[MUSIC PLAYING]
Coming up, return
of the Dragon.
A new hope for exoplanets.
A battle is brewing
in the Senate.
And we have a respectable
talk with Josh Richards
about Mars One.
Stay tuned, Tmro
begins right now.
[THEME MUSIC]
And welcome to Tmro for
Saturday May 14, 2016.
My name is Benjamin
Higgenbotham.
This a season 9, episode 17.
Before we get started, I
want to give a huge shout out
to all of the
patrons of Tmro who
have helped to make
this specific segment
of this episode happen.
These are the people who
contributed $10 or more
to this specific show.
If you want to find out how you
can help crowd fund the shows
of Tmro head over
to Patreon.com/tmro.
And you might be
thinking to yourself, ah!
$10 per show?
That a lot of money.
And it is.
And thank you to
all those patrons
who have helped to do that.
But let's say you're
like, I can't afford that.
A, whatever you
think the show is
worth-- you think it's worth one
penny, you can contribute that.
It's whatever value you
get out of this show.
If you want to put it
back in, that's awesome.
Or if you don't get any
sort of monetary value,
maybe you want to donate time.
That's cool too.
We've got a program
called Launch Library.
We've got fantastic librarians
that go out and look for all
the launches out in the world.
And they try to look
for foreign launches,
but we're trying to
also build the existing
database of all the different
rocket launches that have ever
happened.
And so if you're
interested to help
build that historical
database, hit me up.
Benjamin@tmro.tv.
We need someone to look at
the Atlas rockets, Delta,
every different rocket class.
Go back and put every
single one of those launches
into Launch Library
so that in the end,
Launch Library
becomes the most up
to date, most definitive
resource for every rocket
launch that has ever
happened on planet Earth.
That's kind of the goal.
Again, Benjamin@tmro.tv, if
you want to help that way.
Let's go ahead and get
started with some space new.
Space Mike.
Yes, so we have some
very exciting news.
After 31 days of operations
at the International Space
Station, SpaceX's Dragon
capsule for the CRS 8 mission
has unbirthed and
returned to Earth.
And here's a photo of the
unbirthing of the Space
Station.
And this happened on
Wednesday, May 11.
And this capsule is returning
about 1,678 kilograms,
or for those in
the United States,
3,700 pounds of supplies.
And that includes crew supplies,
hardware, compute resources,
science experiments,
including a lot of examples
from the year in space,
studying the effects
on Mark Kelly and
Mikhail Kornienko.
As well as Space Station
hardware and trash.
And we have a photo of
the Dragon splash down.
This occurred on Wednesday,
May 11, as I said.
And this was around 1855
Coordinated Universal Time.
And interestingly, because of
the time sensitive experiments
that were returned
on this capsule,
the capsule was recovered
in a pretty timely manner.
And all of those time
sensitive payloads
were then placed on
a fast return ship
and immediately taken to the
Port of Los Angeles where they
will then be shipped to NASA.
And Dragon will take a
lot more leisurely pace
on its main recovery
ship and arrive
at the Port of
Los Angeles later.
And after arriving at
the port, the Dragon
will then be placed
on a transport
and trucked back
to McGregor, Texas
where the rest of the return
cargo will be removed.
So very good news that we've
had a successful mission all
the way through all
the different stages
with this return to
flight with the CRS 8,
or the Dragon's
return to flight I
should say, since the falcon
was already qualified.
So congratulations
to everyone who
made this mission successful.
And I hate the term birthed.
I think it's a
stupid-- Now I realize
we can't say docked, because
it's technically not docking.
Do you want to explain why?
Do you know the difference?
I do, I do, I do.
And this was a problem
that I had for a long time.
I was just like ah!
What's the difference?
But there's a difference.
When a vehicle docks to
another vehicle in space,
that means it is doing
so under its own power.
And even though
the Dragon capsule
does have lots of
thrusters to be
able to maneuver very
precisely and very safely
around the International
Space Station,
it does not have the hardware
to be able to dock itself.
And the type of docking
ports that they're using
are different.
There's a difference between
the docking ports on the Space
Station and the birthing ports.
The birthing ports
are where they
would connect other permanent
modules of the International
Space Station.
And they didn't need to
have all the extra hardware
and software involved with
being able to dock autonomously.
So when a vehicle
is birthed, that
means that with
the Space Station,
it's grabbed by the
Canadarm, and the arm
pulls it into the
spot that it needs
to be and births it into place.
Excuse me.
Yeah, absolutely.
That is correct.
I think it's a stupid word.
Because it's like wait.
The Space Station's
giving birth?
I personally use the word-- I
don't know what you guys use--
I don't know if you use dock.
I use the word attach.
Like, it's attached
or it detaches
from the Space Station.
You use birth? or
do you use dock?
I've used attached as well.
OK, attached.
Birthed, docked.
I use the correct
term, which is birthed.
Really?
Yes, I do, because-- So
Neuropilot in the chat room
is saying that it's a Navy term.
I don't know where it come from.
Maybe there's a
Navy term, I'll just
have to believe you on that one.
But you speak about it
at anyone-- actually
I correct other
people who say docked.
I have no problem with attached.
That doesn't matter to me.
My understanding
was that docking
was always you coming up to
it and attaching yourself,
as opposed to you coming up
to the International Space
Station, then coming out,
grabbing it, and attaching
themselves.
The problem I have
with the term birth--
so if you use the term docked,
people know what you're saying.
If you use the
term birth, people
have no idea what you're saying.
So, but it's wrong.
Using the term docked is wrong.
So I don't want to give
them-- I don't want to have
them use wrong terminology.
But there's a differentiation
between I attach myself,
and they attach me to you.
And I don't know why we
need that differentiation,
I don't know what that
purpose that serves.
And I just chose
not to argue it.
Because it is technically
wrong, so I use the term attach.
We're spending too
much time on this.
But that word, I just I feel
like it's the wrong word
for what's going on.
Because it's a synonym,
or it a homonym.
No, what am I trying to say?
Not sure.
Anyway.
My English is failing me.
I apologize.
Because it sounds like
birthed, like you gave birth.
You're right.
It seems weird.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I think it's part of problem.
Your biggest problem.
Space Station gives birth to
dragons, that's pretty cool.
Whoa, that is some
Game of Thrones stuff.
Although one cool thing
I do want to mention
is the difference
between the Dragon cargo
vessels get birthed, and
the Dragon crude vehicles,
the Dragon B2 will
dock autonomously.
So that's one cool difference.
You just answered one of
the questions in the We
spent too much on this.
Let's go ahead and move on.
Jerry.
Yes!
Everybody likes
exoplanets, right?
Sure.
Even you and I
agree on exoplanets.
What, that they're huge?
Yes.
That they're fricking huge?
They're big, and there's
a lot of them out there.
Well, NASA's Kepler
Space Telescope,
which has had some
trouble recently,
but was brought back
to life, actually
has announced its latest
data set from analysis
that it has found 1,284
new extra solar planets.
That more than
doubles the number
of total extra solar
planets that we have now.
Of course, these are
confirmed planets.
So we now sit at 3,264 through
NASA's exoplanet exploration
group that they have there.
So this is a nice
chart here that
shows you the findings of Kepler
and ground based observatories
through the years.
So that dark blue is
ground based observatories,
Kepler is the light blue,
and then that orange one
that you see right there,
that is just the discovery
that was released this week.
