, is far behind, reversing himself from like a month earlier when he said no, they appear to be on track, but everybody knew that they were well behind because they've had 11 test flights, and they still haven't made it to orbit with their Starship rocket.The rocket itself that's going to launch them into the vicinity of the moon, the SLS, launches about once every two years. It's incredibly expensive, it's not reusable, and there are problems within the agency itself. There are deep cuts to it. A lot of expertise is taking early retirements. It doesn't have a full-time leader. It hasn't had a full-time leader since Trump won the election. At the same time, they're sort of beating the drum saying we're going to beat the Chinese back to the lunar surface, but I think a lot of people are increasingly looking at that with some serious concern and doubt.For what it's worth, when I looked at the betting markets, it gave the Chinese a two-to-one edge. It said that it was about a 65 percent chance they were going to get there first. Does that sound about right to you?I'm not much of a betting man, but I do think there's a very good chance. The Chinese tend to do what they say they're going to do on the timeline that they say they're going to do it. That said, they haven't gone to the moon, they haven't done this. It's really hard. They're much more secretive, if they have setbacks and delays, we don't necessarily know about them. But they've shown over the last 10, 20 years how capable they are. They have a space station in low earth orbit. They've operated a rover on Mars. They've gone to the far side of the moon twice, which nobody has done, and brought back a sample return. They've shown the ability to keep people alive in space for extended periods of times on the space station.The moon seems within their capabilities and they're saying they're going to do it by 2030, and they don't have the nettlesome problem of democracy where you've got one party come in and changing the budget, changing the direction for NASA, changing leadership. They've just set the moon — and, by the way, the south pole of the moon, which is where we want to go as well — as the destination and have been beating a path toward that for several years now.Is there anyone for merging NASA into the Department of Transportation? Is there a hidden reservoir? Is that an idea people have been talking about now that's suddenly emerged to the surface?It's not something that I particularly heard. The FAA is going to regulate the launches, and they coordinate with the airspace and make sure that the air traffic goes around it, but I think NASA has a particular expertise. Rocket science is rocket science — it's really difficult. This isn't for the faint of heart.I think a lot of people look at human space flight and it's romanticized. It's romanticized in books and movies and in popular culture, but the fact of the matter is it's really, really hard, it's really dangerous, every time a human being gets on one of those rockets, there's a chance of an explosion, of something really, really bad happening, because a million things have to go right in order for them to have a successful flight. The FAA does a wonderful job managing — or, depending on your point of view, some people don't think they do such a great job, but I think space is a whole different realm, for sure.Losing the Space Race (5:49). . . the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they're basically no longer there anymore. . . There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moonHave you thought about what it will look like the day after, in this country, if China gets to the moon first and we have not returned there yet?Actually, that's a scenario I kind of paint out. I've got this new book called Rocket Dreams and we talk about the geopolitical tensions in there. Not to give too much of a spoiler, but NASA has said that the first person to return to the moon, for the US, is going to be a woman. And there's a lot of people thinking, who could that be? It could be Jessica Meir, who is a mother and posted a picture of herself pregnant and saying, “This is what an astronaut looks like.” But it could very well be someone like Wang Yaping, who's also a mother, and she came back from one of her stays on the International Space Station and had a message for her daughter that said, “I come back bringing all the stars for you.” So I think that I could see China doing it and sending a woman, and that moment where that would be a huge coup for them, and that would obviously be symbolic.But when you're talking about space as a tool of soft power and diplomacy, I think it would attract a lot of other nations to their side who are sort of waiting on the sidelines or who frankly aren't on the sidelines, who have signed on to go to the United States, but are going to say, “Well, they're there and you're not, so that's who we're going to go with.”I think about the wonderful alt-history show For All Mankind, which begins with the Soviets beating the US to the moon, and instead of Neil Armstrong giving the “one small step for man,” basically the Russian cosmonaut gives, “Its one small step for Marxism-Leninism,” and it was a bummer. And I really imagine that day, if China beats us, it is going to be not just, “Oh, I guess now we have to share the moon with someone else,” but it's going to cause some national soul searching.And there are clues to this, and actually I detail these two anecdotes in the book, that all of the flags, the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they're basically no longer there anymore. We know from Buzz Aldrin‘s memoir that the flag that he and Neil Armstrong planted in the lunar soil in 1969, Buzz said that he saw it get knocked over by the thrust in the exhaust of the module lifting off from the lunar surface. Even if that hadn't happened, just the radiation environment would've bleached the flag white, as scientists believe it has to all the other flags that are on there. So there are essentially really no trace of the Apollo flags.There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moon, and the first one, which was planted a couple of years ago, or unveiled a couple of years ago, was made not of cloth, but their scientists and engineers spent a year building a composite material flag designed specifically to withstand the harsh environment of the moon. When they went back last summer for their farside sample return mission, they built a flag, — and this is pretty amazing — out of basalt, like volcanic rock, which you find on Earth. And they use basalt from earth, but of course basalt is common on the moon. They were able to take the rock, turn it into lava, extract threads from the lava and weave this flag, which is now near the south pole of the moon. The significance of that is they are showing that they can use the resources of the moon, the basalt, to build flags. It's called ISR: in situ resource utilization. So to me, nothing symbolizes their intentions more than that.A fatal flaw (9:31). . . I tend to think if it's a NASA launch . . . and there's an explosion . . . I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.In the book, you really suggest a new sort of golden age of space. We have multiple countries launching. We seem to have reusable rockets here in the United States. A lot of plans to go to the moon. How sustainable is this economically? And I also wonder what happens if we have another fatal accident in this country? Is there so much to be gained — whether it's economically, or national security, or national pride in space — that this return to space by humanity will just go forward almost no matter what?I think so. I think you've seen a dramatic reduction in the cost of launch. SpaceX and the Falcon 9, the reusable rocket, has dropped launches down. It used to be if you got 10, 12 orbital rocket launches in a year, that was a good year. SpaceX is launching about every 48 hours now. It's unprecedented what they've done. You're seeing a lot of new players — Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, others — driving down the cost of launch.That said, the main anchor tenant customer, the force driving all of this is still the government, it's still NASA, it's still the Pentagon. There is not a self-sustaining space economy that exists in addition or above and beyond the government. You're starting to see bits of that, but really it's the government that's driving it.When you talk about the movie For All Mankind, you sort of wonder if at one point, what happened in that movie is there was a huge investment into NASA by the government, and you're seeing that to some extent today, not so much with NASA, but actually on the national security side and the creation of the Space Force and the increases, just recently, in the Space Force's budget. I mean, my gosh, if you have $25 billion for this year alone for Golden Dome, the Missile Defense Shield, that's the equivalent of NASA's entire budget. That's the sort of funding that helps build those capabilities going forward.And if we should, God forbid, have a fatal accident, you think we'll just say that's the cost of human exploration and forward we go?I think a lot about this, and the answer is, I don't know. When we had Challenger and we had Columbia, the world stopped, and the Space Shuttle was grounded for months if not a year at a time, and the world just came to an end. And you wonder now if it's becoming more routine and what happens? Do we just sort of carry on in that way?It's not a perfect analogy, but when you talk about commercial astronauts, these rich people are paying a lot of money to go, and if there's an accident there, what would happen? I think about that, and you think about Mount Everest. The people climbing Mount Everest today, those mountain tourists are literally stepping over dead bodies as they're going up to the summit, and nobody's shutting down Mount Everest, they're just saying, well, if you want to climb Mount Everest, that's the risk you take. I do wonder if we're going to get that to that point in space flight, but I tend to think if it's a NASA launch, and it's NASA astronauts, and there's an explosion, and there's a very bad day, I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.The thing is, if it's SpaceX, they have had accidents. They've had multiple accidents — not with people, thank goodness — and they have been grounded.It is part of the model.It's part of the model, and they have shown how they can find out what went wrong, fix it, and return to flight, and they know their rocket so well because they fly it so frequently. They know it that well, and NASA, despite what you think about Elon, NASA really, really trusts SpaceX and they get along really well.State of play (13:33)[Blue Origin is] way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days . . . Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time.I was under the impression that Blue Origin was way behind SpaceX. Are they catching up?This is one of the themes of the book. They are way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days, they're pushing ahead with Starship, their next generation rocket would be fully reusable, twice the thrust and power of the Saturn V rocket that flew the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time. They might be launching again soon within the coming weeks or months, hopefully by the end of the year, but that's two. They are so far behind, but you do hear Jeff Bezos being much more tuned into the company. He has a new CEO — a newish CEO — plucked from the ranks of Amazon, Dave Limp, and you do sort of see them charging, and now that the acting NASA administrator has sort of opened up the competition to go to the moon, I don't know that Blue Origin beats SpaceX to do it, but it gives them some incentive to move fast, which I think they really need.I know it's only a guess and it's only speculation, but when we return to the moon, which company will have built that lander?At this point, you have to put your money on SpaceX just because they're further along in their development. They've flown humans before. They know how to keep people alive in space. In their Dragon capsule, they have the rendezvous and proximity operations, they know how to dock. That's it.Blue Origin has their uncrewed lander, the Mark 1 version that they hope to land on the moon next year, so it's entirely possible that Blue Origin actually lands a spacecraft on the lunar surface before SpaceX, and that would be a big deal. I don't know that they're able to return humans there, however, before SpaceX.Do you think there's any regrets by Jeff Bezos about how Blue Origin has gone about its business here? Because obviously it really seems like it's a very different approach, and maybe the Blue Origin approach, if we look back 10 years, will seem to have been the better approach, but given where we are now and what you just described, would you guess that he's deeply disappointed with the kind of progress they made via SpaceX?Yeah, and he's been frustrated. Actually, the opening scene of the book is Jeff being upset that SpaceX is so far ahead and having pursued a partnership with NASA to fly cargo and supply to the International Space Station and then to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, and Blue Origin essentially sat out those competitions. And he turns to his team — this was early on in 2016 — and said, “From here on out, we go after everything that SpaceX goes after, we're going to compete with them. We're going to try to keep up.” And that's where they went, and sort of went all in early in the first Trump administration when it was clear that they wanted to go back to the moon, to position Blue Origin to say, “We can help you go back to the moon.”But yes, I think there's enormous frustration there. And I know, if not regret on Jeff's part, but certainly among some of his senior leadership, because I've talked to them about it.What is the war for talent between those two companies? Because if you're a hotshot engineer out of MIT, I'd guess you'd probably want to go to SpaceX. What is that talent war like, if you have any idea?It's fascinating. Just think a generation ago, you're a hot MIT engineer coming out of grad school, chances are you're going to go to NASA or one of the primes, right? Lockheed, or Boeing, or Air Jet, something like that. Now you've got SpaceX and Blue Origin, but you've got all kinds of other options too: Stoke Space, Rocket Lab, you've got Axiom, you've got companies building commercial space stations, commercial companies building space suits, commercial companies building rovers for the moon, a company called Astro Lab.I think what you hear is people want to go to SpaceX because they're doing things: they're flying rockets, they're flying people, you're actually accomplishing something. That said, the culture's rough, and you're working all the time, and the burnout rate is high. Blue Origin more has a tradition of people getting frustrated that yeah, the work-life balance is better — although I hear that's changing, actually, that it's driving much, much harder — but it's like, when are we launching? What are we doing here?And so the fascinating thing is actually, I call it SpaceX and Blue Origin University, where so many of the engineers go out and either do their own things or go to work for other companies doing things because they've had that experience in the commercial sector.The long-term vision (18:37)That's the interesting thing, that while they compete . . . at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common . . .At a talk recently, Bezos was talking about space stations in orbit and there being like a million people in space in 20 years doing economically valuable things of some sort. How seriously should I take that kind of prediction?Well, I think a million people in 20 years is not feasible, but I think that's ultimately what is his goal. His goal is, as he says, he founded Amazon, the infrastructure was there: the phone companies had laid down the cables for the internet, the post office was there to deliver the books, there was an invention called the credit card, he could take people's money. That infrastructure for space isn't there, and he wants to sort of help with Elon and SpaceX. That's their goal.That's the interesting thing, that while they compete, while they poke each other on Twitter and kind of have this rivalry, at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common, and that's lower the cost of access to space and make it more accessible so that you can build this economy on top of it and have more people living in space. That's Elon's dream, and the reason he founded SpaceX is to build a city on Mars, right? Something's going to happen to Earth at some point we should have a backup plan.Jeff's goal from the beginning was to say, you don't really want to inhabit another planet or celestial body. You're better off in these giant space stations envisioned by a Princeton physics professor named Gerard O'Neill, who Jeff Bezos read his book The High Frontier and became an acolyte of Gerard O'Neill from when he was a kid, and that's sort of his vision, that you don't have to go to a planet, you can just be on a Star Trekkian sort of spacecraft in orbit around the earth, and then earth is preserved as this national park. If you want to return to Earth, you can, but you get all the resources from space. In 500 years is that feasible? Yeah, probably, but that's not going to be in our lives, or our kids' lives, or our grandkids' lives.For that vision — anything like that vision — to happen, it seems to me that the economics needs to be there, and the economics just can't be national security and national prestige. We need to be doing things in space, in orbit, on the moon that have economic value on their own. Do we know what that would look like, or is it like you've got to build the infrastructure first and then let the entrepreneurs do their thing and see what happens?I would say the answer is “yes,” meaning it's both. And Jeff even says it, that some of the things that will be built, we do not know. When you had the creation of the internet, no one was envisioning Snapchat or TikTok. Those applications come later. But we do know that there are resources in space. We know there's a plentiful helium three, for example, on the surface of the moon, which it could be vital for, say, quantum computing, and there's not a lot of it on earth, and that could be incredibly valuable. We know that asteroids have precious metals in large quantities. So if you can reduce the cost of accessing them and getting there, then I think you could open up some of those economies. If you just talk about solar rays in space, you don't have day and night, you don't have cloud cover, you don't have an atmosphere, you're just pure sunlight. If you could harness that energy and bring it back to earth, that could be valuable.The problem is the cost of entry is so high and it's so difficult to get there, but if you have a vehicle like Starship that does what Elon envisions and it launches multiple times a day like an airline, all you're really doing is paying for the fuel to launch it, and it goes up and comes right back down, it can carry enormous amounts of mass, you can begin to get a glimmer of how this potentially could work years from now.The pace of progress (22:50)People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space . . .How would you characterize the progress now than when you wrote your first book?So much has happened that the first book, The Space Barons was published in 2018, and I thought, yeah, there'll be enough material here for another one in maybe 10 years or so, and here we are, what, seven years later, and the book is already out because commercial companies are now flying people. You've got a growth of the space ecosystem beyond just the Space Barons, beyond just the billionaires.You've got multiple players in the rocket launch market, and really, I think a lot of what's driving it isn't just the rivalries between the commercial companies in the United States, but the geopolitical space race between the United States and China, too that's really driving a lot of this, and the technological change that we've seen has moved very fast. Again, how fast SpaceX is launching, Blue Origin coming online, new launch vehicles, potentially new commercial space stations, and a broadening of the space ecosystem, it's moving fast. Does that mean it's perfect? No, companies start, they fail, they have setbacks, they go out of business, but hey, that's capitalism.Ten years from now, how many space stations are going to be in orbit around the earth?I think we'll have at least one or two commercial space stations for the United States, I think China. Is it possible you've got the US space stations, does that satisfy the demand? People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space for their scientists, for their engineers, for their pharmaceutical companies that want to do research in a zero-G environment. I think it's possible that there are, within 10 years, three, maybe even four space stations. Yeah, I think that's possible.Friendly competition (24:53)I honestly believe [Elon] . . . wants Blue to be better than they are.Do you think Musk thinks a lot about Blue Origin, or do you think he thinks, “I'm so far ahead, we're just competing against our own goals”?I've talked to him about this. He wishes they were better. He wishes they were further along. He said to me years ago, “Jeff needs to focus on Blue Origin.” This is back when Jeff was still CEO of Amazon, saying he should focus more on Blue Origin. And he said that one of the reasons why he was goading him and needling him as he has over the years was an attempt to kind of shame him and to get him to focus on Blue, because as he said, for Blue to be successful, he really needs to be dialed in on it.So earlier this year, when New Glenn, Blue Origin's big rocket, made it to orbit, that was a moment where Elon came forward and was like, respect. That is hard to do, to build a rocket to go to orbit, have a successful flight, and there was sort of a public high five in the moment, and now I think he thinks, keep going. I honestly believe he wants Blue to be better than they are.There's a lot of Elon Musk skeptics out there. They view him either as the guy who makes too big a prediction about Tesla and self-driving cars, or he's a troll on Twitter, but when it comes to space and wanting humanity to have a self-sustaining place somewhere else — on Mars — is he for real?Yeah, I do believe that's the goal. That's why he founded SpaceX in the first place, to do that. But the bottom line is, that's really expensive. When you talk about how do you do that, what are the economic ways to do it, I think the way he's funding that is obviously through Starlink and the Starlink system. But I do believe he wants humanity to get to Mars.The problem with this now is that there hasn't been enough competition. Blue Origin hasn't given SpaceX competition. We saw all the problems that Boeing has had with their program, and so much of the national space enterprise is now in his hands. And if you remember when he had that fight and the breakup with Donald Trump, Elon, in a moment of peak, threatened to take away the Dragon spacecraft, which is the only way NASA can fly its astronauts anywhere to space, to the International Space Station. I think that was reckless and dangerous and that he regretted it, but yes, the goal to get to Mars is real, and whatever you think about Elon — and he certainly courts a controversy — SpaceX is really, really good at what they do, and what they've done is really unprecedented from an American industrial perspective.My earliest and clearest memory of America and space was the landing on Mars. I remember seeing the first pictures probably on CBS news, I think it was Dan Rather saying, “Here are the first pictures of the Martian landscape,” 1976, and if you would've asked me as a child then, I would've been like, “Yeah, so we're going to be walking on Mars,” but I was definitely hooked and I've been interested in space, but are you a space guy? How'd you end up on this beat, which I think is a fantastic beat? You've written two books about it. How did this happen?I did not grow up a space nerd, so I was born in 1973 —Christian, I said “space guy.” I didn't say “space nerd,” but yeah, that is exactly right.My first memory of space is actually the Challenger shuttle exploding. That was my memory. As a journalist, I was covering the military. I'd been embedded in Iraq, and my first book was an Iraq War book about the national guard's role in Iraq, and was covering the military. And then this guy, this was 10 years ago, 12 years ago, at this point, Elon holds a press conference at the National Press Club where SpaceX was suing the Pentagon for the right to compete for national security launch contracts, and he starts off the press conference not talking about the lawsuit, but talking about the attempts. This was early days of trying to land the Falcon 9 rocket and reuse it, and I didn't know what he was talking about. And I was like, what? And then I did some research and I was like, “He's trying to land and reuse the rockets? What?” Nobody was really covering it, so I started spending more time, and then it's the old adage, right? Follow the money. And if the richest guys in the world — Bezos Blue Origin, at the time, Richard Branson, Paul Allen had a space company — if they're investing large amounts of their own personal fortune into that, maybe we should be paying attention, and look at where we are now.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

