- [upbeat music] - Well, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Eric Berger. I'm the senior space editor of Ars Technica. And with this "Ars Live" event, we've got a real treat for you. I'm joined this afternoon by two of my favorite people in the industry, reporters I really respect, I compete with every day. For the discussion today, we have Chris Davenport, a longtime reporter on space flight from "The Washington Post," and Joey Roulette, who's worked at a number of prestigious outlets, currently at Reuters. All three of us have good sources in the industry. We try to keep our ear very close to the ground on what's going down in the space industry, and what's going up. And today we're here to tell you what we really think about what's going to happen to NASA in particular and the space industry in general over the next couple of years, during the Trump presidency and beyond. So Joey and Chris, thanks very much for joining me today. - Thanks for having us. - Thanks for having us, yeah. - So let's start with the kind of big news of the week and talk about the Starship launch. Chris and I were down there. I did not see the webcast to know that the rocket, the upper stage ultimately failed. We could see could see the explosion of the first stage, which was kind of dramatic there in South Texas. But I'm wondering, let's start with you first, Chris, you know, what do you think about the fact that we're in the ninth flight test and the upper stage still has very serious reliability issues? - Yeah, I mean, it was interesting that this happened, you know, pretty well into flight, right? I mean, the engines had fired. It seemed to go nominally. And then all of a sudden, yeah, I had left, Eric and I were watching the flight from down at Starbase, or just outside the keep-out zone. And I was on the way back to the hotel just sort of listening to it and had to pull over. 'Cause it was like, uh-oh, it started tumbling. You know, and we both got some time with Elon, and one of the things he told me was he really wanted to test out, you know, the reentry of Starship. I think that's one of the main things. They really wanted to put it through its paces, check the heat tiles. And the fact that they, you know, really didn't get to that part, I think, is a pretty significant setback. You know, that said, they did refly the booster, which is a very big deal. Seems like maybe that got lost a little bit. Like, on the ninth flight, to take a booster and to refly it is no small feat. I mean, so clearly, there are some victories here. It's just a matter, I think, of how quickly they're able to get back out to the launchpad. If they're launching again in three to four weeks and are able to sort of get that data, then it's really, I don't think, that big of a deal. If we're, you know, now going on weeks or into a matter of months, then I think it'll have more of an impact. - Joey, what do you think about the fact that we're kind of a few years into this test campaign now, and it's still very much a test campaign? - Yeah, I mean, I think there's definitely, you know, a lot of progress they've made. What they're doing is pretty crazy. And just thinking, you know, back to a few years ago and imagining us getting used to these giant behemoths, launching into space would be pretty wild. But there's so many more milestones that SpaceX has to do with Starship that we all know. I mean, the in-space cryogenic refueling, landing on the Moon or Mars, and/or Mars, whatever, and deploying satellites into space, you know, it hasn't even done that yet. So there's, you know, a lot of hurdles that they're trying to cross right now, and this is apparently like a new block of Starship. So they're, you know, kind of working out the kinks of that. And maybe they'll overcome it in a few flights, I don't know, but, I mean, after they do pass this initial, you know, technical roadblock, they still have a lot, a long ways to go. So I don't think it's good. A lot of what SpaceX does in testing, of course, is more visible than other companies, so we tend to have a different kind of perspective on it. But, you know, I think they're just kind of going through a hard time right now. - It's a bit of a strange period for me as well, too, because it seems like the fix for the stage two propulsion issues is in Raptor 3, theoretically, and the upgraded version of booster in Starship. But Elon said that that's not gonna fly until the end of this year. So I think one of the big questions is, what are they doing for the next six months? I mean, I guess the main thing they're gonna do is hopefully get Starships to start reentering so they can get data on reentry. But it does seem they're in kind of a bit of a holding period until they get to the third version of the booster. - Yeah, I mean, theoretically, they could, you know, keep flying insufficient versions of Starship that may not be fully upgraded, and then, you know, just to get the data on reentry. Like if they can fly an earlier version all the way to the point of over the Indian Ocean and see how it reenters, then they get that data on the tiles. And maybe that's what Elon meant when he was talking about, you know, we're gonna fly however many Starships, you know, in the next few months, which was kind of a weird thing to say after this failure. Like, wouldn't you wanna wait till you get the results of, you know, what happened here before projecting something like that. But maybe that's what he meant is that let's just kind of like empty out the current magazine of Starships that we have in our, you know, huge factory. But I don't know. - Yeah, maybe they can get some more confidence in booster reuse along the way. But, you know, if the fix is Starship 3, [chuckles] then yeah, it's kind of a weird place. Joey, you mentioned a great point. Something I think a lot about is the fact that, you know, that getting to orbit and even landing Starship is really just kind of like the first big hurdle because you've got in-space refueling. You know, I think landing on the Moon is a huge deal because Starship is so tall. It really needs a flat surface. And that can be pretty difficult to find at the south pole of the Moon. And then you've gotta take off from the Moon, right? So after several days on the lunar surface, you've gotta reignite those Raptor engines. So I think it's... Well, what do you guys, like, if they sort of... What is the next step that concerns you most? Is it the refueling? Is it landing? Is it, you know, just sort of... What are you kind of most concerned about from a technical standpoint? - Yeah, I mean, I think cryo refueling is kind of notoriously the big unknown in how, you know, SpaceX is gonna solve that. I mean, I'm definitely not an engineer, so I can't really get into the specific difficulties of it. But that seems to be one huge thing. And then, as you say, I mean, Starship is very tall. And that might not be ideal for landing at the south pole of the Moon. We saw one lunar lander that was also tall not make two of its landing attempts. You know, that might not be the reason why it didn't, and there's a lot more nuance to that, but, you know, that is another challenge. And, you know, but it's not just Starship, of course. There's other companies trying to do the same thing, like Blue Origin. And, you