Whoa!
Kaboom!
And they were able to
do this because they've
used a new statistical
technique to actually look
at the transits of
these planets as they
go in front of their stars.
That's how Kepler
finds the exoplanets.
It basically looks at
a big patch of the sky.
It looks at how much light
is coming from those stars.
And it looks for dips
in the amount of light.
They're very, very small
dips, but the instruments
on board of Kepler are sensitive
enough that they can actually
detect those dips of light.
And they look different from
things like another star going
in front of that star,
or a big thing of comets
going around that star.
So there's a definitive dip that
you can look for that tells you
that that is an exoplanet.
And of course, you have to see
it go by three times in order
for it to officially
be confirmed.
And in fact, there were 4,302
potential identifications
of planets, but those
1,284 that were confirmed,
means that there's a 99%
or higher probability
that they exoplanets.
So basically,
that's an exoplanet.
There were 1,327 candidates that
were below the 90% probability,
and 707 that were probably
just some other astronomical
phenomenon that they are doing.
So very cool stuff
that they're doing.
Another cool thing is this
chart that we have right here,
which shows you the relative
sizes of these planets
that Kepler is discovering.
And you will notice that sort
of towards the smaller and then
towards a larger ends, like
the smaller ends like Mercury
and Earth and Venus,
and the larger
ends like Jupiter and Saturn.
Very, very small percentage
of them are there.
But if you go towards
sort of the Neptune,
the sub-Neptune
sizes, there's a lot.
And we weren't expecting that.
We weren't exactly
expecting to find
a lot of these two to three
Earth masses in size planets.
So very exciting stuff
that we're learning there.
Course that could
be also what we
call observational bias,
which is simply because it's
really hard to see small
planets with the technology
that we have right now.
So it could actually
end up being
that the small planets are the
majority of the type of planets
that are out there,
it's just that we
can't see them at the moment.
But of course we're just
going with the statistics
that we have right
now which says
that these sort of sub Neptune's
would be I guess what you'd
call super, super Earths
are what we're finding
the majority of right now.
Very cool stuff.
Chat room is asking did they
use a new statistical technique
last time they had
a big planet dump?
What's different this time?
So this time they are
using a much broader view
of the transits.
So essentially,
they are no longer
looking at each
individual curve of light.
They are looking at the
overall curves of light
from all of the data all
at once and comparing it.
So instead of
going individually,
they figured out a way to
look at the whole piece,
or the whole data set at the
same time, which obviously
is very time consuming,
but in that time consuming,
it also speeds up the process
in confirming things as well.
So that's essentially
what they've done.
Nice.
And then as I guess you kind
of answered this one already.
Are those discoveries on the
original Kepler data, were they
from the revived mission data?
They are from the original
mission, not what's
called the K2, or the
Revived Kepler mission.
Of course, the Kepler needs
to be pointed very precisely.
And it uses these systems called
reaction wheels to do that.
And you need to have a
certain number of them
operational in order to
stabilize the point of Kepler.
And basically the total
number that have broken
has exceeded the ability
that you need to point.
So they're now just letting
it kind of free drift
through the sky, and see
what it happens to see.
It sees what it
sees what it sees.
It's interesting.
Yeah.
And there's also a really
cool question there
that is, how does
Kepler differ planets
going in front of the stars
instead of star spots?
Well, you can look at
the curve of the light.
Because a planet has
a definitive curve.
It will dip down deep, and
then we'll come back up.
In the case of a star spot,
it will get down deep,
it will stay there,
and it will stay there
for a very long time.
And then it will come back up.
So you can actually
figure out what
you're looking at just by
looking at the light curve.
And that's how you can tell
the difference between a planet
and a star spot.
So, very cool.
There's one last.
I'll head it back over to--
Oh, sure.
There are a few other
comments, I think.
That's fine.
Some planets like Pluto do a
revolutionary dozen, if not
100 years.
So we can't find--
you talk about it
has to go by three times.
So how would you know for sure?
They have to be fairly
close to their sun.
Yeah, they are so far
fairly close to their star,
but it's very interesting that
we are able to fine planets
still within the habitable
zone, even close to the stars.
Because not every
star is like the sun.
It's not as average size or as
big or as small as they are.
The stars come in all varieties.
So a lot of the
habitable planets
that we are finding
initially are
around these really
small stars, these little
what we call red
dwarfs, and that
brings the habitable zone in
very, very close inside of what
would be the orbit of Mercury
here in our own solar system.
And from that, we can
actually find planets there.
And in fact, in this
new data release,
they have found nine
more extra solar planets
that are in the habitable zone,
which brings the overall total
to 21 now out of them.
Very cool stuff.
And I think it has enough
fuel on board to last
until 2018 with its mission.
So we'll see what
we get from Kepler.
Assuming-- I mean, it's
still going to drift.
If it drifts more, if they
lost some more reaction wheels,
it could--
No, the reaction
wheels are toast.
They're all out?
Yeah.
So what they're
doing to air Kepler
is one of the coolest things
that I have ever heard of.
It was developed at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
where Kepler's obviously a
solar powered spacecraft,
so they have set it
using the thrusters
so that the angle of the solar
panels on one side of Kepler
actually balances out with the
photon pressure from the light
of the sun to keep it pointed.
So they're using
light to keep it
pointed as precise as they can.
That is really cool.
Wait.
Isn't that just
like the EM drive?
Why am I?
Really?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
It is different
than the EM drive.
Just a bit.
So chat room wants
to know are there
any plans for even more
precise telescopes like Kepler
to observe the smaller planet?
Yes there is.
There are some ideas
of using a mission that
was called Terrestrial Planet
Finder, which was basically
putting multiple
telescopes out into space
and doing what's
called interferometry,
which is where you take the data
from multiple telescopes that
are spread over a vast
distance, and combining
that data together to
give you a telescope
equivalent to the distance
in size, if you will.
There's also some ideas of
flying a starshade millions
of miles away from a telescope.
Hashtag #starshade.
Yeah, hashtag #starshade.
--with it there.
And that way it'll block
the light from the star.
And you can actually
look at the planet.
But also, the James
Webb Space Telescope
is going to be able to
image exoplanets directly.
Because even though exoplanets
are reflecting light
from their star,
they reflect more
light in the
infrared wavelengths
than they do in the
visible wavelengths,
simply because of
the way that works.
And that is what James Webb
is looking in, infrared.
So James Webb is actually going
to allow us to look directly
at exoplanets.
I'm not sure exactly
what it's precision will
be, in terms of figuring out the
composition of the atmosphere.
I don't think it's going
to have capabilities
to look at the surface
with it initially.
They may upgrade it on a mission
one day to James Webb with it.
But there are some ideas--
You know they can't do that.
Right?
It's too far out.
For now.
Never say never.
First off, James
Webb-- for now,
that's fair-- James Webb
will be launching in the year
2042 when it finally complete.
Well, by then we'll already
have a colony on Mars.
It won't matter.
Let's just move on.
We'll move on.
So we talked a little
bit about this last week,
but Antares is rolling
out to its launch pad.
Now the footage that
we're showing you here,
this is not it.
This is an Antares rolling
out to the launch pad,
but I couldn't find
anything of the newer stuff.
And I wanted to kind of show you
generally what it looks like.
But you're looking
at the wrong engines
on the back of that
vehicle, and it
has a payload attached, which
the current roll out does not.