What does life after space look like for an astronaut? For Mike Foreman, it looks like community, connection, and continuing to serve — just a little closer to Earth. Mike is a retired NASA astronaut, a U.S. Navy veteran, and the current Mayor of Friendswood, Texas. Over the course of two Space Shuttle missions — STS-123 and STS-129 — Mike logged more than 637 hours in space and completed five spacewalks (that's over 32 hours working outside the spacecraft!) helping to deliver and assemble parts of the International Space Station (ISS). Today, he's using those same lessons from space and service to inspire students, encourage future explorers, and remind us that curiosity, teamwork, and resilience aren't just mission-critical in orbit — they matter right here at home, too. In this episode, Mike joins Beth for an open and inspiring conversation about: How seeing Earth from orbit forever changes your perspective, especially orbiting over Australia  The teamwork behind every NASA mission and why leadership is about trust How his journey led from Naval test pilot to astronaut to Mayor    Mike's story is one of lifelong curiosity and service — from flying jets and fixing the ISS to leading a city and mentoring the next generation. His message? Never stop learning, serving, or looking up. About Mike Foreman: NASA Astronaut (Ret.) – Selected in 1998 Two Space Shuttle Missions: STS-123 (2008) & STS-129 (2009) Five Spacewalks: 32 hours, 19 minutes total U.S. Navy Captain (Ret.) with more than 7,000 flight hours Current Role: Mayor of Friendswood, Texas Motivational Speaker on space, STEM, and leadership Why You'll Love This Episode: If you've ever wondered how astronauts translate their experiences beyond NASA — or how one person can move from exploring the cosmos to improving their own community — this conversation will leave you inspired. Mike reminds us that exploration doesn't end when you come home from space. It just changes direction.    WATCH this episode and more Casual Space Podcast conversations on You Tube! https://www.youtube.com/@casualspacepodcast83    Want to share your story with us, so we can send it to space? The deadline for submitting your original story to STORIES of Space MISSION 03 has been extended! Don't miss this last opportunity to launch your story to space in 2025! www.storiesofspace.com