know, while I think the cryo refueling is the biggest unknown, we saw Dave Limp, the CEO of Blue Origin today, make some comments about their own in-space cryo refueling strategy. And he gave some projection that it might be possible to achieve in one to two years. So he seems confident. And it was interesting to hear someone talk about it. We haven't really heard much from SpaceX about it yet. So we'll see. - What do you think, Chris? What concerns you about sort of the Starship roadmap? - Well, there's something we haven't actually even touched on, 'cause we're focused sort of on Moon and Mars. But it seems to me, in the short term, the motivation for SpaceX is to launch Starlinks, and the next version of Starlinks, that from their economic standpoint, they really need it up and running to sort of get, you know, those batches up there in the next version of Starlinks. So I think that's sort of the big motivating factor. But then, yeah, I mean, so when I asked Elon sort of the next milestones for this year, I thought he was gonna say, he was gonna talk about cryo refueling, or, as he says, refilling. He didn't, he said, "We gotta catch the ship first," which I thought was interesting. And I guess that helps them get to the cadence that they wanna get. And now they have the FAA approval to do, you know, 25. And, you know, Gwynne had said something about doing 400 at some point, although I think most of those will come from Florida, not Texas, but yeah. No, clearly there's a lot of hurdles to come. And it's the thing about SpaceX is, it's like, you can't ever count 'em out. They're not gonna do it on the timeline that Elon probably says, but so far they almost always get it done, or at least change a course to find a path that works. - You know, it's interesting about, on the refueling, As recently as last year, NASA was counting on doing that in-flight refueling test, which basically they'd launch one Starship and then launch another, and they'd dock in space, and one would transfer propellant to the other, in the first quarter of this year. And now it's quite clear they're not gonna do that test this year. And I think maybe best case would be first half of next year. And, of course, that that matters a lot for Artemis III. And so, you know, I think all of us would agree that Artemis II, the first human mission to the Moon, is likely to occur next year, I would say, probably in the first half of next year, right? You guys have any, at this point, any serious doubts about that? - I don't think so. That seems pretty fair. - So like, assuming Artemis II happens, you know, and is reasonably successful, and obviously no guarantees with the heat shield concerns and everything else, the rocket just making its second flight and so forth. What is your thinking now on Artemis III? Because, you know, the SLS and Orion hardware presumably will be in pretty good shape. We don't really know where space suits are. Axiom, you know, has kind of been having some funding issues. But, you know, they've been saying they've been making good progress on the suits. And then, obviously, you've got the Starship concerns, which has a long way to go to be ready for a lunar landing. You know, what is your thinking? Is that something you would still pencil in as being possible during the Trump administration? Or do you think we're further out? - Eric, if you could just move your mic just a little bit closer so I can hear you a little better, it'd be cool, but sorry, Chris. I didn't mean to cut you off. - No, no, all good. I still think it's possible, yeah. I mean, Elon's now clearly paying a lot more attention to SpaceX. I think he's there. I think he, you know... I think it might've been a little bit of a rough day after they lost the ship on Tuesday with, you know, Elon being there. And I bet there were some frank conversations that were had, and I know, they were pushing hard without him there, but I think that he just brings that, you know, that maniacal sense of urgency. And I think they're just gonna push harder. And I think that they're really good, and they're really smart, and they actually do learn a lot from their failure. So I think it is possible, from a Starship perspective, to do it. Although, I mean, the refueling, landing on the Moon, humans having the, you know, environmental controls, the ecosystem, the life support system on, there's a lot. I mean, it's gonna be tight. And I think it's entirely possible that China gets there before we return. - Yeah, I happen to agree. Like, I don't think, just my opinion, I don't think Starship will be ready to land humans on the Moon before the end of Trump's term, just by looking at, you know, how long it took to develop Crew Dragon, for example, for something now as simple as putting humans in orbit, not to really say that's simple, but like relatively, you know, landing on the Moon is much harder. And also the rate of progress now, and then also leaving margin for other errors along the development in the next few years, you know, I just don't see how that could be possible to put humans on the surface in the next three years using Starship. - Is my audio a little better now? - It sounds better, yeah. - Okay, sorry about that. - That's okay. - So against this backdrop, of course, Jared Isaacman is likely to become the NASA administrator sometime in the next couple weeks. The Senate has to still hold a floor vote on his confirmation. But I think we'd all agree that that seems likely to be a yes vote. So, you know, what are your expectations for him? Obviously, you know, he has ties to Elon Musk. He has ties to SpaceX. But he's also, I mean, I think he's viewed pretty positively in the industry and is kind of young, energetic, and kind of has a pretty clear vision for where he wants NASA to go. I'm curious how both of you think, will he find success in Washington, D.C., in kind of a new environment for him to be working in as he seeks to implement some pretty significant changes at NASA? - Why don't you go first, Joey? I wanna hear what you have to say. - Well, you know, I think the last two NASA administrators showed that being a politician kind of pays off for the agency. When Jim Bridenstine was there, he was there when Artemis was coined and when the whole program really got underway. And the budgets rose year after year. Bill Nelson, you know, he was also a former politician, of course. And so I think that's what the Biden team was thinking in putting him in there is that NASA kind of needs a politician to make things politically possible, 'cause that's how things get done. And then we have Jared Isaacman, who has pretty much no political experience at all, but he does, you know, seem to unite corners of the industry. He's liked by people in the industry. But I think liking him isn't really enough to assess whether he can run a 20-something billion dollar agency, especially as space is becoming more politicized. Like it's not that space is becoming less politicized and maybe NASA needs less of a politician as an administrator. It's actually kind of the opposite. So, you know, it's playing a bigger role these days in other types of discussions, too. So I think the political nature is just growing. So I don't know, you know, if Jared has the chops to deal with that. And maybe that, you know, in