There's no payload at the top.
There's rolling out the pad, 0A.
That happened Thursday, May 12,
at the mid-Atlantic Regional
Space Port.
And this is the first
time it has rolled out
since its energetic
event in 2014.
That rollout process
takes about a mile.
You can see there at their
Horizontal Integration
Facility.
And then has to roll for a mile.
And it's not on
tracks, you'll see.
It's actually kind of
got its own car system.
It's going to roll
over to the pad,
and then they'll
attach it to the pad.
Once they've got it out there,
they're going to attach it
and they're going to
attempt a 30 second test
firing of their brand new 181
engines that are on Antares.
Because it's using the
R80181 engines instead
of the AJ26, the AJ26
being the engine that
had that energetic
event in 2014,
the configuration has
changed to the Antares 230.
The R80181 uses its
propellant more efficiently
than the AJ26 did,
which means that it's
got a 25% increase of
mass to low earth orbit.
We can put 25% more stuff
up to lower Earth orbit.
It's also 13% more thrust--
all the words this time--
than the AJ26.
So it's got more power,
it can put more stuff up
to the low Earth
orbit target, which
is where they're going
to send their Cygnus
spacecraft for the International
Space Station, which is just
kind of good overall.
And then that will help them
as they try to convert it over
to a commercial
launcher so that they
can do more than just the NASA
commercial resupply missions.
So this will be their 30
second static fire test.
Once they're done
with the test, they're
actually going to detach
it, send all the way back
to that one mile long hangar.
I said that wrong.
Send it back one
mile to the hangar.
They hangar's not one mile long.
Although that would be
an impressive hangar.
Hashtag #onemilelonghangar.
Send it all the way
back down to the hangar.
They're going to then
attach the Cygnus craft
and then send it back.
And they're hoping to be
able to launch as early
as July up to the
International Space Station.
So they will have had two
launches on the Atlas V,
and then it will have
been able to move over.
Now I mentioned that
that's the R80181, which
goes nicely into our next
story, which is the R80180.
Oh, man.
We go back and forth
on this engine.
Both the R80181 and the
R80180 are Russian engines.
The R80180 is the power
plant for the Atlas V rocket.
That is a test firing of
one of them right there.
That's approximately
what it looks like.
Thank you NASA for getting that.
We've got a battle going
on between Senator--
I have a graphic.
Check this out.
Boom!
Battle between
Shelby and McCain.
You can see they're pissed at
each other in this graphic.
They are.
They are fighting.
And they are fighting
with policy and words
and it's hilarious.
So Senator Shelby really
wants United Launch Alliance
have access to as many
R80180s as they want.
Senator McCain does not want
any R80180s to come in at all.
And so it goes from
the R80180s are banned.
No, they're not banned.
Now you can buy 18 of them.
Well, as of this last
week, fiscal year
2017 National Defense
Authorization Act,
Senator John McCain was
able to push through
on Thursday May 12,
that R80180s are now
limited to nine units
that can come in
for United Launch Alliance.
After the House Armed
Services Committee
had set that limit
to 18, they also
repealed measures in the
provision of the 2015 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill that removed
some limitations on the R80180
purchases.
So basically they removed
the limitation removal,
if that makes any sense.
So now there are limits
again as to what they can do.
When United Launch
Alliance does run out
of R80180 engines,
which as I understand,
it's going to happen a little--
it will happen someday,
but it's not imminent.
When that happens,
it will be forced
to move over to
the Delta IV line
or they will have to have their
Vulcan flying by that time.
Yeah, it's just a mess.
A giant mess.
Here's what's interesting.
So I just did a story
about how Orbital ATK is
putting the Russian
mind you R80181 engines
onto the Antares.
Nobody's saying
anything about that.
But the Russian R80180 engine
everyone has a problem with.
So I think there's
a lot more to it
than just kind of the surface
we want it, we don't want it.
Everyone's using the
guaranteed-- what is it?
The assured access to space.
Everyone's using the
phrase assured access
to space, which is all just--
it's political back and forth.
You can use assured
access to space
on either side of the argument,
which is the hilarious part.
I think it might have
to do with the fact
that on the Atlas V you
typically fly national security
assets, and you
don't particularly
want that flying on
a Russian engine.
Just saying.
Or at least according
to the power to be.
I guess, but what's
the difference?
I mean what does
the payload matter?
I think these rockets too, I
mean the Antares rocket has not
been certified to fly any
national security payloads.
At least not yet anyway.
They might try to bid that
forward in the future.
So at first there was no
limitation on United Launch
Alliance to use
the R80180 engines
for commercial launches.
They just couldn't use them for
the national security payloads.
And that's kind of where
the argument is now
is whether or not
they even can use them
for commercial
payloads in the future.
So with all that being
said, both engines
have totally different
heritages to them.
The R80180 engine
was essentially
built for the Atlas rocket
whereas the R80181 engine
is it's a one nozzle engine.
And the version
that it evolves from
is the R80170, which is
a four chamber engine.
And they have a
two chamber version
of that, which eventually
was how they based to the 180
for the Atlas V.
And the 181 is based off
of the older single version
nozzle called the 191.
So I know, very
complicated, lots
of numbers and weird
heritage to it,
but they are different engines.
And the R80181 is not just
a single engine version
of the R80180.
They were manufactured
by different companies,
but technically they're all
owned by the same company now.
But the R80181 are not owned
or have any stakes at all
by Dmitry Rogozin.
And that is the individual
the United States have put
these economic sanctions on.
And with his
ownership, or at least
partial ownership
of the company that
manufactures the
R80180 engines, that's
why those are being banned.
Not because we're banning
the company or the country,
it's because we're
banning the person.
Hashtag #rocketenginenumbers.
What a mess.
Did you want to go over?
Yes, go ahead.
So Cobalt Wolf in
the chat room says
why do we even use the RD180s
for Atlas in the first place?
Weren't there plenty
of engine designs
that could have been
used, especially
ones that would have been
created more jobs back home?
Absolutely.
And we were making
better engines.
Yeah, we were making
really good engines.
By the way, hello Cobalt Wolf.
We were making
really good engines
at the time that had planned to
become an evolved version that
would fly, I think
the plan at the time
was for an Atlas
IV type version,
or for of the Atlas
III without the RD180s.
But we had good engines.
I believe that was RS27B or
C, or something like that.
And Congress, when we decided
to cooperate with the Russians
officially for the
International Space Station,
it was Congress in the '90s
who chartered all these laws
together that essentially
forced at the time
Lockheed Martin to
use the RD180 engines
in a show of good
faith, and another step
to have dependence on each
other as international partners
in the Space Program.
That's why we used the
RD180 in the first place.
There you go.
All politics.
So it's ironic, I think it's a
little ironic that-- I'm just
going to use the term
United Launch Alliance,
even though they didn't
exist when this happened.
But United Launch Alliance
was forced essentially
to use the RD180.
Then they did what
they were asked to do.
And now hat because we're no
longer friends with Russia,
now they're like, well,
you can't use the RD180.
Why did you ever use that?
And it's like, because
you told us to.
You made us do it.
And now you're
making us undo it,
and you're making
it our problem.
I'm oversimplifying that,
but I think that part of it's
kind of not cool.
Let's move on.
Space Mike.
Yes, so we have another story.
And this is kind of
depressing, but it's still news
that I think that we
need to talk about.