Open Line Discussion – 4451 10-26-25Quick Summary: The meeting began with technical discussions about audio issues and upcoming show scheduling, including a fundraising campaign for The Space Show. The group then engaged in extensive discussions about space exploration, focusing on SpaceX's Starship program, NASA's lunar lander projects, and the geopolitical competition with China regarding moon missions. The conversation concluded with debates about rocket system capabilities, cost effectiveness, and the need for strong leadership at NASA to navigate both technical challenges and political considerations.Detailed Summary:Our program started out with David making a few general program announcements. We talked about upcoming shows, including a potential cancellation for Friday. The conversation then shifted to space settlement, with John mentioning a recent podcast about Tesla's financial results and its focus on automation and robots for future space missions. David expressed skepticism about Starship's readiness to take humans to the moon before China and before Trump leaves office, emphasizing the political importance of achieving these goal before the end of 2028.David announced the start of the annual fundraising campaign for The Space Show, a non-profit 501C3 program, which begins around Thanksgiving. He encouraged listeners to call into live programs using Zoom Phone lines, which offers better audio quality than the previous toll-free line. David expressed gratitude to the donors who have supported the show for nearly 25 years, allowing it to continue. He also invited non-donors to participate in the program and contribute to the fundraising campaign through various payment methods on both The Space Show website, www.thespaceshow.com and our Substack site, doctorspace.substack.com.Early on I shared excitement about a new physics book by Daniel Whiteson that explores universal scientific concepts, including the possibility of alien understanding of our known physics. I also highlighted the ongoing debate between Transportation Secretary/NASA Administrator Sean Duffy and Musk regarding the delays for both the SpaceX's human lunar lander but also Blue Origin's human lunar lander projects, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to prioritize returning to the moon and beating China to it. Phil suggested a structured debate to address the technical aspects of NASA's decision to open lunar lander bidding, advocating for a more in-depth analysis of the issue.Our Zoom group discussed the possibility of organizing a debate on the Starship Human Lander Engineering Design Program, with Phil suggesting it could be a shorter, 40-minute format to attract a wider audience. David expressed concerns about the debate's impact, noting that previous attempts to influence policy through debates were unsuccessful. The group also touched on the potential for sharing debate clips on platforms like YouTube and Substack to increase exposure.The group talked about SpaceX's position and the challenges of organizing an independent audit of SpaceX's delays. They debated the feasibility of an independent panel examining technical and policy factors contributing to SpaceX's delays, with concerns raised about SpaceX's proprietary information and the current hyper-partisan environment. The conversation shifted to the broader context of U.S. space exploration, with Charles suggesting focusing on establishing a long-term lunar facility rather than rushing to beat China to the moon, while others emphasized the importance of cislunar economy and political competition in reaching the moon as soon as possible.Our Space Show participants looked at options for returning to the moon, with Ajay presenting two possible solutions: an Apollo-like lander or a modified Blue Moon Mark 1.5. Charles and others expressed concerns about the feasibility and wisdom of using old Apollo technology, arguing for a more modern approach. The discussion also touched on potential NASA administrators, with Sean Duffy and Jared Isaacman being considered as candidates. David emphasized that the NASA administrator serves at the president's pleasure and would likely follow the president's agenda rather than any personal or corporate interests.The group discussed the influence of political leaders, particularly Trump, on space policy and the role of advisors like Jared Isaacman. They explored the potential impact of a major incident involving China's space program on U.S. policy and SpaceX's development timeline. The conversation also covered milestones for both SpaceX's Starship program and China's lunar mission plans, with Marshall inquiring about China's key milestones for moon travel. The discussion concluded with an acknowledgment that the topic had been covered extensively, and David invited participants to bring up other topics for further discussion.The conversation went back to discussing the challenges and limitations of SpaceX's Starship and Falcon Heavy systems, while expressing concerns about Starship's current performance and suggesting a hypothetical collaboration between SpaceX and another company that was quickly dismissed by Michael and others due to interpersonal conflicts. Marshall presented data on Falcon 9's cost-effectiveness, claiming it had reduced space transportation costs to $2,500 per kilogram, though Phil disputed these figures, suggesting a more realistic cost of around $6,000-10,000 per kilogram. The discussion concluded with Phil explaining the mass-to-orbit ratios of different rocket systems, noting that Starship's approach was closest to the Space Shuttle's method of transporting large amounts of mass to orbit.The focus continued on the challenges and limitations of SpaceX's Starship program, particularly regarding the mass fraction required to reach orbit and the reusability concerns. They debated whether Starship could achieve the goal of 100 flights before carrying humans, with Charles and Marshall expressing skepticism about meeting this target within the given timeframe. The conversation also touched on the cost and complexity of refurbishing reusable rocket stages, comparing it to the Falcon 9 program.We talked about the potential of China beating the U.S. to extract lunar water, while I emphasized the geopolitical risks of China's lunar ambitions and the need to prioritize returning to the moon before them. John Hunt raised concerns about the government shutdown potentially hindering NASA's observations of the 3i Atlas comet, leading to a decision to invite Avi Loeb back on the show to discuss it further. The conversation also touched on ESA's planned probe for the 2030s and the Europa Clipper mission's potential to observe the comet.As we neared the end of our program we discussed the geopolitical implications of China potentially establishing a presence at the South Pole, with Marshall expressing concern about mining rights claims. Phil suggested focusing on demonstrating technological superiority rather than racing China to specific destinations. John Hunt argued that being beaten by China might actually motivate the U.S. space program, while others noted that the current political climate makes long-term planning difficult. The conversation concluded with a debate about NASA's future leadership and potential reorganization, with some emphasizing the need for someone with both technical knowledge and visionary leadership.Please see the video of this program at doctorspace.substack.com.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

SpaceX Sets New Launch Records While NASA and Lunar Programs Face Delays Guest: Bob Zimmerman Bob Zimmerman discusses SpaceX setting a new record of 138 launches in one year, with Falcon 9 surpassing the total launches of the entire Space Shuttle fleet. This success is attributed to reusability, a concept NASA failed to implement profitably due to its government structure. Other topics include delays in the Griffin lunar lander, iSpace partnerships, Luxembourg's investment in space manufacturing, Russian claims about a nuclear-powered missile, and Japan's launch of an upgraded HTV cargo freighter.