his nomination, that might not even be the intention is having someone who's politically savvy. There might be other things at play. But yeah, we'll have to see. - So Joey makes some great points. He's not a politician like Jim Bridenstine was, or Bill Nelson, but he has, I think, the political currency that this White House really wants. And I think he's gonna have a close connection to people in power because he sort of speaks their language in that he is sort of, you know, a tech titan, an entrepreneur, a billionaire. He's done very successfully in his businesses. He knows how to execute and get things done. And I think, ultimately, you know, in a way, in this sort of political dynamic today, that in a way could have just as much importance and significance in Washington than being a former member of Congress. That said, it's gonna be fascinating to see how he balances all of these competing interests, most notably, you know, the Moon versus Mars. The Moon or Mars, or is it the Moon and Mars? How do you do both? He said we don't have to have these big trade-offs. Okay, let's see what that looks like then, because, you know, eager to see what that is. And then the last thing, and really, it's like almost the most important thing for any NASA administrator, it's almost like it doesn't matter, to some extent, what you do during your term if it gets completely overturned and canceled by the next administration. You have to do something that builds. And I think that's the legacy, perhaps, of Jim Bridenstine, in that the Artemis program became the first human deep space exploration program to survive presidential administrations since Apollo. It's sort of fascinating now that Artemis now has to kind of, quote, unquote, survive the next administration, which is, of course, the administration that gave birth to it in the first place. But I think that's sort of the test that, what Jared's gonna have to do, that whatever he does, it can't be done in three years and then go elsewhere, otherwise it's pointless. - So Joey mentioned coining Artemis, and I just have to put a plug in for Chris Davenport's new book, "Space Dreams," which tells the story kind of behind the origins of Artemis. I just read that chapter this past week, and it's really, it's quite insightful. So make sure and check that out. The other thing I would say about Isaacman is, it's interesting, I was talking to a senior Trump official last weekend, and he said, he called Isaacman the ideal Trump nominee because he had this background of business success, but he also had gone into space, so he could go in and talk to the space contractors and with as much or more experience than they had about the actual environment that they were operating in. But he also has support across the aisle. I mean, you know, there's some senators, I'm not sure that they've gone public, but prominent senators, democratic senators, who like Jared and support him. So it will be fascinating to see how he operates in this kind kind of environment, because he is coming in clearly with the mindset to change things significantly and break things. I mean, you know, Bill Nelson was kind of a caretaker in that role, and he wasn't really seeking radical changes, but Isaacman is half his age, dynamic, energetic, and really feels like he has a mandate for change. And so one of the biggest things that he wants to do, obviously, is Elon has talked about going to Mars, President Trump has talked about going to Mars, he talked about going to Mars, of course, in his first administration as well, his first term, but, and Jared is very much on board with that vision as well. So, you know, I think most of us were around a decade ago when we had the Journey to Mars under Charlie Bolden, and we all kind of chuckled and laughed at it because I don't think we took it seriously. I certainly didn't. It was more like the journey to nowhere, if I can be frank. But I'm just wondering like, do you think it's practical that we can lay down sort of the paving stones during the next 3 1/2 years that puts NASA on a credible path to sending humans to Mars, maybe in the 2030s? - It all comes down to Starship, right, I mean, at least in the first building blocks, if they can get the refilling going, if they can get a fleet of Starships. I mean, right, like Jeff Bezos likes to say like, "Oh, yeah, you wanna go to Mars, like, you know, go to Antarctica or the top of Mount Everest, because that makes, you know, Mars look like a garden paradise." It's like, yeah, like if you're in Chernobyl on the top of Mount Everest, maybe it's more like it. I mean, it's just like, you know, like as a colleague of mine, Joel Achenbach, here says like, say the first Mars trip, like everything goes perfectly, the first human landing, like entry but then landing, seven minutes of terror, they landed on Mars. Like, it's amazing. It's like, only then, you're in crisis mode, right, even if everything went perfectly. So it's gonna just require like an enormous fleet of ships to reach the Red Planet just to pre-position food, supplies, medical equipment, habitats, you know, all the stuff you need. It's gonna take so many flights to get there. It's such a difficult proposition that, you know, you just, to actually have somebody up there, it can't be... Like Mars net definition, like, can't be flags and footprints, because you're there for like two years. So that was a pretty artful way of not answering your question, Eric. But I think the short answer is, is it possible to sort of get going? Yeah, I think it is. And you're seeing now Blue Origin, you know, expressing an interest, you know, in this as well. So if you have two credible solutions to go there, then I think it's credible to at least begin the journey and have it be like a real journey, unlike, as you said, the Journey to Mars, you know, under Obama. - Yeah, and I think, yeah, like going back to what you said earlier, Eric, is that Jim Bridenstine did do a good job laying the foundation of Artemis to last across other administrations. But I think the NASA budget, skinny budget proposal, proposing to cancel Artemis missions after Artemis III, just seems a little ironic because I think the whole idea of Artemis is to build a sustainable long-term lunar presence, you know, on the surface of the Moon to inform how, you know, we will live and work on the surface of Mars. And canceling, you know, Artemis missions after three just kind of like upends that but with, I guess, the idea maybe that we can then go to Mars and focus more on Mars. Maybe we don't need as much experience on the surface of the Moon. I don't know, I mean, and I just think it's interesting that these policies, and something that's gonna come out tomorrow, too, I think, with the budget, is all coming out before Jared is even in NASA. And so I wonder how he feels about that and what is gonna be on his plate when he takes office and how he would be able to create a sustainable program after this work has already been done to propose changes for the Artemis program. - I have a sense that Jared is champing at the bit to get in the office and probably pretty eagerly awaiting his confirmation. You know, you mentioned, Joey, sort of how Artemis was supposed to be sustainable. I guess I would push back a little bit on that. I would argue, and