So NASA and Roscosmos
have had what's
called a technical interchange
meeting where they're
discussing how the
International Space
Station is going to be deorbited
once they're done with it.
But not just that, they're also
looking at contingency plans
in case there's an emergency.
And we have a graphic that
is the current configuration
of the International
Space Station right now.
And you can see that the Dragon
capsule is no longer there,
but have the Cygus 6 capsule.
And with this
plan, they actually
don't have the capability
to deorbit the Space Station
right now.
That capability won't
exist until at least 2017.
And it requires multiple docked
vehicles firing in unison
to push the Station
to its demise.
I find is kind of
interesting, because we
talked about a similar
thing to boost it up.
They have to do that in
order to boost it down.
So in any case, the
International Space Station
still has many years
of service left.
And it can keep going
until 2028 technically,
although the international
partners have only
agreed to keep going until
2024, because of finances
and the logistics
involved in determining
how much longer they would
be able to participate
with the program.
But even if it is abandoned
in the 2024, 2028 time frame,
there is no immediate
demand for a deorbit plan.
But in the emergency
scenario, where the Station
becomes crippled and has to
be evacuated for some reason,
that would call for
its potential disposal
within a very short time frame.
In either scenario,
multiple Russian vehicles
would be involved with pushing
the Station towards its demise.
And it called for
several progress vehicles
to be docked at the
Station's service module
and to refuel as much as
they could with the fuel
tanks on the service model so
they could use its thrusters as
well as the thrusters
on the progress vehicle.
But now they're also looking
at including Soyuz's vehicles
as well.
And the Russians have
said they will also
have to implement
certain software
modifications necessary
to allow integrated
burns of multiple engines
on the ISS at the same time,
as well as the final
deorbit burn sequence
from the progress and
potential Soyuz vehicles.
And it will take some time
to complete this work.
That's why it's not
ready to do this now.
They don't have
the software to be
able to burn multiple engines
like that at the International
Space Station right now.
And while they're
figuring all this out,
it does not have
that capability.
And personally, I would
like to keep it that way.
Hashtag #savethespacestation.
How do you really
feel Space Mike?
Don't deorbit it!
Don't deorbit it.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm not sure I'm there
yet, but all right.
Jared take us-- last
story, take us out.
Sure.
Well, if you go down
in Florida, there
are some folks who are working
on spacecraft right now
and that would be Boeing
with their CST100 Starliner.
And actually they just completed
the first structural test
article for that
CST100 Starliner.
And both of those pieces
have been mated together.
Now this is all occurring in
the former Shuttle Orbiter
Processing Facility 3, which
is being leased to Boeing
for Starliner related work.
And very interestingly--
this is a neat fact--
this is the first
time a spacecraft has
been built inside a orbiter
processing facility.
Because the orbiters,
they weren't built inside
of those facilities.
They were built
here in California.
Yeah, they were
built here-- well,
parts were built all
over the United States.
They were brought out
to Palmdale to assemble,
flown back to the
Cape, but they were
refurbished in the orbital
processing facilities.
They weren't built in there.
So that structural test article,
it will not fly into space.
It will be used to improve
the manufacturing methods
that Boeing is using
to put it together,
as long as reformation
of any design ideas.
And the crew access arm as
well, that is being worked on,
is coming along
at a facility that
is not at the
actual launch site,
the future launchpad SLC41.
But they are working on it,
and it is coming along nicely.
And there are some very
interesting things with that.
Now the biggest
news this week was
that Boeing has delayed
the Starliner schedule.
So what they've done is they
say that the uncrewed debut
of Starliner will
now occur in 2017,
while the first crewed
flight will occur in 2018.
Now do you have
something to say?
I have a question.
Yes.
Wasn't the reason that NASA
chose Boeing over Sierra
Nevada was because
of schedule assurance
and that they were willing
to spend more money with
Boeing because there was
more of a guarantee they'd
be on schedule?
Yes.
Do you have another
point to make?
I have another question.
Why did we spend
more money than,
if they didn't
maintain schedule?
I don't know.
Shouldn't they be punished
for that or penalized?
I'm not sure.
Complete your thought.
I'm a Dream Chaser lover.
I love the Sierra-- this is
where this is coming from.
I think the Dream
Chaser is awesome.
And fundamentally
they said, look,
there is a potential schedule
problems with the Dream Chaser.
They could have delayed too.
So then NASA said we're going
to go with Boeing because less
schedule risk.
And here we are, we're
not even in the year
that they were supposed
to be doing stuff,
and they're already delaying.
So cut our losses, let's
move to Sierra Nevada.
That would be nice,
just because space plane.
Space plane!
Yeah, space plane.
But they're doing the cargo
version of the Dream Chaser.
That's cool.
Yeah, I'm excited for that.
That's pretty neat.
That could lead
to one eventually.
Right now it's too late
for the CRS 2 contract
to switch persons, but
there is legalese in there
that if Boeing does delay a lot,
and if they don't have approval
from NASA, and as far as I know,
I haven't heard any statements
from NASA about this the way,
but if they keep delaying,
they'll get canceled, and
they won't get any more money.
This is a
milestone-based contract.
If they don't meet
those milestones,
they don't get paid.
This not a costless contract.
So far, even with all of
the delays they've had,
they've met every milestone
when they were supposed to hit.
This is just their first time
they're announcing a delay
specifically with Starliner.
Yes, but meeting a
milestone to push paperwork
is different then actually
meeting a milestone
to deliver a real vehicle.
Now that they're
bending metal, this
is where the schedule
is starting to bend.
It feels weird that
as taxpayers, we
spent more money with Boeing
to guarantee schedule,
which is now slipping.
Yeah, That's kind of a bummer.
A bit of a bummer.
Now they're not saying why
they're slipping either.
I want to know.
I'm curious, if anyone
in the community knows,
I'm curious to know
how far they're
allowed to slip before
there are penalties.
Although NASA sources
noted that the problems that
are occurring are not classified
as what's called a red risk,
which is a serious
technical issue.
So apparently it's just
something very minor
that's causing the delay.
But again, nobody's
saying anything
about what the delay is.
Paperwork.
Probably.
It's a really a lot of paper.
But there's no guarantee
that Dream Chaser wouldn't
have been held up as well.
No, in fact it
probably would've been.
To be totally fair
to everyone involved,
NASA was not
necessarily wrong saying
that Dream Chaser's
timeline probably
wouldn't be maintained.
Let's put that out there.
But when they're spending
a lot more on Boeing
than Dream Chaser to
maintain schedule,
then they should
maintain schedule.
That was the key
thing with the Dream
Chaser was that we
were spending more
money to maintain assured
access to space essentially.
So great.
So what did you spend
that money on for it?
Assured access to space,
but just a little bit later.
And also to be fair,
SpaceX has had delays too.
There have been
certain milestones
that they achieved way ahead
of schedule, and other ones
that even today
have fallen behind.
So even for stuff
that they have.
They've had certain penalties
with the prior programs
that I don't know
about the CRS 2,
but everyone involved
with this has had delays.
And we should be fair.
We should be, but NASA
basically justified
the higher cost of the
CST 100 for schedule.
That's the difference.
Where did that come from?
Was that NASA going,
no, no, no, it's cool.
We dated her before.
She's fine.
Like, she won't go crazy on you.
Do you see what I'm saying?
Or was it Boeing going, no, no
no, I take meds for that now.