SHOW 10-29-25 CBS EYE ON THE WORLD WITH JOHN BATCHELOR 1920 BOLIVAR IN CARACAS THE SHOW BEGINS IN THE DOUBTS ABOUT CARACAS... FIRST HOUR 9-915 Global Flashpoints: Ceasefires, Nuclear Claims, and the Legality of Venezuela Deployment Guest: Colonel Jeff McCausland Colonel Jeff McCausland assesses global conflicts, noting the Gaza ceasefire remains fragile as neither Israel nor Hamas is willing to compromise meaningfully. Russia remains defiant, having recently tested a claimed nuclear-powered missile, with Putin insisting Ukraine must surrender to achieve peace. McCausland criticizes the US deployment of a carrier battle group near Venezuela as "overkill," resembling nineteenth-century gunboat diplomacy intended to intimidate the Maduro regime. He questions the legality of kinetic action against alleged drug smugglers without Congressional approval. 915-930 VGlobal Flashpoints: Ceasefires, Nuclear Claims, and the Legality of Venezuela Deployment Guest: Colonel Jeff McCausland Colonel Jeff McCausland assesses global conflicts, noting the Gaza ceasefire remains fragile as neither Israel nor Hamas is willing to compromise meaningfully. Russia remains defiant, having recently tested a claimed nuclear-powered missile, with Putin insisting Ukraine must surrender to achieve peace. McCausland criticizes the US deployment of a carrier battle group near Venezuela as "overkill," resembling nineteenth-century gunboat diplomacy intended to intimidate the Maduro regime. He questions the legality of kinetic action against alleged drug smugglers without Congressional approval. 930-945 Analysis of US Carrier Deployment to Venezuela: Overkill for Drug Ops, Risk of Intervention Guests: Brad Bowman, Cameron McMillan Brad Bowman and Cameron McMillan analyze the massive US military buildup near Venezuela, including the USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group. They note this extraordinary accumulation of power is "orders of magnitude beyond" what is needed for stopping drug boats. The deployment conveys the "shadow of power" over the Maduro regime but raises serious concerns about constitutional war powers, high opportunity costs for US global security, and the risk of occupation similar to Iraq. 945-1000 Analysis of US Carrier Deployment to Venezuela: Overkill for Drug Ops, Risk of Intervention Guests: Brad Bowman, Cameron McMillan Brad Bowman and Cameron McMillan analyze the massive US military buildup near Venezuela, including the USS Gerald Ford carrier strike group. They note this extraordinary accumulation of power is "orders of magnitude beyond" what is needed for stopping drug boats. The deployment conveys the "shadow of power" over the Maduro regime but raises serious concerns about constitutional war powers, high opportunity costs for US global security, and the risk of occupation similar to Iraq. SECOND HOUR 10-1015 Diplomacy and Deterrence: Trump's Asia Success and the Venezuela Crisis Guest: Mary Kissel Mary Kissel reviews President Trump's successful engagement in Asia, including the ACEN conference where trade agreements and critical mineral investments were highlighted. She notes the strengthening US-Japanese partnership with Prime Minister Takayuki Sai, calling Japan the only significant military counterbalance to China in the region. Regarding the US carrier deployment near Venezuela, Kissel supports the use of deterrence but raises concerns about the legality of military strikes on alleged drug boats without a declaration of war. The political aim may be to empower Venezuelans to overthrow the Maduro regime. 1015-1030 Diplomacy and Deterrence: Trump's Asia Success and the Venezuela Crisis Guest: Mary Kissel Mary Kissel reviews President Trump's successful engagement in Asia, including the ACEN conference where trade agreements and critical mineral investments were highlighted. She notes the strengthening US-Japanese partnership with Prime Minister Takayuki Sai, calling Japan the only significant military counterbalance to China in the region. Regarding the US carrier deployment near Venezuela, Kissel supports the use of deterrence but raises concerns about the legality of military strikes on alleged drug boats without a declaration of war. The political aim may be to empower Venezuelans to overthrow the Maduro regime. 1030-1045 Canadian Media Airs Interview with Neo-Nazi-Associated Ukrainian Fighter Guest: Lev Golinkin Lev Golinkin discusses the scandal involving the Canadian Broadcasting Company, which interviewed a man associated with a neo-Nazi-led Ukrainian brigade who bore swastika tattoos. CBC subsequently blurred the symbols in the published footage. This incident reflects Canada's historical difficulty in addressing its harboring of former Nazi criminals, following the earlier scandal of Waffen SS member Ivan Hunka receiving an ovation in Parliament. Golinkin notes that while Nazi elements exist within Ukrainian forces, Russia exploits this fact for propaganda purposes to delegitimize Ukraine's struggle. 1045-1100 VCanadian Media Airs Interview with Neo-Nazi-Associated Ukrainian Fighter Guest: Lev Golinkin Lev Golinkin discusses the scandal involving the Canadian Broadcasting Company, which interviewed a man associated with a neo-Nazi-led Ukrainian brigade who bore swastika tattoos. CBC subsequently blurred the symbols in the published footage. This incident reflects Canada's historical difficulty in addressing its harboring of former Nazi criminals, following the earlier scandal of Waffen SS member Ivan Hunka receiving an ovation in Parliament. Golinkin notes that while Nazi elements exist within Ukrainian forces, Russia exploits this fact for propaganda purposes to delegitimize Ukraine's struggle.E THIRD HOUR 1100-1115 The Battle for Oceania: Remembering Daniel Suidani and Chinese Political Warfare Guest: Cleo Paskal Cleo Paskal discusses the death of Daniel Suidani, a leader from Malaita in the Solomon Islands who strongly resisted aggression from the Chinese Communist Party. Suidani's province instituted a moratorium on CCP-linked businesses. Paskal highlights how CCP proxies employed political warfare, financial pressure, and control over vital healthcare resources, such as the country's only functioning dialysis machine, to undermine him. This situation reflects broader CCP influence operations across the Indo-Pacific, including in US territories. 1115-1130 The Battle for Oceania: Remembering Daniel Suidani and Chinese Political Warfare Guest: Cleo Paskal Cleo Paskal discusses the death of Daniel Suidani, a leader from Malaita in the Solomon Islands who strongly resisted aggression from the Chinese Communist Party. Suidani's province instituted a moratorium on CCP-linked businesses. Paskal highlights how CCP proxies employed political warfare, financial pressure, and control over vital healthcare resources, such as the country's only functioning dialysis machine, to undermine him. This situation reflects broader CCP influence operations across the Indo-Pacific, including in US territories. 1130-1145 The Constitutional Authority to Deploy National Guard to Protect Federal Facilities Guest: Professor John Yoo Professor John Yoo discusses the President's inherent constitutional authority to use the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel during city disorder. Drawing on the In re Neagle case from 1890, Yoo confirms the federal government's right to use force to execute its functions on American soil. He argues that governors opposing deployment are resisting federal law enforcement, akin to segregationists resisting integration. Yoo clarifies that states can adopt "sanctuary" policies by choosing not to cooperate with federal law, but they cannot constitutionally impede federal agents from carrying out their duties. 1145-1200 The Constitutional Authority to Deploy National Guard to Protect Federal Facilities Guest: Professor John Yoo Professor John Yoo discusses the President's inherent constitutional authority to use the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel during city disorder. Drawing on the In re Neagle case from 1890, Yoo confirms the federal government's right to use force to execute its functions on American soil. He argues that governors opposing deployment are resisting federal law enforcement, akin to segregationists resisting integration. Yoo clarifies that states can adopt "sanctuary" policies by choosing not to cooperate with federal law, but they cannot constitutionally impede federal agents from carrying out their duties. FOURTH HOUR 12-1215 Global Commodities and UK Political Turmoil: Copper Prices Soar and Starmer's Tax U-Turn Guest: Simon Constable Simon Constable reports that copper prices are soaring to $5.18, up 20 percent, due to insufficient supply to meet demand from electric vehicles and artificial intelligence applications. In the United Kingdom, he notes Labour leader Keir Starmer reversed his tax pledge amidst poor productivity forecasts and failing reforms. Constable details the collapse of a high-profile China espionage case, possibly because UK espionage laws remain outdated from before World War I and China was not formally designated a hostile state at the time. He also highlights the troubling advice given by police to Israeli football fans to avoid attending a match due to safety concerns. 1215-1230 Global Commodities and UK Political Turmoil: Copper Prices Soar and Starmer's Tax U-Turn Guest: Simon Constable Simon Constable reports that copper prices are soaring to $5.18, up 20 percent, due to insufficient supply to meet demand from electric vehicles and artificial intelligence applications. In the United Kingdom, he notes Labour leader Keir Starmer reversed his tax pledge amidst poor productivity forecasts and failing reforms. Constable details the collapse of a high-profile China espionage case, possibly because UK espionage laws remain outdated from before World War I and China was not formally designated a hostile state at the time. He also highlights the troubling advice given by police to Israeli football fans to avoid attending a match due to safety concerns. 1230-1245 SpaceX Sets New Launch Records While NASA and Lunar Programs Face Delays Guest: Bob Zimmerman Bob Zimmerman discusses SpaceX setting a new record of 138 launches in one year, with Falcon 9 surpassing the total launches of the entire Space Shuttle fleet. This success is attributed to reusability, a concept NASA failed to implement profitably due to its government structure. Other topics include delays in the Griffin lunar lander, iSpace partnerships, Luxembourg's investment in space manufacturing, Russian claims about a nuclear-powered missile, and Japan's launch of an upgraded HTV cargo freighter. 1245-100 AM SpaceX Sets New Launch Records While NASA and Lunar Programs Face Delays Guest: Bob Zimmerman Bob Zimmerman discusses SpaceX setting a new record of 138 launches in one year, with Falcon 9 surpassing the total launches of the entire Space Shuttle fleet. This success is attributed to reusability, a concept NASA failed to implement profitably due to its government structure. Other topics include delays in the Griffin lunar lander, iSpace partnerships, Luxembourg's investment in space manufacturing, Russian claims about a nuclear-powered missile, and Japan's launch of an upgraded HTV cargo freighter.