I'd love to hear both of your opinions on this, that the dirty little secret is that an Artemis program with Orion, and especially with the SLS rocket as sort of your foundational technologies, was never going to be sustainable. It was at one mission a year at most, and very expensive missions, and you couldn't really get lots of infrastructure there if that was kind of the backbone of your program. And so, you know, I think canceling missions after Artemis III is basically a reflection of reality, that, you know, if this really is the plan, people are gonna say, why are we spending so much money to do just this limited amount of activity on the Moon? And that you have to get to the reusable architectures of Blue Origin and SpaceX, sort of end-to-end transportation systems that are reusable to really have a sustainable program, I mean, do you guys agree with that? I mean, could Artemis be sustainable with the existing architecture? - I mean, right. I mean, a lot of people say that SLS is not, you know, capable of having some kind of sustainable role in a long-term program, vastly over budget, you know, very slow to launch. But, I mean, the sustainability part people also kind of interpret as being on the Moon for a long time, right? And there are multiple ways to do that, especially with all the rockets that we have coming online right now. So I think some would say that, you know, it's not only about whether SLS is capable, but it's also about whether the broader strategy of having a long-term presence on the Moon is the right one as a precursor to Mars. And there are other ways to do that instead of relying on SLS and Orion. But, you know, I think the conversation right now has just been so dominated by Elon Musk's drive to go to Mars. And I think a lot of people are thinking one or... But I don't know, I mean, I feel like I have other things to say on that, but I'll hand it over to Chris. - Well, the thing I would add is that, when we talk about like a long-term sustainable presence, I think we automatically think about a human presence, and rightfully so. But I don't know that it necessarily has to be that way. And as a long-time space industry person, you know, has said to me that the thesis could also be to really leverage clips, and that you have a lot of landers all over the South Pole, operating for a certain amount of time, and that's, you know, one way to sort of claim the territory in a way, that you sort of... There are only so many landing sites on the South Pole that you really want. And if we're able to get our spacecraft there, then that's a way to sort of, you know, kind of claim the territory and say, you know, China or others, you kind of can't land there because we're operating, albeit robotically, and that that's a way to do it. So I think you can sort of do both. And the other thing that just occurs to me, I think a lot of people, or some people think that like, actually, the Apollo program had a detrimental effect to the long-term, you know, prospects of NASA, that we skipped a step, right? We should've gone to low Earth orbit and had, you know, the... Learn how to live in low Earth orbit, then go to the Moon, and then go on to Mars. And by doing that, it's sort of, we missed a generation. I don't know that that's true or not, but it does seem a natural extension to at least, you know, try to build something more permanent with a reusable, cost-effective structure on the lunar surface and use it as a building block to go to Mars. - Yeah, I would say we missed almost two generations with that, you know, with that. So speaking of, you guys... You brought up China, Chris, and I think that's a great point. You know, in my mind, the only reason why Artemis hasn't just been outright canceled is because China is a very real threat to put humans on the Moon, you know, within five years, and a very real threat to beating NASA back to the Moon, so to speak. And so I'm just curious what both of you think kind of about the likelihood of China's being successful with a lunar landing of two astronauts, you know, by 2030, and what the implications of that would be if they do, in fact, beat NASA back there? - Go ahead, Joey. - I mean, I think there's a very high likelihood that they hit that target. They've been making a lot of quick progress in civil and defense space issues. And yeah, I mean, how NASA, how Jared responds to the quickening pace of China's space program is, you know, I think, gonna be a major question for him. But yeah, I mean, I think that it's perfectly reasonable for them to hit their 2030 goal. - Yeah, so when Jared was nominated, remember what he put in his tweet. He said, "The United States will never finish in second place," or something to that effect. I think it's, you know, a high likelihood that they get there before we return. Now, and then that puts him in a very difficult position of being like, well, what's the definition of second place? And is he gonna have to say, "Oh, well, we already won because we were in there in 1969"? I think, you know, I don't think it's very likely, in fact, probably impossible, that, you know, Elon sends humans to Mars in Trump's first term. You know, as we were saying earlier, it's gonna be very difficult to even to get humans to the Moon in Trump's first term. But it's entirely likely that China gets astronauts to the Moon. And, you know, you can say, "Oh, well, we got there first in 1969," all you want, but nobody wants to see that happen in the White House. That would be an embarrassment sort of, you know, I guess, whether that's justified or not, because we did go, but I think any politician, any current occupant of the White House would not want that to happen. - I agree, I don't really hold with the argument that, you know, we could just say, "China, you know, we went there 56 years ago." I think it's pretty meaningful, the fact that we would be seen as the declining superpower, and they would be seen as the rising superpower if that were to case. And I don't think any president wants to be in that situation. So if Jared were to come to you next week and say, "I need you to be my chief of staff," is there any way you can see to accelerate a lunar return, if you wanted to sort of... We need to get Artemis III done before China. How do we speed it up? I mean, what do you do? - I just write the stories, man. [chuckles] [Eric and Joey laughing] - Yeah, yeah, I mean, I just type away on the keyboards. There's been a lot of- - You guys are both fired. I mean. [chuckles] [Chris laughs] - I mean, I feel like I could get fired if I say a few things, but I mean, like, I think, you know, there's a lot of people who have various opinions on that. You know, and I think it comes down to like staying course with the current architecture, like with SLS, like I think one of the reasons people think SLS was spared a complete instant cancellation was because there was an acknowledgement that sticking with it, at least for the next few missions, is really the fastest way to get to the Moon. But the lunar lander part is kind of the open question there. That's the big thing and- - That's the elephant in the room, yeah, I mean, it's like this- - It comes down to Starship and whether that is going to work or whether Blue Origin is going to beat SpaceX there with its own architecture, that it's kind of way more quiet, way more quietly making progress on than SpaceX. Not saying they're making faster progress, but they're just doing it in a much quieter way. - Well, though Chris is our Blue Origin expert, I mean, I can't see Blue Origin Mark 2 lunar lander being ready within, anytime soon, Chris, certainly not within the next five years. Maybe you have a different opinion. - Well, it comes down to the whole crier thing, too, right? 