I'm fine.
Which is different.
It's a totally different thing.
That's a perfectly fair
analogy, by the way.
That's hilarious.
But you see what I'm saying.
I'm pretty sure it was
NASA saying no, we know what
we're getting with these guys.
They can do the paperwork,
they can show us the numbers.
NASA loves their paperwork,
they actually do.
There's a distinct difference
between Boeing saying, oh no,
because we already
know what we're doing.
It's totally fine,
and NASA going,
I'm sure they know
what they're doing.
It's fine.
Those are two different--
I feel like NASA also looked
at Boeing with the fact
that they eventually
were the ones who
took over space shuttle work
from Rockwell, who took it over
from North America, so that
they went oh, these guys have
a lot of experience in
crewed space flight,
so these guys know
what they're doing.
So if there's any delays,
it should be minimal,
and we'll be fine.
But that's just what
I think happened
with a part of that rationale.
Quite literally,
time will tell.
Yeah.
Hashtag #carryanology.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
We're going to
take a quick break.
When we come back,
Josh Richards,
who is a Mars One candidate
amongst many other things,
will be joining us.
And we're going to be
talking about-- we have
so many hashtags for this show.
It's not even funny.
We've been doing the Mars
nonhashtag from the beginning.
But we've got others
we can bring up.
It's going to be
fun, so stay with us.
We'll be right back.
[MUSIC - TIM MCMORRIS, "SHE'S
 FIRE WALKING"]
And welcome back to Tmro.
Now before we get started
with our interview with Josh,
we do want to get
a huge shout out
to all the patrons
of Tmro who'd love
to make this specific segment
of this episode happen.
These are people who
contributed $10 or more
to this specific episode.
But there are other
reward levels as well.
For example, the Producer Level.
These are people who
contributed $5 or more
to this particular
episode of this show.
And at those levels, you
get access to our After Dark
immediately, as soon as
we post it on demand,
you get access to our Hangouts
when we make those available.
I have to stop calling
them Google Hangouts,
because we don't
use Google for that.
You also get access
to many other things.
Head on over to Patreon.com/tmro
for more information on that.
And don't forget, we
need Launch Library.
So Benjamin@tmro.tv.
Email that information over.
We're going to go
ahead and welcome
Josh Richards to the show.
He is a Mars One
astronaut candidate.
He is an USU, that's the
International Space University
alumni.
He's one of the--
Peter Diamandis?
Peter Diamandis
Corporations, absolutely.
He was ISU staff as
well, and worked on NASA
HISEAS 3 as a mission
support specialist.
I believe I got that correct.
Cool.
Awesome.
So, welcome.
We're going to have a
very civil-- by the way,
I want to remind
everyone in Tmro
the great thing about
the community of Tmro
is that everyone is civil.
And remind everyone,
we debate the idea,
we don't debate the people.
So ideas are free reign.
Bash them.
People, not so much.
Respect the people,
debate the idea.
So mostly the community
of Tmro understands that.
Just a reminder because
Mars One brings up
a certain emotional something.
Even before the show,
we retweeted out
like I'm not sure I
want to use the hashtag
#Marsnone because
people are going to get
upset and all up in arms.
But it's fun.
It's a fun play on words.
So let's start with this, Josh.
Why are you on
Mars One candidate?
You've basically
said to this company,
yes, send me an one
way ticket to Mars.
I never want to
come back to Earth.
Screw those people.
I suppose the start for
me was that I worked in
stand up comedy for
the last 7 or 8 years.
Before that, I basically
studied as an applied physicist.
And I knew from my degree that
we probably had the technology
to try and get people to Mars
along the lines of Robert
Zubrin's Mars Direct
and things like that.
But we probably didn't
have the technology
to launch back off
the surface of Mars.
So in late 2012 I
started researching
to write a comedy show
saying why don't we just go?
Let's just send people one way.
Basically, leave Earth behind.
What's so special
about Earth anyway?
Let's just go.
And as I started
researching it, I
found this organization
called Mars One.
So I was already pushing for
the idea of leaving Earth,
and sort of going one way to
explore more of the universe,
and he was an organization
saying that they were
planning to do exactly that.
So I put my hand up for it.
Oceans, trees,
Nah.
What?
I'm good.
None of it.
Really?
Really?
I'm a ginger.
I live inside anyway.
So part of the Mars none
hashtag comes from the idea
that we in the space community
have almost zero faith.
I think it's like 0.000001%
that Mars One can do what
they're talking about.
Do you have any faith in
their ability to do this?
Or are you just kind of like
yeah, there was a possibility,
so I just put my hat into it.
I think we are in a position
where, as candidates, we
can try and make things happen.
The organization
itself is very small.
I would rather than describe
them as necessarily a company,
I'd call them a startup.
And that's really
the way they operate.
They have an idea.
They're trying to implement
ways to make that happen.
And there's 100
people that are short
listed to potentially
go on this mission
to Mars, this one way trip
that are out there, basically
being ambassadors for the
space community generally.
A hundred every day people would
have put their hand out to go.
That part is
actually pretty cool.
The being a space ambassador
for the community in general.
Starting those conversations,
I'm cool with that,
getting people
excited about this.
But getting people
excited about what
is essentially a
fantasy organization.
Mars One has missed all
of their milestones,
every single one of them.
They were supposed to
launch by now a lander that
was going on to Mars.
That's still in like
the draft, they're
writing paper on it still phase.
So the landing
you're talking about
was originally
scheduled for 2018,
but they have pushed
that back to 2020.
That's also basically a lander
based on NASA's 2005 Phoenix
Lander.
So they've done their initial
sort of eye level design study
using through Lockheed Martin.
Essentially looking at what
would take to build another one
and launch it in 2020.
So they're in a
funding bottleneck.
They have been for
a little while.
And that's basically what's
holding this sort of things up.
But isn't that what's
going to hold up
anyone going to Mars, funding?
I mean, we've said that
on the show before.
It's going to be a billions
plural dollar venture to get
even one human on to
Mars, let alone humans
plus all the supplies
necessary to keep
them alive for the
rest of their life.
How can they ever
hope to do anything
if they can't even fund a simple
lander to Mars at this point?
I suppose they are in a
position where they're trying.
They're an organization
that's starting out.
They're not an established
organization like NASA or ISU,
or anyone like that.
And I suppose they're
experiencing delays.
The segment you were
all just talking about
was talking about
delays in designs
of all various
different space craft.
Everyone sleeps.
So it seems to be a pretty
standard thing across the space
industry that we aim
for a particular time,
and it winds up being two years
later or four years later.
Yeah that's annoying.
Just in general in the
space industry I think.
Someone should just start
building realistic timelines.
So we harp on Blue Origin a lot
for not telling us anything.
But they seem to
maintain their ability
to-- maybe they don't
know a timeline.
So instead of two years
away, what they're showing
us is a month away, or
just already happened.
So maybe that is the
right way to do it
because speak out of
one side of your mouth,
and we're like we want to
hear stuff from Blue Origin.
The other side is like
yeah, but I don't want
to hear about a two year delay.
If you don't know,
you don't know.
I think we got a few
questions from the chat room.
So chat room in general
is asking a couple things
like-- Patrick
Swayze Christmas is
wondering how frequent
communication do
you have with Mars One?
So we probably
hear the candidates
themselves hear from Mars
One probably once a month.