SpaceX Sets New Launch Records While NASA and Lunar Programs Face Delays Guest: Bob Zimmerman Bob Zimmerman discusses SpaceX setting a new record of 138 launches in one year, with Falcon 9 surpassing the total launches of the entire Space Shuttle fleet. This success is attributed to reusability, a concept NASA failed to implement profitably due to its government structure. Other topics include delays in the Griffin lunar lander, iSpace partnerships, Luxembourg's investment in space manufacturing, Russian claims about a nuclear-powered missile, and Japan's launch of an upgraded HTV cargo freighter.

At age seventy-seven, John Glenn became the oldest person to enter Earth orbit, and the only person to fly in both the Mercury and Space Shuttle programs.

In this episode of Crazy Wisdom, host Stewart Alsop talks with Richard Easton, co-author of GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones, about the remarkable history behind the Global Positioning System and its ripple effects on technology, secrecy, and innovation. They trace the story from Roger Easton's early work on time navigation and atomic clocks to the 1973 approval of the GPS program, the Cold War's influence on satellite development, and how civilian and military interests shaped its evolution. The conversation also explores selective availability, the Gulf War, and how GPS paved the way for modern mapping tools like Google Maps and Waze, as well as broader questions about information, transparency, and the future of scientific innovation. Learn more about Richard Easton's work and explore early GPS documents at gpsdeclassified.com, or pick up his book GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversationTimestamps00:00 – Stewart Alsop introduces Richard Easton, who explains the origins of GPS, its 12-hour satellite orbits, and his father Roger Easton's early time navigation work.05:00 – Discussion on atomic clocks, the hydrogen maser, and how technological skepticism drove innovation toward the modern GPS system.10:00 – Miniaturization of receivers, the rise of smartphones as GPS devices, and early mapping tools like Google Maps and Waze.15:00 – The Apollo missions' computer systems and precision landings lead back to GPS development and the 1973 approval of the joint program office.20:00 – The Gulf War's use of GPS, selective availability, and how civilian receivers became vital for soldiers and surveyors.25:00 – Secrecy in satellite programs, from GRAB and POPPY to Eisenhower's caution after the U-2 incident, and the link between intelligence and innovation.30:00 – The myth of the Korean airliner sparking civilian GPS, Reagan's policy, and the importance of declassified documents.35:00 – Cold War espionage stories like Gordievsky's defection, the rise of surveillance, and early countermeasures to GPS jamming.40:00 – Selective availability ends in 2000, sparking geocaching and civilian boom, with GPS enabling agriculture and transport.45:00 – Conversation shifts to AI, deepfakes, and the reliability of digital history.50:00 – Reflections on big science, decentralization, and innovation funding from John Foster to SpaceX and Starlink.55:00 – Universities' bureaucratic bloat, the future of research education, and Richard's praise for the University of Chicago's BASIC program.Key InsightsGPS was born from competing visions within the U.S. military. Richard Easton explains that the Navy and Air Force each had different ideas for navigation satellites in the 1960s. The Navy wanted mid-Earth orbits with autonomous atomic clocks, while the Air Force preferred ground-controlled repeaters in geostationary orbit. The eventual compromise in 1973 created the modern GPS structure—24 satellites in six constellations—which balanced accuracy, independence, and resilience.Atomic clocks made global navigation possible. Roger Easton's early insight was that improving atomic clock precision would one day enable real-time positioning. The hydrogen maser, developed in 1960, became the breakthrough technology that made GPS feasible. This innovation turned a theoretical idea into a working global system and also advanced timekeeping for scientific and financial applications.Civilian access to GPS was always intended. Contrary to popular belief, GPS wasn't a military secret turned public after the Korean airliner tragedy in 1983. Civilian receivers, such as TI's 4100 model, were already available in 1981. Reagan's 1983 announcement merely reaffirmed an existing policy that GPS would serve both military and civilian users.The Gulf War proved GPS's strategic value. During the 1991 conflict, U.S. and coalition forces used mostly civilian receivers after the Pentagon lifted “selective availability,” which intentionally degraded accuracy. GPS allowed troops to coordinate movement and strikes even during sandstorms, changing modern warfare.Secrecy and innovation were deeply intertwined. Easton recounts how classified projects like GRAB and POPPY—satellites disguised as scientific missions—laid technical groundwork for navigation systems. The crossover between secret defense projects and public science fueled breakthroughs but also obscured credit and understanding.Ending selective availability unleashed global applications. When the distortion feature was turned off in May 2000, GPS accuracy improved instantly, leading to new industries—geocaching, precision agriculture, logistics, and smartphone navigation. This marked GPS's shift from a defense tool to an everyday utility.Innovation's future may rely on decentralization. Reflecting on his father's era and today's landscape, Easton argues that bureaucratic “big science” has grown sluggish. He sees promise in smaller, independent innovators—helped by AI, cheaper satellites, and private space ventures like SpaceX—continuing the cycle of technological transformation that GPS began.

This is part 2 of my wonderful conversation with Eileen Collins, retired U.S. Air Force colonel and first American woman commander of a space shuttle. In this episode, she discusses her leadership style, especially post-Columbia tragedy. Eileen also emphasizes the significance of setting personal mission statements, learning from mistakes, and staying focused despite external distractions. The episode concludes with practical advice for aspiring leaders, highlighting the value of reading, mentoring, and maintaining humility. Episode Minutes: Minute 1: Pursuing the Dream of Becoming an Astronaut Minute 5: Overcoming Self-Doubt and Finding Mentorship Minute 9: Adapting Leadership After the Columbia Tragedy Minute 14: Balancing Family and Astronaut Life Minute 18: The First American Woman to Command a Space Mission To find out more about my work, please visit www.danawilliamsco.com  My Book The Internal Revolution: Lead Authentically and Build Your Personal Brand from Within LinkedIn Instagram Email: hello@danawilliamsco.com The Strengths Journal™ is the only Gallup-certified, purpose-driven daily planner that helps you actively use your strengths to plan your days. Get Your copy here

STERNENGESCHICHTEN LIVE TOUR in D und Ö: Tickets unter https://sternengeschichten.live Eine Rakete startet mit einem Countdown. Aber warum eigentlich? Wozu braucht man das und warum muss man das so dramatisch machen? Alles zum Lift-Off erfahrt ihr in der neuen Folge der Sternengeschichten. Wer den Podcast finanziell unterstützen möchte, kann das hier tun: Mit PayPal (https://www.paypal.me/florianfreistetter), Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/sternengeschichten) oder Steady (https://steadyhq.com/sternengeschichten) Sternengeschichten-Hörbuch: https://www.penguin.de/buecher/florian-freistetter-sternengeschichten/hoerbuch-mp3-cd/9783844553062

A look at the crazy ferrite core density in the Ampex 1600 16k x 18 bit word magnetic core memory from Ampex Memory Products Division, used in the Mitra 125S computer for the Spacelab program on the Space Shuttle. 00:00 – Magnetic core memory 01:52 – How magnetic core memory works 07:12 – Ampex high …

In honor of National Space Week, we're excited to bring you part 1 of this two-part interview series with Eileen Collins, retired U.S. Air Force colonel and first American woman commander of a space shuttle. Our conversation dove deep into what it really takes to lead with authenticity, push through barriers, and stay focused on your personal mission, even when the odds are stacked against you. Eileen shared how embracing her true self — not trying to fit a mold or mimic others — helped her stand out and succeed in one of the most high-pressure careers imaginable. Eileen shares insights from her book, 'Through the Glass Ceiling to the Stars,' discussing authenticity, overcoming hurdles, and the importance of being true to oneself. She provides a detailed account of her internal journey, mentorship experiences, handling high-stress situations. To find out more about my work, please visit www.danawilliamsco.com My Book The Internal Revolution: Lead Authentically and Build Your Personal Brand from Within LinkedIn Instagram Email: hello@danawilliamsco.com The Strengths Journal™ is the only Gallup-certified, purpose-driven daily planner that helps you actively use your strengths to plan your days. Get Your copy here

Colonel Mike Mullane flew three Space Shuttle missions as a Mission Specialist and is a retired US Air Force weapon systems operator, flying 134 combat missions in Vietnam. He wrote the award-winning children's book Liftoff and the outrageously amusing and often times tragic “Riding Rockets”. He is a speaker on leadership, teamwork, and safety. He uses his experiences to explain the "normalisation of deviance," the tendency to take shortcuts and accept lower standards under pressure. Listen to Gareth's interview with Mike, on the best and sadly some of the tragic elements of being a Space Shuttle astronaut.