'Cause the system is now so much more technically advanced, which I think is good for the long term, but for a quick, short landing, it's not necessarily built for that because there's so many tech demos they've gotta get through. So the question is, I mean, forget human landing, are they gonna be able to land the un-crewed Mark 1 this year? - [Eric] No. - Are they gonna... Well, they're not launching, it doesn't appear, right, to launch New Glenn this spring. - They got three more days. - [chuckles] So, you know, I know you've got some thoughts about that, Eric. I recently was on a phone call with somebody, actually yesterday, with some insight into this, and had said they were hearing more like, now we can just, you know, completely go with gossip and rumor and unsubstantiated stuff, but that it was more likely like August. And I actually, I think, you know, I don't know, I could see late summer or fall for the next New Glenn launch. - I mean, October feels like summer in Florida, so I think that you could, you know, get away with late summer. I mean, I heard October for New Glenn, but I don't think any of us really have, I certainly don't have first-firsthand sources on that launch date. So it's very difficult for me to see them launching the Mark 1, the un-crewed lunar lander this year. But I just don't see, historically they have not moved at a pace that gives me any confidence that they would be ready to put humans on the Moon within the next five years. So I think, again, as we both said, it kind of comes back to Starship. And so if you're at NASA, is there any way you can accelerate the Starship program? And I don't know. I don't know either. - Or is there any way you can accelerate the Blue Moon, Blue Ring program, too? I mean, like that's, if it does come down to Starship, and, you know, if the problem there is Starship's progress, you know, then that could also be said about Blue Origin's progress as well. And I think, you know, Dave Limp's entrance into Blue Origin kind of puts an uncertain factor there. I mean, he is been there for, what, over a year now? So. - Mm-hmm. - And people have described a really new, kind of rejuvenated workforce. But, you know, so again, it also comes down to him on whether he can move things fast enough. - But it just seems like... Again, I'm not a Blue Origin doomer. I really like the potential of the company. It just seems like the first big problem for them really is not solving lunar landers; it's solving cadence on New Glenn. And, you know, they've launched one. - Of course, right. - And it took SpaceX, well, it takes typically takes a rocket company a long time to increase the cadence. And New Glenn is a massive, complex rocket. So I just feel like, they've got a lot of alligators near the canoe, as Jim Bridenstine might say. - Yeah, and they gotta build a lot of engines, right? 'Cause they gotta build not just for New Glenn, they gotta build for Vulcan, and that's, you know, getting that production lined up and going. And so then, again, just real quickly, and I know we may have got some other questions, but there does become this sort of interesting political dynamic that if Starship is the way, right, to get there quickly, do you throw more money at SpaceX, right? They're already, NASA's investing, what, $4 billion in Starship at this point. If you throw more money at them to help them, you know, go faster, that's gonna raise all sorts of Elon and conflict of interest, and he's benefiting, you know, from the government, even though there's not really another option. Then you- - You know- - Or do they not even, they may not even care about that, that- - Looking around at Starbase this week, it did not seem like money was in short supply. I mean, it does seem like this is not a money problem. I mean, money makes the world go round, but it does seem like SpaceX is pretty well capitalized. I don't know, I mean, I don't wanna go round and round the circle on this, but I'm not sure what the problem exactly with Starship is, but, you know, NASA throwing more money at it, I don't see how that accelerates it a whole lot. But I could be wrong. - But if you're from NASA's standpoint, like, what else can NASA do to help them accelerate the program? Also, is what we're seeing on Starship evidence of progress on HLS or the Mars program? I mean, of course, it's too early to really assess that, but is NASA pushing for more progress on the specific HLS things, or is this Starship program really focused on Mars? And is that what SpaceX is mainly preparing for, with the hope that Elon can shift US policy? And then maybe NASA thinks, well, hmm, maybe we can just have Blue Origin do the Moon program, and SpaceX goes to Mars, like Elon wants to do. - It just feels like all those ambitions are swimming in the same lane, though. I mean, they're all... You gotta get to the gate of having a rapidly reusable Starship that can refuel in low Earth orbit before you go to the Moon or Mars. So it's like, I think the progress on one is like, almost matches up with each at this point, if that makes sense. - Yeah. - So let's talk about Elon's conflicts of interest. You know, it's interesting. He very clearly seems to be stepping back from his role in Washington, D.C., gonna be spending a lot more time at Tesla and SpaceX, but clearly has made a lot of political enemies over the last 12 months. I know a lot of the readership at Ars Technica is very, very unhappy with him, to put it mildly, very skeptical of his actions. Do you think... What do you think the long-term implications of kind of his increased political involvement is for SpaceX and its ambitions, you know, to play a role in Artemis and go on to Mars? - It's a tough one. - Go ahead, Chris. - You know, it's funny because we always live in the moment, right, in sort of the news moment, and those of us who, like, cover the news and watch it. It's always amazing to me when you step back, though, especially in this day and age, and just see how public perception changes over time. Like right now, Elon, with certain segments, large segments of the population, is persona non grata, or worse, you know, sort of this personification of, you know, sort of Trumpian right wing misinformation and, to a certain extent, evil. But I wonder if he does sort of put himself on a path that if that perception could ultimately change, it just seems like, how many politicians have we seen, public figures that they're down and out, and then a year later, they're just sort of rehabilitated. Now, I do not imagine Elon sort of going the path of, you know, going on Twitter and releasing a video that says, "I'm sorry for the way I've acted," and trying to go that route, like, "I wanna earn back your trust," and- [Eric laughs] I kind of don't see that happening. But there was a time not that long ago when he was sort of looked