Speaker 1: Let's hear from people in the audience. The most important people. Because
without you I'm a guy in a room with a mic and no one's listening and it's sad. Okay, we don't
want that. Let's start today with Rose. I guess calling from the United States. Is that you, Rose?
Speaker 5: Yes. Can you hear me clearly? Speaker 1: Yes. The United States is so general.
You could. You could be anywhere, you know. Speaker 3: Sure.
Speaker 5: Privacy preserving. So did you watch the launch of
the ocelots and the artemus one mission? Speaker 1: You know, I did not see it,
but I saw, you know, a little bit of a replay. Speaker 5: Oh, it was it was unexpectedly moving
and spectacular. Like the plume itself from the rocket was like a mile long.
Speaker 1: Yes. That's a lot of pollution, it sounds like, Rose.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't say it's hydrogen and oxygen, so it's more static. Those
gases, it's just what? A paper. Speaker 1: Oh, is that right? Is that true?
Speaker 5: I did. The first stage is hydrogen, oxygen, the solid rocket boosters,
they they do burn fuel. But, yeah, most of the output is just water.
Speaker 1: Oh, well, if that's true, then I like water. Water is good.
Speaker 5: Yeah. The question I wanted to ask was that it took us. 11 years
at this point. Ten years. A decade. To get to this launch. And the program so far has cost
around $27.5 billion. Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: In 2020 $2. Right. And. I am. I'm just. And the reason why we have this
like a 62.5% off a Twitter feed and like e-learning and it's the so the reason why
we have that is because a single senator from the great state of Alabama, Senator Shelby,
wanted to save jobs in his state. So we have an entire $27.5 billion program
because of him, not because people like myself wanted to do this. And this is the best technical
way forward, but mostly because of congressional and Senate interference in the process.
Have you given thought to how we can get past this kind of corruption?
Speaker 1: Well, I would like to see one of the things in general I mean, I can't speak
to the exact process you're describing because I did not follow it clearly as closely as you
did. But one of the things I would prefer to see when it comes to everything in under the
umbrella of science, and I would include space exploration. There is, if there could be. A way
to de-politicize some of the decisions. Like, of course, the jobs for a lot of this spending will
disproportionately be in some states and not others, that there's no real way around that
you're not going to be able to say, let's do space exploration and divide the money equally among 50
states. It's not going to happen. So I know. Speaker 5: That there will be some do that.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 5: So if you're presenting a contract,
like when Boeing presents a contract or even Space X, they actually make sure that they have
suppliers from all 50 states. Speaker 3: From the.
Speaker 1: Way they have from North Dakota for this project.
Speaker 5: And like something from Park Nuts or something, there is a list of suppliers that
sheet on that. Speaker 1: That's great. But I think
the point still stands that you don't have exactly equal dollar for dollar in job for job division
across all 50 states. So there's going to be some elected officials that will be more incentivized
than others, maybe to go with a particular approach. I don't know if we need a nonpartisan
advisory committee, which I'm sure it probably exists, at least in some name, but clearly it's
not effective enough because you still get these extremely political outcomes. I don't know what
it is. It's something that needs to be equivalent to the ways we could redraw districts more fairly.
But I would love to see more scientists involved in figuring out, rather than doing it this way,
which is most appealing to these senators, we should do it this way, which is actually where
the most exciting potential rewards exist based on where the science is. And I don't know what the
answer is. Rose As to exactly how you do that. Speaker 5: So in Europe,
like CERN, for example, you get a specific inflation adjusted contribution from member
states. Mm hmm. Member states get to get ten people to their council, which sits on top and
basically votes on spending decisions by CERN. If CERN wants to build a big particle collider,
they start decades in advance, like they've already started for saving money and setting
aside that and financing and everything else for a client that's going to be built in the 2040s
to the 2050s, right? So they're planning like a 30, 40 year time horizon. Nasser is constrained
by the yearly budget, and they have to spend every single penny in that yearly budget and
they're not allowed to save money. That makes it. Speaker 1: Yep. That absolutely that I totally
understand that mechanism. I do think that having to plan 30 or 40 years ahead also makes
the progress at least seems slower. And I don't know if that will work for an American audience
that wants to see action more quickly. But I think we should explore all of these options.
And I really appreciate the call, Rose. Speaker 5: Chris, thanks for taking the
call, David. My pleasure talking to you. Speaker 1: Thank you. There is Rose
from the United States.