On this Healthy Waves episode, host Avik digs into how aerospace-level problem-solving meets wellness tech. Guest Mark Fox (former Space Shuttle chief engineer, hot-air balloonist, and airplane builder) explains why he shifted from aircraft to energy-based wellness devices. We unpack what pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) and resonance-frequency approaches claim to do, how protocols are designed, portability and cost tradeoffs vs. legacy gear, and where AI-driven biometrics might steer the next decade. Direct, no fluff—just a clear look at what this tech promises, what users report, and what still needs rigorous proof for platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. About the guest  : Mark Fox is an aerospace engineer turned wellness tech founder at Resona Health (resona.health). Drawing on systems thinking (including TRIZ creative problem-solving), he designs portable, non-invasive devices intended to support general well-being through frequency-based protocols. Key takeaways: Why the pivot: engineering skills can transfer from avionics to wellness when the goal is simpler, more accessible tools for everyday use. Frequency-based view: the talk frames the body as chemical, mechanical, and electrical—arguing wellness tools shouldn't ignore bio-electromagnetic processes. How protocols are built: “frequency pairs” change over time like chords in a song; many protocols emerged from decades of practitioner iteration. Portability and access: a pocket device aims to make sessions simpler and more affordable than clinic-only mats or large systems. Reported use cases: the guest discusses user-reported improvements in stress, HRV, sleep, pain, and more—presented as claims and ongoing studies, not medical advice. Safety framing: energy level and frequency matter; the device output described is far below MRI fields, though MRI safety analogies should not be read as equivalence in efficacy. AI + biometrics: future direction includes watches, cloud trends, and automated recommendations—raising opportunities and the need for privacy and validation. Bottom line: intriguing engineering applied to wellness; further independent, peer-reviewed evidence is essential before making health decisions. Medical Disclaimer This content is for educational and informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the guidance of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, symptoms, or health objectives. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you heard in this episode or read in the show notes. Any products, devices, protocols, or practices discussed are presented as general wellness information only. They are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Statements made by guests are their personal opinions and experiences and have not been evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other regulatory authorities. Results vary from person to person. If you are experiencing a medical emergency or mental health crisis, call your local emergency number immediately or contact your nearest crisis hotline. How to connect with the guest   Website: https://resona.health/ Email: info@resona.health Want to be a guest on Healthy Mind, Healthy Life? DM on PM - Send me a message on PodMatch DM Me Here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/avik   Disclaimer: This video is for educational and informational purposes only. The views expressed are the personal opinions of the guest and do not reflect the views of the host or Healthy Mind By Avik™️. We do not intend to harm, defame, or discredit any person, organization, brand, product, country, or profession mentioned. All third-party media used remain the property of their respective owners and are used under fair use for informational purposes. By watching, you acknowledge and accept this disclaimer.   Healthy Mind By Avik™️ is a global platform redefining mental health as a necessity, not a luxury. Born during the pandemic, it's become a sanctuary for healing, growth, and mindful living. Hosted by Avik Chakraborty—storyteller, survivor, wellness advocate—this channel shares powerful podcasts and soul-nurturing conversations on: • Mental Health & Emotional Well-being• Mindfulness & Spiritual Growth• Holistic Healing & Conscious Living• Trauma Recovery & Self-Empowerment With over 4,400+ episodes and 168.4K+ global listeners, join us as we unite voices, break stigma, and build a world where every story matters.

Can Nasa build the most complex flying machine in space history? The plan is to create a permanent human presence in space.It's Spring 1969 - two months before the launch of Apollo 11 – the first US mission to land humans on the moon. But meanwhile, hidden away from public view, Nasa is thinking the unthinkable.This is the epic story of the space shuttle, a dream to make spaceflight routine. Told by the astronauts and team who made it happen.You can listen to episode 1 here. For more, search for 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. This is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service.Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Richard Nixon launches Nasa's space shuttle programme, CBS News, 1972 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

John Young führte zu Lebzeiten komplexe Manöver mit den Gemini-Raumschiffen durch, landete mit Apollo auf dem Mond und flog zweimal den Spaceshuttle. Kein Astronaut hat die US-Raumfahrt so geprägt wie er. Young wurde vor 95 Jahren geboren. Lorenzen, Dirk www.deutschlandfunk.de, Sternzeit

About Dr. Laura Gallaher:Dr. Laura Gallaher is a professional speaker and organizational psychologist who inspires driven self-starters to transform their relationship with themselves and accomplish more than ever. She combines insights on radical self-acceptance with humor to create a unique connection with her audience. Despite being a national best-selling author, Dr. Laura stands out from the typical "academic" personality of her PhD peers. Her notable achievements include being hired by NASA to reshape organizational culture after the Columbia accident, leading significant changes in performance management at Disney, and inspiring Yahoo's global teams to pursue transformation from within. In this episode, Dean Newlund and Dr. Laura Gallaher discuss:NASA's organizational culture and its role in major space disastersThe importance of psychological safety in high-stakes environmentsThe conflict between intuition and evidence-based decision-makingLeadership blind spots, self-awareness, and radical self-acceptanceBuilding trust, collaboration, and vulnerability within teams Key Takeaways:NASA's culture contributed to the Columbia tragedy by discouraging engineers from voicing concerns without hard data.Congress required NASA to undergo a culture change initiative before allowing shuttle flights to resume, embedding organizational development permanently at Kennedy Space Center.Dr. Laura's personal 360-degree feedback revealed blind spots, such as unintentional “bullying intellectually,” which led her to embrace radical self-acceptance.Tools like collaboration contracts and vulnerability exercises helped leaders manage defensiveness, foster trust, and improve team dynamics. "When you have higher self acceptance, it creates a path for others to do the same… because when you have high self acceptance, you can be vulnerable… but vulnerability is courageous, and courage is contagious.” — Dr. Laura Gallaher Connect with Dr. Laura Gallaher:  Website: https://drlauragallaher.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-gallaher-phdInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/drlauragallaher/Discover Your Self-Acceptance Score: https://selfacceptancequiz.com/   See Dean's TedTalk “Why Business Needs Intuition” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEq9IYvgV7I Connect with Dean:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgqRK8GC8jBIFYPmECUCMkwWebsite: https://www.mfileadership.com/The Mission Statement E-Newsletter: https://www.mfileadership.com/blog/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannewlund/X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/deannewlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/MissionFacilitators/Email: dean.newlund@mfileadership.comPhone: 1-800-926-7370 Audio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

The space shuttle is back. Discovery stands waiting on launchpad 39B at Kennedy Space Center. It has taken more than two years to get here. Nasa has listened and changed. After all these months of work, this should be one of the safest missions ever flown. But as Discovery finally rises skyward, the Challenger disaster is on everyone's mind. There are unspoken questions about the very future of spaceflight. Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Return to flight, Nasa Archives, 1988 Ronald Reagan speaks at STS-4 launch, Reagan Library, 1982 STS-26 coverage, CNN, CBS News, BBC, 1988 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