And that's a confidential
email that we receive
that's not publicly accessible.
We've had a couple of
confidentiality breaches
in the past.
We actually lost a candidate
for breaching confidentiality
about this time last year.
So we get those communiques
probably once a month.
And there's also a
Mars One newsletter
which comes at about
the same time as well.
There's a few random
ones that come out here
and they every few weeks.
But yeah, probably once
or twice a month at least.
Nice.
Tewicket is asking haven't a
bunch of people already dropped
out?
And isn't there a new
registration wave beginning?
So the next
registration wave will
be after our third
selection round.
So at this point we had the
initial selection rounds,
we had medical selection,
and an interview,
like a psychological
interview phase.
And from that, that's
how they select the 100.
The next round is getting
those 100 together
to filter it down to 24.
And it's essentially
seeing how we work together
in groups, teamwork, all
those sort of things.
When those 24 are
announced, that's
when they'll reopen
for applications.
And yeah, we have lost a few
people through the phases.
We lost six candidates.
So they announced the 100
in February last year.
And within a month,
we lost six candidates
who it got a little
too real for them.
You're talking about
the rest of your life
on a barren dead planet.
Mars is a dead planet.
It sounds kind of
romantic, and awesome, I'll
be one of the first to do this.
And then you realize
no, no, no, no, no, I'm
the first to do this.
And then what do you
do after week one.
You go OK, it was neat for the
first week, this was awesome.
It's probably
more than week one.
But yeah, we've
talked about that.
How do you continue
to just maintain?
The more interesting things
with the delays for us
is that there have been big gaps
where we weren't told anything.
They left us in the dark.
And I suspect that
was deliberate,
because we lost a lot of people
between the medical phase
and the interview phase where
they basically didn't talk
to us for about four months.
Where people had
passed their medical,
there were short listed, and
they didn't hear anything,
and they had a
chance to you really
think about what
they'd signed up for.
And yeah, inevitably we lost
people after the interview
phase as well.
Let's back this question up.
They're not going
to have a lander
until the earliest of 2020.
Realistically,
probably not even 2020,
but let's pretend for a
moment it happens in 2020.
That means that
they're still going
to have to wait another cycle
at least before they could ever
send humans should be 2022.
Possibly two cycles,
which is 2024,
at the soonest that
humans could go down.
Were looking at 2026.
Sure, 2026.
By 2026, there is
a very real chance
that some other company will
have beat Mars One to Mars
with humans round trip.
So what is the point of Mars One
if humans are already on Mars
and can come home.
One of the interesting
things with all of this,
and it's been discussed a
lot over the last six months
is that Mars One's
potentially been
a catalyst for a lot
of this sort of stuff.
People weren't having this
discussion beforehand.
They were talking about
sending people to Mars,
they're talking
about round trips.
But the idea of colonization
wasn't on the agenda.
NASA's actually
changed the structure
that they've got, their journey
to Mars where they're actually
talking about being Earth
independent as opposed
to footprints on Mars
top exploration missions.
So I don't think Mars One can
claim responsibility for it,
but it's certainly been
part of the conversation.
If I may, can I ask what
your-- we all like space.
I watched your
little intro video
on the Community.MarsOne page.
It was really good.
Actually it looked like you
did most of that in one take.
So good job with that.
I know how hard that is.
I know from experience
how hard that is.
But one of the first things
you said when we opened up
this particular
segment was you're
talking about how you have
a background in science,
but that you are going
into the foray of being
a stand up comedian.
Or that's part of who you are.
Can I ask, are you actually
taking this seriously,
or you just along for the ride--
Strangely enough, I've
gone the other way.
So it started out being a joke.
It started out being something
that I'll put my hand up
for this, but the more
I've gone along with it,
the more I've realized
that actually this
is something that I've
wanted since I was seven.
Stoj can probably
relate to this a lot.
But in Australia, we don't have
any form of space industry.
We have a very small
space industry.
It's not present.
There's no clear pathway
for an Australian kid
to become an
astronaut, full stop.
We don't have a
space agency, there's
not that representation.
So when I was seven,
I vividly remember
seeing Andy Thomas
being selected
to Australia's first
professional astronaut in 1992.
And I saw that on the 6 o'clock
news, turned to my parents
and said that's what I
want to when I grow up.
And my mom and dad quite rightly
said that unless I became
an American citizen, I couldn't.
Because that's
what Andy had done.
He'd gone, I think he worked for
Lockheed Martin for something
like 10 to 12 years before
he got his US Citizenship,
and then he applied to NASA.
So there's no real clear
pathway for someone
to go to spice with
Australian flag on their arm.
So I shut the idea of
becoming an astronaut down
when I was seven, because I
thought it was impossible.
Because I'd been told
but because of where
I was born on this
planet, that actually
affected whether or not
I could go to space.
So discovering Mars
One was a catalyst
for me rediscovering just
how much I love space.
And all the things
that I've done
have been trying to be space
without actually doing it.
Hence, the physics, the
engineering, the military,
all of that has been me wanting
to find something as fulfilling
a space, and it didn't cut it.
So is that maybe Mars One's
big contribution to the space
industry is that I actually
don't believe they will ever
go, but if they get
people excited about it,
and then you realize no, I
don't need to be a US citizen.
Maybe I can go somewhere
else somehow else,
even if it's not Mars One.
That reinvigorates
a chunk of humanity
that maybe had
given up on space.
Is that the true
contribution of Mars One?
I like to think that
we can try and achieve
what we're trying to achieve.
Otherwise, what I'm doing
is just storytelling.
But I think the thing
that's doing right now,
the biggest
contribution it's making
is I have the ability
to go into schools
and talk to Australian
kids and say you
don't have to change
your nationality.
Space is the purview
of all humankind.
We figured that out
in the late '60s,
but we still work along all
those nationalistic lines.
So it's this
fantastic opportunity
for people all across the world
to get involved with space.
I find so many Australians
who are passionate about space.
And everyone says
the same thing.
Space is really hard in
Australia, and no one says yes.
But we've got one of
our correspondents
is from Australia,
and she is fantastic.
You are very
excited about space.
I've got another company
that we work with that
is based in Australia.
He was like yes, fricking space.
Everyone I talk to
in Australia-- now
probably because the market
I'm in is excited about space.
And you are in the perfect
position for a launcher.
If you put a launch pad right
down-- like Australia's is
in a brilliant spot to
launch people to space.
It is awesome.
Allow me to say, Australia,
build a space program.
Australia--
I think Lisa's going to
be going mental right now
with you saying that.
No, really, I mean--
Without delving into the
politics of it too much,
Australia did have
a launch program.
We launched some of the first
satellites out of Woomera.
It was something that was
ongoing for quite some time.
We have certain highly sensitive
US military installations
in Australia.
And as part of our relationship
with the US military,
there is a undiscussed
agreement that we don't
develop launch capability.
That is lame.
I blame the United
States for that.
That is not cool on us.
What about a private company?
Could a private company go
to-- so maybe the government?
Approval.
The [INAUDIBLE] government
wouldn't provide the launch
approval for them.
We have just had the first
case of a private organization
getting a launch certificate
to fly on Nanoracks.
Pair of recent
aerospace graduates
basically built a cube
set, and they got approval
to fly a Nanoracks.
That is the first time that
Australia has issued a launch
certificate since the '70s.
But then it can be done.
So they issue the
certificate, so it's possible.