at as this, you know, person who was like getting us off fossil fuels, right, with Tesla and saving the environment and, you know, pushing for space exploration and trying to solve problems. I mean, what if... You know, I know there are a lot of companies that are trying to do this, not just Neuralink, but what happens if people start, you know, being able to walk again, you know, or see or do some of the advancements because of Neuralink? You know, what if he achieves some success in some of these ventures, and maybe doesn't issue with sort of like a public apology, but sort of tones it down a little bit? I did get the sense, you know, when I talked to him, and one of the things I quoted him in my story with saying is like, "I'm gonna still be involved with DOGE, but I'm staying away from sort of the real controversial stuff. Like, we're gonna do this stuff that we can get a lot of gain but with, like, little pain, like essentially becoming the IT, you know, support for the federal government and fixing these antiquated computer systems." That would be great, like if you can do that. So I don't know. - Do you wanna weigh in on that Joey, or no? - Yeah, I mean, I think Elon's political involvement, of course, has hurt Tesla, which, the company I don't cover, but, you know, they're way more product-driven, and they're publicly traded, so there's more vulnerability there. But with SpaceX, Elon's political involvement in the Trump administration, in some ways, has kind of paid off, right? I mean, "The Washington Post," you guys had a great story recently on Starlink being involved in tariff talks, and how it's now kind of tethered to US interests, and countries are more open to approving it if they can get something from the Trump administration exchange. So that would be good for SpaceX. The shift to Mars, which has been Elon's dream forever, is also, you know, good for SpaceX, I think. So, and, you know, his political culture war involvement, of course, has the risk of angering a lot of SpaceX employees, but a lot of SpaceX employees truly love the SpaceX mission. And it's kind of separate from, you know, the politics of its CEO sometimes. And we haven't seen any major exodus of employees since his political involvement. So I don't know how hard it has really hit SpaceX, especially as much as Tesla. And it might be easy for him to just come back to SpaceX and be like, okay, what has happened since I was gone? But yeah. - I do think there will be long-term political consequences for SpaceX. I think, number one, it's gonna increase the desire to diversify in contracts. Even in scenarios where SpaceX is probably, offers the best, cheapest option, there will be a strong desire to have another provider. And it would be great to have other companies other than Blue Origin sort of step up and be able to really fulfill the role of promising new space company that has similarly grand ambitions. And the other thing I think, too, is like, it's really, it's baking in partisanship into space policy. - [Joey] That's, yeah. - There's long been, I've long had concerns about sort of space becoming viewed as the playground of space billionaires, and why should we be funding things when we're sending Jeff Bezos's girlfriend to space? You know, I mean, it's like, I just think that all of that feeds negatively into sort of the perception of commercial space, and NASA gets kind of sucked into that. And I just worry that it erodes support in Congress and among the public for space flight long term. - What happens when, you know, if the Democrats win the White House, right, in the next election. And, you know, there's gonna be some, you can see like some retribution potentially coming. If it benefits him now, with Starlink and all that, you know, and a shift to Mars, then it may just hurt him in the next administration. - Let's jump to some reader questions. What are you guys hearing from NASA about Starship? Like how unhappy do you think some people are at the agency, that kind of Artemis is yolked to Starship? They've paid, you know, billions of dollars to SpaceX to return astronauts at the Moon, and we're kind of still in this messy test phase? - Well, I mean, my immediate... So I don't have a lot of reporting on this, but my immediate reaction is, well, you could have awarded two contracts like you said you were gonna do. I know you say you couldn't, like, you couldn't afford two HLS contracts when they first awarded it, but you guys are the one that, you know, from the beginning got yourselves pregnant with Starship and didn't have another option. - Yeah. The person who made that decision is now at SpaceX, but maybe- - No, she's not. She's leaving. - Although maybe not anymore. - She's leaving. - Wait, she's leaving? - Yep. - Oh, wow. Where's she going? - What I've heard is she's gonna take some personal time. So, but I- - Okay, cool. - But I don't know what she's doing. - Oh, cool, okay. - We're talking about- [Chris speaks indistinctly] We're talking about Kathy Lueders, by the way. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, and, but, also, it was kind of a moot point. But yeah, I think, I agree with what Chris said. - Yeah, I mean, I have done some reporting on this, but the reality is that Jared and, I think, his leadership team are broadly supportive of Starship and SpaceX, and recognize that it's essential to the future of Artemis. And so I think that they're, you know, if the rank and files is somewhat unhappy with Starship, the leadership will be sort of supportive of making sure that it's put in a position to succeed. But there's no doubt that some rank and file employees are probably pretty unhappy with the progress. But, you know, the funny thing is, I didn't hear much from them back in 2014, 2015, 2016, when SLS was, you know, slipping year-for-year delays and having all sorts of problems, so. - That's exactly what I was just gonna say. Like, if you're unhappy with the progress of Starship, okay, well, you've had SLS for how long? - Yeah, I know, I know, I know. It's like, the contracts for Starship were awarded a decade after SLS, right, so. What architectures do you think are most likely for Artemis IV and Artemis V if we still have a lunar program? I'll answer this, and you guys can chime in, 'cause I've done some reporting on it. What I'm hearing is that the plan is likely to be similar to the COTS program for low Earth orbit, that NASA is going to go to industry and ask them to propose end-to-end solutions for, basically, winning a contract to launch NASA astronauts to the Moon and bringing them back. And so, obviously, SpaceX would be one bidder in that with whatever architecture it chose. And then I think another potential bidder would be Blue Origin, contracting potentially with Lockheed for Orion for its crew transport. What do you guys, have you guys heard anything on that? - I've heard something similar. And that would, of course, make sense if we have a very pro-commercial NASA administrator and a pro-commercial administration overall. So yeah, and that has worked out. There's evidence of where there were successes with that. People would, I think, complain that that's just a gateway to give things to SpaceX. But, you know, other companies need to step up, too, so. - Yeah, it's like the Ansari X Prize model but