Art Bell - Jim Bell - Renewable Energy - Ed Dames - The Space Shuttle

Nicole Stott had a remarkable career with NASA, logging more than 100 days in outer space.  Her time on the International Space Station drives her appreciation for the importance of cooperation across cultures and national boundaries.  On this Blue Sky episode, she describes lessons learned from her time as an astronaut, and the inspiring work she does today through the Space For Art Foundation, and her optimistic and solutions-oriented approach to life.    Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to Nicole Stott  This chapter introduces Nicole Stott, a retired NASA astronaut, aquanaut, engineer, artist, and author. It highlights her unique experiences as one of fewer than 600 people to have flown in space, her inspiration from her father, and her journey into aeronautical engineering after a personal tragedy.  03:42 From Tragedy to Astronaut  Nicole shares the profound impact of her father's tragic death in a plane crash on her career path, explaining how it fueled her desire to understand how things fly, leading to aeronautical engineering and eventually NASA. She also touches on her ‘aquanaut' experience, spending 18 days underwater as training for spaceflight.  12:07 The Power of Optimism in Space  Nicole discusses the ‘here's how we can' approach essential for space travel, contrasting it with pessimism, and emphasizing the importance of teamwork in an international setting. She details her missions on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station, highlighting the global collaboration required for such complex endeavors.  19:18 Earth as Spaceship, Us as Crewmates  Nicole reflects on the profound perspective gained from space, seeing Earth's thin atmosphere as a fragile ‘thin blue line' and the International Space Station's hull as a parallel. This realization fuels her belief that all humans are ‘crewmates' on ‘Spaceship Earth,' inspiring a collective mission to protect our planet.  27:01 Art, Space, and Healing  Nicole shares her passion for art, which developed from a young age and continued during her space missions, where she created the first watercolor painting in space. This passion led her to establish the Space for Art Foundation, which uses space-themed art therapy to inspire and unite children in pediatric hospitals and refugee centers worldwide.  34:38 The Future of Space and Humanity  Nicole discusses the current landscape of space exploration, including public-private partnerships with companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, and the broader motivations behind these endeavors. She also highlights the ‘never underestimate the importance of bugs' principle, emphasizing that small individual actions can lead to significant planetary solutions.  45:12 Mars, The Moon, and Space Solar Power  Nicole addresses the potential for space-based solar power, highlighting its significant cost but comparing it to other large global expenditures. She concludes by expressing her optimism about humans landing on Mars within the next 30-50 years, with the Moon serving as a crucial steppingstone for this ambitious journey. 

Is human spaceflight worth the risk? It's a time of soul searching for the whole shuttle crew. The space shuttle programme is put on hold for two years, as Nasa and the team come to terms with what happened. Some leave but others stay on board to help. The shuttle team work to rebuild Nasa and the programme. But some ask the question: what is it all for? Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Birth of the space shuttle, Nasa Archives, 1972 Ronald Reagan addresses nation after STS-51-L accident, Reagan Library, 1986 Richard Nixon launches Nasa's space shuttle program, CBS News, 1972 STS-26 launch coverage, BBC, 1988 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

The Challenger tragedy shocks a nation, as millions watch on TV screens across the USA. Something has gone catastrophically wrong with the launch of space shuttle mission STS-51L. As they watch a fireball engulf the spacecraft, nobody in mission control has any idea what went wrong. Could it have been prevented? We turn back the clock to a meeting the day before the launch which might have changed everything.This episode contains scenes some listeners may find upsetting.Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Ronald Reagan announces Roger Commission inquiry, Reagan Library, 1986 Roger Boisjoly, Larry Mulloy and Dr James Fletcher, statements to the Rogers Commission, 1986 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

Welcome to The Pod Squad!We review podcasts every week so you always have something new to listen to.Newstalk's Jess Kelly and Neil Kavanagh join Andrea Gilligan to review ‘13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle'!Image: BBC

Nasa needs to kick-start new interest in the space shuttle. After multiple missions, public attention is waning and funding could suffer. Nasa want to do something about it. And come up with an innovative plan.How about recruiting an astronaut from the classroom? The first teacher on a space mission. Nasa runs a competition, and the winner is Christa McAuliffe, a 36-year-old social studies teacher from New Hampshire. But has she got what it takes for the challenges of space?This episode contains scenes some listeners may find upsetting.Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Ronald Reagan announces teacher in space programme, Reagan Library, 1984 George Bush announces Christa McAuliffe as teacher in space, Reagan Archive, 1984 Teacher training KC-135 flight, Nasa Archives, 1985 Teachers watch launch, Nasa Archives, 1985 Pre-flight press conference STS-51-L, 1986 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

“It launched like a rocket and landed like a plane!” Series three of “13 Minutes Presents” turns its attention to the Space Shuttle programme, beginning with the Columbia project in 1981. We hear your thoughts on this ten-part documentary and are joined by its presenter and producer. Plus a listener asks if Artificial Intelligence is dominating science and technology programmes, whilst another turns the spotlight onto its financial reporting.Presenter: Rajan Datar Producer: Howard Shannon A Whistledown production for BBC World Service

Sandwiches hit different at zero gravity. While at NASA, Vickie Kloeris managed the food systems for the Space Shuttle and later the International Space Station. She joins host Sean Mobley to chat about the weirdness and wonderfulness of making a menu for astronauts. Full shownotes: https://blog.museumofflight.org/flightdeck/space-food-with-vickie-kloeris

Can the crew rescue the million-dollar space satellite lost in orbit? Two car-sized satellites, worth $75 million each, are stranded in space. Five astronauts have been selected to bring them back. It's something that has never been attempted before.In outer space, even the simplest of tasks can be a challenge, let alone trying to snatch a satellite from orbit. And right when the crew think they've got it all under control, they discover a problem they're not prepared for. It's time to improvise. This episode contains strong language. Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: STS 41-B coverage, CBS News and KTRH News, 1984 STS-51-A coverage, CBS News, 1984 Lost in space, BBC, 1985. Ronald Reagan announces teacher in space programme, Reagan Library, 1984 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

President Ronald Reagan declares the space shuttle open for business. It's Independence Day 1982. And we're in the sweltering Mojave desert of California. Carrying commercial satellites into orbit is one of the shuttle's jobs. But things start to go wrong for the astronauts when a $75-million satellite is lost in space. And that's just the start of a series of unfortunate events. Can they fix it and prove the space shuttle's worth?Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Ronald Reagan declares Space Shuttle open for business, Reagan Library, 1982 The story of satellite WESTAR 6 and Palapa, CBS News, 1986 STS 41-B coverage, CBS News and KTRH News, 1984 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

Nasa recruits women and ethnic minorities for the first time to its astronaut class. In the beginning of American spaceflight, all astronauts selected for the programme came from the same background. They were all male, all white – all test pilots. But now, with a revolutionary new spacecraft, and changing views in society, Nasa needs to change. They're not just looking for people to pilot the shuttle, but engineers, scientists, and medical doctors. Can Nasa change its culture? This episode contains strong language. Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Mercury seven press conference, Nasa Archives, 1959 Nichelle Nichols Nasa advertisement, Nasa Archives, 1977 Where dreams come true, Nasa Archives, 1979 First female and African-American astronauts train at Nasa, ABC News, 1978 Ronald Reagan declares Space Shuttle open for business, Reagan Library, 1982 Sally Ride interview, ITN, 1983 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

The epic space story of a sci-fi dream that changed spaceflight forever. Told by the Nasa astronauts and team who made it happen. Our multi-award-winning podcast is back, hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock. She tells the story of triumph and tragedy - of a dream that revolutionised modern space travel forever.You can listen to the trailer here. To hear episodes, search for 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music. Archive: Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office.

Columbia reaches orbit. But astronaut Bob Crippen discovers that the shuttle has been damaged – can he and John Young make it home safely? Parts of the heatshield to protect the shuttle from searing temperatures on re-entry to Earth have fallen off during the journey into space. This new heatshield has never been tested before in orbit. Could more tiles be missing?Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Nichelle Nichols NASA advertisement, Nasa Archives, 1977 STS-1 Columbia landing sequence, ABC News, CBS News, 1981 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

The epic space story of a sci-fi dream that changed spaceflight forever. Told by the Nasa astronauts and team who made it happen. Our multi-award-winning podcast is back, hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock. She tells the story of triumph and tragedy - of a dream that revolutionised modern space travel forever.You can listen to the trailer here. To hear episodes, search for 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music. Archive: Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office.

The epic space story of a sci-fi dream that changed spaceflight forever. Told by the Nasa astronauts and team who made it happen. Our multi-award-winning podcast is back, hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock. She tells the story of triumph and tragedy - of a dream that revolutionised modern space travel forever.You can listen to the trailer here. To hear episodes, search for 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music. Archive: Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office.