But they're not launching
from Australian soil.
Ah!
Ah!
Politics.
I love politics.
Let's head it back
over to-- this
is actually a really great
conversation, by the way.
Let's hand it back over to
Carrianne for some comments.
Goodness, there's so many.
Do you think that the
timeline as posted
is even remotely realistic?
Coming from Destructor 1701.
I think they've
shifted back three years
in the last three
years, which says a lot.
If everything went according
to plan, then it would work.
But as we've just been talking
about, there's always delays.
There's always things
being shifted back.
I'm going to be in Guadalajara
for the International
Aeronautical Congress
where Elon is
going to be announcing about
the Mars mission sort of things.
And I'm really looking
forward to hearing
about Red Dragon going in 2018.
But I also wouldn't be
surprised if it was 2020.
And it's the same with Mars One.
We've reschedule that probe,
that lander from 2018 to 2020.
I wouldn't be surprised if
it got pushed back to 2022.
I wouldn't be surprised
if the supply missions
they're talking about,
or the Rover missions
they're talking about got
pushback from 2024 to 2026.
And that pushes the human
missions back as well.
So it is just the
nature of the business
that we air for these
dates, and more of them
than not we miss them.
It sucks though.
Because when the US
sent humans to the moon,
we said we're going to do this
in 10 years or less and we did.
And you have to maintain
that kind of timeline,
otherwise people
forget and stop caring.
And if you keep pushing it
all the way to the right
constantly-- and
the whole industry
is guilty of this,
not just Mars One--
if you keep pushing to the
right, people stop caring.
And that could be more
damaging than good.
We've had a bit of
an internal discussion
amongst the candidates recently
where one particular delay
that hasn't affected
the technical movement
of the mission, but
it has affected us
as candidates has
damaged a lot of faith.
It's upset me.
Because we had a deadline
that we were working
towards, and they shifted it.
And people work based on
essentially timelines.
We had an old
saying in the army,
where you never mess
with someone's food,
you never mess with
their pay, and you never
mess with their leave.
And if you extend
someone's mission,
or extend someone's
operations, or whatever,
you are messing
with their leave.
And it's the worst thing
you could do to a soldier.
And it's the same
thing with people.
If you delay this stuff,
it just upsets people.
Have you personally
gone through-- because it
seems to me that even with an
extended timeline, regardless
of how much faith you've put
into it, although it does sound
like you've put a decent
amount into it-- have you
started to make preparations
almost like maybe a cancer
patient would of like, going
through and not starting
new relationships, or
trying to make sure
you're saying all
the things that you
want to say to grandma?
Go through and really
preparing to go away.
There's still going
to be communication.
No, I know, but there
is still a certain amount
of after a while, I'm not going
to be able to my dog anymore.
Or not get a new puppy,
because you may not
be able to see the end of
that-- see what I mean?
There's a certain amount
of preparation in my mind
that would need to be
done if that was something
that I'd signed up for.
As I said, I do work for ISU,
but I still do comedy shows.
A tour, our solo comedy shows.
The show that I'm
doing at the moment
is actually all about that.
It's about how
applying to Mars One
has changed the way that I live
now because I have essentially
got two bags.
I have a standard green control
pack that sticks on my back.
And I have my ukulele bag.
And that's all I own because
there's no point having
lots of positions.
There's not going trying
to save up for a house
or buy a car, or
anything like that
because I might not be
here in 10 years time.
The relationships one
is an interesting one
that I probably won't
talk about here,
but it definitely
makes it interesting.
Nonstandard, let's say that.
Yeah, that's totally fair.
Totally fair, But it's just
something that I think about.
Like saving up for a car
or a house or something
along those lines,
that you're like well,
my turnaround time needs to
be much quicker than that.
It's interesting.
At the same time, like
if it all fell apart,
I wouldn't regret doing
the things I've done.
Mars One has made me more me.
It's made me really think
about the way I want to live
and the kind of
person I want to be.
And I think if it all
fell apart tomorrow,
I'd still want to be
working the space industry.
I'd still want to be living
like a nomad the way that I am.
I'd still want to have the
relationships that I do.
So being forced to
question whether or not
you would go one way to Mars,
leave everything behind,
has really sort of made me
realize more about who I am.
What would you do on Mars?
You've gone one way,
you're one year in.
You haven't just landed.
You land, you set up your
habs, you're one year in.
You've planted potatoes.
You've planted potatoes.
Of course.
What does your day look like?
What are you doing
on Mars one year in?
I think the primary
role that someone
like me is going to
fall into is going
to be either-- I'm
an OK engineer,
but my big thing is people.
If I was going to go
and do further studies,
I'd probably end up doing
a Masters in psychology.
So the big thing
for me is checking
in with the rest of the crew.
Just maintaining, looking after
the psychological World Bank.
That's primarily
what I do with ISU,
with the International
Space University now.
I look after the teams, I
look after the participants.
I make sure that they
are not freaking out,
that they've got
everything they need.
So I'd fall into something
akin to a psych officer.
So the usual sort of operations
that you have on the ISS.
Getting out, looking after
yourself, doing that pre
start sort of things.
And then I'd
primarily be focused
on either the psychological
well being of people
or trying to run
physics experiments.
I'm very interested in
the idea of us potentially
building some sort of
rudimentary radio telescope
to do the very long baseline
interferometry that you were
talking about before,
which would be amazing
if you could do that from Mars.
The data we could get back
would be extraordinary.
I think we're going to end the
interview right about there.
Now before we go, you still
do your comedy, right?
Yeah, I'm actually
on tour at the moment.
I'm not performing here
in the US right now.
But this essentially
my world comedy tour.
Where can people find
information on that?
Where can they find you
online to get more information
about what you're doing?
Everything that you're doing.
So I run a website under an old
pseudonym, TheMightyGinge.Com.
And there's basically everything
they could possibly want there.
I'm on Twitter as well, it's
@ mighty underscore ginge.
And Facebook is Josh
Richards Space Pirate.
Awesome.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much for taking
time out of your Saturday
and letting us politely
debate Mars One.
I'd love to know what
the citizens of Tmro
think about Mars One.
We've had a couple people
talking about Mars One
at this point.
Do you think it's
going to happen?
Do not think it's
going to happen?
Does it matter?
What do you think is happening
with the industry based
on Mars One?
Anything you want to comment
on this particular episode,
leave it on Facebook,
YouTube, wherever you want.
Speaking of comments, we're
going to take a quick break.
And when we come back,
comments from last week's show
Stay tuned, we'll be right back.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
And ow, I need to fix that.
It still doesn't go all
the way to black, does it?
There.
See?
It doesn't go all the way black.
Right there.
Oh my goodness.
We're totally leaving
that on the show.
Welcome back to Tmro.
That's what happens live.
Before we get started with
comments from our last show,
I want to give a huge shout out
to all of the patrons of Tmro.
These are the people who
contributed $10 or more
to this specific episode.
Thank you all of our
Premiere members.
We've also got our Producers.
Those are people who
contributed $5 or more
to this specific episode.
And we also have our
Patreon Plus Subscriber.
These are people who contributed
$2.50 or more to this specific
episode.
Now at this level
and above, everything
that you just saw, you going
to get access to After Dark,
you're going to get
access to those Hangouts.
You ask to do a bunch
of different things.
Each reward level
has a little bit more
as you go up and up the chain.