for the Moon, right? Just like, have a big prize, whoever gets there. I don't know. - Well, it's not really the Ansari X Prize. I mean, with COTS, they gave, you know, a lot of money up front to these companies for development and then, you know, commercial services. - I know, but Newt Gingrich wanted to have like a prize for the Moon, like to do it. - I remember it. - I thought so. - And, by the way, I think we all know he's still like, very prominent in space policy in this administration. So what goes around comes around, yeah, absolutely. Couple of questions about actually the human physiology of Mars missions, how concerned should we really be about prolonged exposure to cosmic radiation? And, you know, Chris talked earlier, I think, about sort of, you get to Mars, but then that's like a whole other, you know, ball of challenges, like, you know, we've talked a lot about the transportation system to Mars, but, like, can humans survive on Mars for one, two, or more years and thrive in what is obviously an extremely hostile environment? - Yeah, I mean, that's what we also need to be thinking about if we're thinking about going to Mars is what other life support systems and food supplies and other scientific, you know, engineering challenges that we have to overcome to make that possible. That's not really in the discussion right now. Everyone's thinking about Starship and the vehicles that can get there. But, yeah, I mean, and I think some people would argue that it'd be good to know, if we get some experience on the Moon first, which I guess we will, but yeah, so I don't know. - Well, so, I mean, people are gonna die. It's just, I think it's inevitable. I remember the first time I actually ever sat down with Elon, it was like 2014, 2015, and he's talking about Mars. And, you know, at the time, like, he was gonna go there by, I don't know, like 2018 or 2020. But he said like, yeah, and people are gonna go, and, you know, people are gonna die. And it'll be interesting to what extent the American public has a tolerance for that. Because it's just, it's so hard. Mars is trying to kill you. I mean, you can go back and read, Homer Hickam's got these great blog posts about how difficult Mars is. And his argument is like, we shouldn't go 'cause it's so hard. And he has, one of the blog posts is titled like, you know, "NASA's not going to Mars, like, psst, pass it on," for these reasons that it's just so difficult. But I think, you know, the likelihood of American astronauts, if they go and get to Mars, and not surviving is very high. And then does the American public sort of go like, is there a Challenger/Columbia reaction, where everything stands down? Or do we say like, no, this was inevitable. Like we go to Mount Everest, and you step over bodies on your way to, as you summit. And you just know that that's part of the deal. Like if you're Shackleton, or you're crossing the ocean for the first time, it's just so harrowing and hard that it's gonna happen. - I mean, I do think, if we are gonna send humans to Mars anytime soon, you are gonna have to accept a higher risk posture. And I don't worry so much about the radiation going to Mars. I mean, it increases your lifetime cancer risk a little bit, but I think there's just so many other, much more acute threats to life and limb that, yeah, I mean, we're gonna have to, you're gonna have to take some risks. And I don't know whether we'll accept that or not. You know, it may be private people that end up going to Mars because of that reason. There's a question here about Kessler syndrome. And I'm just curious, you know, we both have seen, we all have seen an enormous increase in satellites in low Earth orbit, in spacecraft. And if you look at the plans, you know, for the next 10 years, you know, we're gonna go from 10,000 satellites to 30,000 to 50,000, and there's all these plans for LEO and GEO. And how sustainable is all of this economic activity in low Earth orbit? And, you know, at some point, are we just going to screw up orbits, and it's really gonna bring this whole industry crashing back down to the ground? I mean, how concerned do you think people should be about that? - I mean, it's very concerning. And I think part of, you know, how we define Kessler syndrome, I think, is interesting. Because I think some people think it is, you know, Kessler syndrome is just an explosion of debris all at once, and it'll be a major, you know, calamity in a single day. But, you know, there's also the perspective that some people have that it's a more gradual thing, and that maybe right now we're in the midst of a Kessler syndrome, and not acknowledging that is not gonna help solve the problem of the increasing amount of space junk. I mean, luckily it's not at the point right now where it's preventing us from launching anything off Earth. But, you know, we have Starlink growing, Kuiper, Chinese constellations, other constellations, Golden Dome, which is gonna carry missiles and put missiles in space, if that gets funded. So I think there's, you know, gonna have to be some mechanism internationally to coordinate space traffic. And, you know, also, with Golden Dome, the weaponization of space might not help that diplomatically. So I think it is a big problem. - See, I think you're thinking about it the wrong way, that if we have a lot of debris and a lot of spacecraft and a lot of junk out there, that's a good thing because it'll protect us from an alien invasion. They just won't be able- - Oh, right, right. - to get through. It's like, it'll be our own force field. - We can throw the junk at the aliens or something. We can develop like a big- - Yeah. - Force, yeah. - It's like a moat. [Joey chuckles] - Yeah. - I don't know, actually I was talking to someone about this recently. Space is really, really big. I think there's still a lot of room. I think it's, you've just gotta do it responsibly. And I think the new actors are, like Starlink has got, what, 7,200. They've shown, you know, they can use AI and machine learning and automate it, and dodge and weave. That said, I think there does have to be an effort to take some of these big, you know, tumbling rocket stages, someone once described it to me as like, it's the size of a school bus, it's tumbling at, you know, five miles per second, and it doesn't have a steering wheel. Like, that's a problem. - So I think, Joey, you made a great point there, that, you know, Golden Dome, we really haven't seen too much reaction from China, or even Russia, or if we have, I've missed it, but I've gotta believe that they will look at that and use that as a reason, and perhaps justified, that like, we're not cooperating with you on anything in space, including space traffic management, and really painting the United States as kind of these maligned actors in the militarization of space. - Yeah, China has responded to it. And they say, you know, it's an offensive system, and they're definitely not happy about it. They're very concerned. Russia had a totally different response, which I'm probably not accurately recalling it, but, I mean, they said something like, this might open the door to more nuclear arms talks or something, which is not normally what you would expect Russia to say in response to something like this. But yeah, I think, when we first, when