In 2012, following the end of the Space Transportation System program, NASA faced the monumental task of finding permanent homes for the three remaining Space Shuttle Orbiters—so that their incredible stories could be preserved and shared with the public. After a lengthy and sometimes contentious selection process, the three operational orbiters—Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour—along with the prototype Enterprise, were officially retired and transported to their new homes amid much celebration. These irreplaceable artifacts of American space history now serve as centerpieces in four major museums across the country, inspiring millions of visitors each year. One notable omission from the final list was Houston, Texas—home to NASA's Johnson Space Center. While the city did not receive one of the orbiters, it was awarded a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and a full-scale model orbiter, which allows visitors to explore a replica of the Shuttle's interior. That should have been the end of the story—but it wasn't. In a surprising twist, Texas Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz inserted a provision into the recently passed Reconciliation Act, also known as “The Big Beautiful Bill Act" that calls for relocating Space Shuttle Discovery from its current home at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Virginia, to Houston. Is this bold attempt at “Shuttle Rustling” even viable? To find out, we spoke with Joe Stief, the founder of Keep the Shuttle, a grassroots campaign working to prevent Discovery's relocation. We discuss his efforts, what's at stake, and the broader implications this move could have for the future of artifacts held by national museums. Host: Gene Mikulka  Guest: Joe Stief, KeepTheShuttle.org     

The astronauts count down to flying a brand-new spacecraft for the very first time. If they pull it off, they will earn a place in space history.The rocket is built. The astronauts are trained. Mission control is ready. Space Shuttle Columbia is about to attempt the unheard of. A crewed test flight. It's 12 April 1981. The morning of launch for the very first space shuttle mission. The shuttle is sitting on the launchpad at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. And strapped into their seats on the flight deck of orbiter Columbia are commander John Young and pilot Bob Crippen.Everyone at Nasa has been waiting almost a decade for this day. It's taken an army of designers, engineers, ground crew, flight controllers, and backroom staff to get to this point. To bring this vehicle to life. Will this new machine fly? This episode contains scenes some listeners may find upsetting.Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for BBC World Service. Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Launch of STS-1, BBC, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, 1981 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

William ‘Bill' McArthur is a retired US Army Colonel, a former astronaut and a veteran of three Space Shuttle missions. He's now  the Chief Astronaut for Titans Space. Bill shares his story about his time in the astronaut office and how it has shaped his role as an advisor for Titans. You can connect with Bill on LinkedIn, and learn more about Titans Space on their website. 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. 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

Can Nasa build the most complex flying machine in space history? The plan is to create a permanent human presence in space. It's Spring 1969 - two months before the launch of Apollo 11 – the first US mission to land humans on the moon. But meanwhile, hidden away from public view, Nasa is thinking the unthinkable. Maverick engineer Dr Max Faget is already a legend within Nasa. He's fascinated by what could be next for human spaceflight. In a backroom, of Building 36 at Johnson Space Center, he invites a handful of engineers to a meeting. One of them is Ivy Hooks, a mathematician and engineer. And one of the first female engineers at Nasa. Some scenes in this series use recreated sound effects.13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle is a BBC Audio Science Unit production for BBC World Service.Hosted by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock.Theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Richard Nixon launches Nasa's space shuttle programme, CBS News, 1972 Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office

Spreaker Description

Send us a textIn this interview with author Lucille Ponte, writing under the penname Bridges DelPonte, we talk about the fabulous fourteen women featured in her non-fiction anthology, She Soars: Trailblazing Female Pilots in Florida, and her professional advocacy for women's equality in the military as an attorney and law professor. The book highlights fun and interesting facts about names we know from our cast of women in aviation history and introduces us to a few remarkable new ladies and their impressive accomplishments and contributions. While the Florida nexus strikes a chord with me personally as a South Florida resident, these stories will resonate with and inspire any reader with an interest in aviation. Buy the book: She SoarsHere's the blurb: Florida has a long and unique history of being a testing ground for female pilots who broke new ground in aviation. From the early 1900s when women performed daring stunts in the air to the World War II era when they served as WASP pilots to the modern times when they flew military jets, commercial planes, and Space Shuttles, Florida has been a key place for female aviator history. These stories from Florida will highlight 14 of women who made history with their flying skills; and left their mark in the Sunshine State. The remarkable journeys of these trailblazing female aviators are told in a captivating and informative manner.Did you know you can support your local independent bookshop and me by shopping through my Bookshop.org affiliate links on my website? If a book is available on Bookshop.org, you'll find a link to it on the book page. By shopping through the Literary Aviatrix website a small portion of the sale goes to support the content you love, at no additional cost to you. https://literaryaviatrix.com/shop-all-books/Thanks so much for listening! Stay up to date on book releases, author events, and Aviatrix Book Club discussion dates with the Literary Aviatrix Newsletter. Visit the Literary Aviatrix website to find over 600 books featuring women in aviation in all genres for all ages. Become a Literary Aviatrix Patron and help amplify the voices of women in aviation. Follow me on social media, join the book club, and find all of the things on the Literary Aviatrix linkt.ree. Blue skies, happy reading, and happy listening!-Liz Booker

Ever dreamed of owning a piece of space history? In this episode, Peter Von Panda shows off a unique, real-world space shuttle heat tile—turned coaster—that you can own today! These coasters are modeled after the actual heat-resistant tiles used on NASA's space shuttles during re-entry. Lightweight, durable, and incredibly cool, these coasters mimic the original heat tiles with impressive accuracy. Peter dives into the details, including the fascinating history behind the tiles, how they were used, and what makes these coasters a must-have for any space enthusiast. Plus, discover how the clever magnet feature allows you to show them off in style—whether on your workbench or your fridge. If you've ever wanted to bring a piece of the space age into your home, this is your chance! Get it here... https://www.concordaerospace.com/prod... ---------- LET'S TALK ABOUT LIVING BETTER: ▶ Podcast: https://geni.us/FtGAT4 ▶ My Amazon Store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/petervonp... ---------- IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHOW SOME LOVE: ▶ Buy My Book: https://geni.us/qwbZAE ▶ Become A Channel Member: https://geni.us/AA3Jk ▶ Patreon:   / petervonpanda   ▶ Merch: https://petervonpanda.storenvy.com/ ▶ Free Panda Group: https://panda-research-institute.mn.co FOLLOW MY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: ▶ Instagram:   / petervonpanda   ▶ Facebook:   / petervonpanda  

To launch like a rocket and land like a plane. The space shuttle: A sci-fi dream that became reality and changed spaceflight forever. Told by the Nasa astronauts, engineers, scientists and support staff who made it happen. Our multi award-winning podcast returns on 14 July 2025 with: 13 Minutes Presents: The Space Shuttle. Presented by space scientist Maggie Aderin-Pocock. She tells the story of triumph and tragedy, and the human story behind the technology and scientific endeavour. A BBC Audio Science Unit production for the BBC World Service. Season 3 theme music by Hans Zimmer and Christian Lundberg, and produced by Russell Emanuel, for Bleeding Fingers Music.Archive: Mission audio and oral histories, Nasa History Office.

It took just one teensy-weensy act to shift this crossword from nigh-well impossible to fun and eminently doable. Unfortunately, that act was to figure out the theme. If you know, in your heart of hearts, that an answer is correct, yet won't fit, then one word should emblazon itself in your frontal lobe, and that word should be ... rebus! Deets inside, so have a listen, subscribe, and then tell others about us on social media.Show note imagery: NASA's pumpkin suit, aka the "Advanced Crew Escape Suit", used by Space Shuttle astronauts to protect them in case of a loss of ship pressure.We love feedback! Send us a text...Contact Info:We love listener mail! Drop us a line, crosswordpodcast@icloud.com.Also, we're on FaceBook, so feel free to drop by there and strike up a conversation!

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

Dr. Bernard Harris, former NASA astronaut, physician, and the first African American to walk in space, discusses his book “Embracing Infinite Possibilities” and ways to unlock your highest potential. Bernard holds degrees in biology, medicine, and business, and has received numerous honors, including the NASA Space Flight Medal and multiple honorary doctorates. As a venture capitalist and founder of the Harris Foundation, he is a champion of STEM education and leadership development. Host, Kevin Craine Do you want to be a guest? https://Everyday-MBA.com/guest This episode is supported by the Naveen Jindal School of Management 

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

www.michaelstrange.foundation www.epsteinjustice.com https://www.curfewfellowshipfund.org/ www.patreon.com/WARMODE    

What happens when you put Captain Kirk, a NASA astronaut, and Neil deGrasse Tyson on a ship to Antarctica? Recorded on board with William Shatner and Scott Kelly, this episode explores the thrill of discovery — from rough seas to deep space — and what it means to boldly go.This episode of StarTalk, recorded live from Drake Passage during the Space2Sea Voyage of Legends to Antarctica, is presented in collaboration with FUTURE of SPACE.https://futureofspace.io/space2sea-antarctica/Follow or Subscribe to FUTURE of SPACEhttps://futureofspace.ioAbout FUTURE of SPACE:FoS is a media company that produces innovative content, programs, and experiential events that embrace new frontiers, celebrate the human experience, and elevate the conversation, engaging audiences in meaningful and transformative ways.NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/risk-is-our-business-with-william-shatner-scott-kelly/Thanks to our Patrons John Shipe, Kenneth Kapptie, Dan Lee, Mark Randolph, Steven Green, David Pearson, Marius P, Sean Kershaw, Marc Bode, Jon Pulli, Sean Wins, Bessie Comer, alextravaganza, Matt in L.A., brian oakes, Tyler Carpenter, Stephan Spelde, Seymour buttz, Jeff Burton, Micheal Chinnici, stuart kim, Kathleen Ziegelgruber, Karl ryan, Fabio Later, Lorna Leigh, Abi Cats, Anthony Charlier, Zane White, Jonathan Plumb, Matthew Hinterlong, Danny K. , Muhammad Laiq Khan Rind, Khadeer Ahmed, Kathy Ziegelgruber, Bryan Smith, Shawn Nirdlinger, empty0vessel, Ruben Suarez, Jeffrey Roche, James Williams, Jules Victor, livingston ex, and Kora Celine for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.