But there is one
more level, and that
is our Patreon Subscribers.
These are people who contributed
one penny, up to $2.49.
That's right, as
little as one penny
gets your name in the show.
Whatever you think
they show is worth,
you can head on over to
Patreon.com/tmro and help us
out.
Every single penny does help.
We appreciated all
of our patrons.
Thank you, everyone for
helping make that go.
We also have our
space pod campaign.
If you enjoy our space
pod correspondence,
it's a slightly
different campaign.
It's monthly instead
of episodically.
And we also have
the Launch Library.
If you don't want
to do any money,
you're willing to
contribute time,
Launch Library is where
we really need your help.
Let's go ahead and get
started with our comments
from last week's show,
hashtag #empossibledrive.
Clever.
Actually, that was yours.
You came up with that one?
That was a good one.
That was a good one.
Capcom get us started.
Sometimes I have
something good to say.
Sometimes.
A lot of times.
Once in awhile.
That's why I don't say much.
Anyway, this one
comes off of Twitter.
Thank you Mike.
Love you too.
I kind of think you're neat.
This one comes off of Twitter.
Go.
Thank you.
That was amazing.
Yeah, I planned that out.
Wait, wait, wait, go back.
No, see?
It's not the same.
Go back!
Go!
Go back!
Go!
Stay!
Go back!
Stay!
Wipe!
No!
Wipe.
Start.
I wonder if it would be
easier to test hashtag
#empossibledrive at ISS
International Space Station,
ship a chamber and a magnetron
up, wire it up and throw it
out the airlock.
You're not going to be
able to make it to-- Oh!
You're not going to
make it to the end
of the show with your voice.
Doug, you're out of my list.
I may not.
So obviously, if we send
one of these things up,
we can do some testing.
It's not a question of
just send it to the ISS.
That's a good idea.
We don't even need
to send it that far.
Just launch it off of a rocket.
The problem is it's a
payload, it has weight.
You have to buy--
yeah, it's money.
It's purely money.
Actually going to
the ISS might even
be harder, because now
it's further up than maybe
a secondary payload
on something.
There's lots of
things you would
have to assure NASA as well.
Oh, it's not going to
blow up on the way up.
It's not going to ignite this.
It's not going to do
this, this, and this.
I think the best
opportunity is either
going on a small launcher,
like an electron rocket,
or the firefly, what is it?
The Alpha I, I forget what
the Firefly is called.
Anyone remember what the
firefly rocket-- is it just
called a firefly rocket?
The firefly rocket.
Or as a secondary payload on a
Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Ariane 5,
pick your rocket.
Exactly.
Pick a secondary
payload on something.
Going up and you're just
shoving it out and being like,
all right, now do something.
Prove us right or wrong.
So that's your best bet.
But again, it's all money.
Even a secondary
payload is going
to be millions and millions
and millions of dollars.
Firefly Alpha.
Firefly Alpha.
I was right.
I said Alpha, didn't I?
Thank you, search.
Cool, thank you.
Moving on.
This one comes off
of Patreon, and is not
actually from the same
commenter as the one on Twitter.
Ben just made the slate wrong.
Aw!
This is Gary Bleck.
I'm sorry, here's what happened.
And back to me, all right.
Here's what happened,
I got so excited
about putting that
little Patreon logo,
I forgot to update the name.
So Gary Bleck, I'm sorry.
Back to the slate.
It says I wonder of the wife
would notice if I built an EM
drive in the basement?
Yeah, don't, don't,
don't build an EM drive.
I think in all caps, for the
first time ever in tomorrow
or spacevidcast history,
in the description,
at the top in all caps, we were
like, don't do this at home.
For realsies, don't do this.
Unless you are a trained
RF engineer with years
of experience, I implore you,
do not take your microwave apart
and build an EM.
I implore you.
Do not take your microwave
apart and build an EM drive.
It is dangerous.
You can hurt
yourself and others.
I'm not joking.
Don't do it unless you have
years and years of experience
in this exact field.
I think your power
company would know.
I think companies around
you using RF would know.
It would kind of be
a little obvious.
Capcom, next up.
This one actually
comes off of Tmro.Tv.
Whoa, our own website.
It happens
sometimes, not often.
Says Ben is wrong.
No.
No, I don't like this
commenter already.
The Orion nuke boom
boom proof of concept
subscale demonstrator
users high explosives.
So Jared could
fly one if he gets
the paperwork done for handling
high explosive and model
rockets.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
Why are we encouraging him?
You know what's
been the best part--
Zed, you're on my list.
You know what's been the best
part since the last episode?
I've started thinking about it.
No, no, no.
That's a terrible idea.
Guys, we got to convince
Jared not to do it.
Hashtag #shaveJared.
No, no, no, no.
Wait, did you say save
Jared, or shave Jared.
I meant to say save,
but I said shave.
I didn't mean that.
I meant to say save.
You can't shave him.
We got to keep
the hairodynamics.
This show derailed.
We derailed this show.
Next up.
I'm doing it.
This comment off of
YouTube from Rob Rocket.
Luckily you can pick your name.
I'll bet you that
by 2040 Mars will
have a population
of 600 or more,
and none will be from NASA.
When NASA finally lands, they'll
have to go through customs
and declare any fruit that
they brought with them.
That is hilarious.
Slash, I will indeed
take that bet.
I believe-- oh my god, I
see a wall of text coming.
I believe that NASA actually
will be some of the first--
maybe not the first--
but they will not
be so far along
that they'll have
to declare any fruit that
they brought with them.
I will take the bet that
NASA will be the first.
That they will or will not?
Will.
I think they'll be among
the first, if not the first.
Can I take a bet that NASA
is not going to bring fruit?
No, actually I
would take that bet.
I bet they will bring fruit.
You need fruit.
I will bet $100 the NASA will
be the first people to land.
Well, hang on, hang on.
NASA will land the
first people on Mars.
But how does that work?
Because it's going to be a
partnership between a bunch
people.
If it is a SpaceX based
vehicle that lands,
but they're in partnership
with NASA, do you win the bet,
or do you lose the bet?
This is so complicated.
This is complicated.
Citizens of Tmro
work out the details
of how this bet works
in the comments.
Figure it out for us, and
we'll deal with it next week.
I got $100 riding on it.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
You split the bet.
But it's going to
be a partnership,
because if it's NASA, it's
going to be partnership
with someone else.
If it's NASA humans,
but it's not--
If it's NASA with SLS, then
you straight out win the bet.
You double the bet.
People have to give you
extra money if it's with SLS.
I think you have
to get extra money
if SLS flies more than once.
Because if it's with
SLS it's a cost plus bet.
Rocket nerd jokes,
that is hilarious!
I feel like we should
end this show there.
You win.
You did.
You won the show.
You won the show.
Jared, Jared you won the show.
In fact, I am in fact going
to end the show on that.
That is a great place.
I'm not going to
go to wall of text.
That's ridiculous.
Actually we're going to
show the wall of text.
Show the wall of text.
I'm not going to do that.
Get rid of the wall of text.
If you wanted to see
the wall of text,
pause it, read the wall
of text and move on.
Thank you everyone
so much for watching.
That's our show for this week.
After Dark is up next.
I will not be here next week.
You'll be with your wonderful
hosts, Jared, Space Mike,
and Carrianne.
So thank you so
much for watching,
and we'll see in a week.
I won't though.
Bye.