the US first tried something like Golden Dome in the 1980s, you know, of course, there were a lot of technical limitations at the time, but a lot of the allies were concerned, too, about its ASAT capabilities. And there was a real geopolitical and diplomatic hurdle for developing that system, not as widely talked about, I guess, because it was so impossible at the time. But I think the more people realize what Golden Dome really is, those arguments are gonna come back up, and it's gonna start to show how much of a diplomatic, you know, how much diplomatic chaos there might be after it. - Well, here's just another thing. You know, so right now, they're talking about $25 billion for Golden Dome and like in the next year's budget. $25 billion, so it'd be more than NASA's budget, or about what NASA's budget is now. If we're talking about for this full-fledged, space-based interceptor program, you know, we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, if not the T word, right, like the trillion dollars. And then, you remember, just a year ago, everyone seems to have forgotten about it, but like at the time, everyone was freaking out that Russia was talking about developing a space nuke. Okay, well, if you set off a nuclear weapon in space just after you've put up, you know, $500 billion worth of satellites, then they fry all of it, and none of it works. So, you know, it seems like that could be a little bit of a problem, something they'd wanna, you know, kind of figure out before they go ahead with that. - Yeah. - And I don't know, like, if I've... I certainly haven't fully reckoned with what the militarization of space means long term for NASA or for commercial space. Is it more like the US Navy, which patrols the seas to make sure that they're safe for international commerce and movement? Or is it something more draconian in that, like, we need to occupy this high ground, and anything that's not a US or US ally asset is basically the enemy and, you know, or is it like Antarctica? I mean, I don't know. You know, none of us are sort of military space or international policy experts. But I do worry that like militarization of space could really put a clamp on sort of the promise of commercial space flight and private industry in space. - Yeah, and, I mean, it's not just, you know, commercial space or civil space that it would affect. I mean, it could affect, you know, terrestrial politics as well. And I think a lot of people are saying that something like a space-based interceptor system is going to totally upend traditional norms of, you know, nuclear deterrence. And so it creates a more unstable, you know, shaky political environment on Earth, not just in space. Countries, of course, can assume more of a civil space part of the US program is linked to military objectives if we're, you know, being more open about it. But there are other consequences as well, like on the Earth, that people are talking about. - So all of that is true. It is also true, though, if you are a proponent of commercial space, that if you see sort of a robust growth in the Space Force and reliant on commercial uses for National Security Space, then it's only good for the commercial space companies. I mean, NASA's budget, again, 25 billion a year, this year enacted, you know, next year anyway, if these cuts go through, will be quite a bit less than that. The Pentagon is what, $850 billion? Golden Dome alone is gonna be hundreds of billions of dollars. If you are a commercial space company, that is your meal ticket. - Okay, so we've talked a lot about negative things, China, space, delays to Artemis, Starship problems. So give me one thing that you're kind of excited or happy about that's happened in space flight, or something happened that you're kind of looking forward to or that made you smile. Good vibes. - Go ahead, Chris. - Good vibes only, guys. - Commercial LEO development? [chuckles] - I said good vibes only. Chris, you're killing me, man. [laughs] - Are we allowed to, okay, this is like... [laughs] Sorry. [group chuckling] - Yeah, you took the words right out of my mouth, Chris. [Eric laughs] - I'll just say this, that, you know, to be... It's good, bad, ugly, delays, not... It is a fascinating, it's a fascinating time, right, to be a space journalist, to do what we get to do, to write about what we get to write about at this time. You know, everyone says, you know, journalism, it's a first rough draft of history. I believe that to be true. I think people are gonna look back at this time, 10, 20, 30 years from now, as a seminal moment. That's why, you know, like go out, and people are writing books about this. Because I do think, to some degree, it transcends what we can do. I think that, you know, the Artemis program, Jared's leadership, it's all gonna be exciting to look forward to, what we have next. What happens with Starship? What happens with New Glenn? What happens with Blue Moon, all these other launchers? I mean, we haven't talked about, you know, Eric Schmidt and Relativity, National Security Space and the Space Force. Again, it's all, it's just such an interesting time, and I'm just, I'm here for all of it. - Yeah, yeah, I think that's the real thing is that humanity is, you know, moving into space. And from like a species-level perspective, you know, Golden Dome, have your arguments about that, Artemis program, how we get to the Moon, whatever, everything's increasingly going into space. And I think that's just interesting that we're these little organisms that are doing that. So [chuckles] yeah, that's, I guess, the positive part. - Yeah, I think about sort of, when I first started covering space really seriously, it was around the time of the Columbia accident in 2003. And, man, at that time, it was basically all NASA in space, and it was pretty much all about the shuttle and getting shuttle back to flight. And just the increase in international activity of China, of course, but also India, Europe, Japan, and a whole host of other nations, you know, just getting really serious about space, the UAE, Korea, places like that, has been a huge change. And then the commercial growth has just been phenomenal. And there's just so many different ideas being tried in space. You know, a company like AstroForge trying to shoot by an asteroid and failing, right? But just taking a shot at that, I think, is really exciting. You see these launch companies like Stoke Space that are trying new, innovative things. And there's just so many different ideas that are being tried now because space is a little more accessible in terms of cost, that the future is dangerous, but it's also very promising. So I would echo what Chris said, that like, it's just an extremely interesting time to be in this industry, and we can't really say where it's going. But the ride hopefully will be, you know, fun and not too bumpy. Well, with that, let me just thank you again, Chris and Joey, for joining me. I think it's been a fun discussion. It's always great to see you guys. Not so great to see your bylines sometime, 'cause I'm like, oh, my gosh, I gotta try to chase that story that they just had. But just, it's great working with you guys. And thanks so much for joining us today on "Ars Live." - Thanks, Eric. - Thanks for having us. Appreciate it. - Okay. [upbeat music]