Loading summary
Transcript18 lines
- [00:00]
A
Indiana University strengthens tomorrow's workforce with practical, real world experience. IU grads make a difference in your community, serving as teachers, nurses and engineers who rise to tomorrow's challenges and meet them. Learn more at iu.edu impact, Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts, Radio News NASA has selected
- [00:27]
B
Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin, Firefly Aerospace, and other private space firms to robotic landers, rovers, even drones to the moon, part of a broader push to establish a sustained lunar presence before the end of the decade. We are talking about a base on the Moon. Here to discuss is NASA administrator Jared Isaac. Man, Jared, it's good to see you again and welcome back to Bloomberg Tech. I think the question for most people is the timeline, right? And which milestones you've set. The team, the agency has set itself from today to a future where we have the first human landing on the moon for that base.
- [01:07]
A
So great to, great to be chatting with you again on a subject that I really enjoy, which is America's return to the moon and building that enduring presence. Building the moon base now, we are very advantaged, which is why we can move so quickly because of programs like clips like LTV that have existed for some time at NASA. Now we're just, we're just turning up the wattage here. We are we, you know, sending a strong demand signal to industry instead of infrequent, bespoke landers, you know, every couple years, maybe, maybe one rover every 10, 13 years, which was actually, you know, a previous consideration to saying, let's get in a rhythm here. So we put a strong demand signal out to industry. We have a handful of missions that are going to launch to robotic missions, start building the moon base later in 2026. But starting in 2027, you should see a near monthly cadence of robotic landers on the moon. Several rovers, in fact, we provided an award for the first two crewed and autonomous capable rovers for the lunar surface. So when our astronauts arrive on Artemis IV in 2028, they're going to already have some infrastructure, the moon base, waiting for them. They're already going to have a rover waiting for them.
- [02:21]
C
And then in that time frame, it's not just intermittent anymore. It's not just those monthly visits. But when do you think people be working? Humans might even be living in some capacity on the moon there.
- [02:35]
A
So we are approaching the moon base in phases. So phase one is a lot of littles. We are dusting off the playbook that worked very well for NASA in the 1960s. We're getting back to an iterative approach so, you know, there was the Mercury program before there was Gemini, there was Gemini before Apollo and an awful lot of Apollo missions before we went right to the moon landing on Apollo 11. We are doing the same thing now. So phase one, we're calling it a science of survival. We're not going to lock in what the mobility strategy should be for logistics for astronauts. The power strategy, the surface comms, the orbital comms. Why would we try and nail and get all of that perfect today when we haven't been to the moon in more than a half century? So Phase one will be a lot of landings again, that near monthly cadence to learn and inform Phase two, where perhaps now you're putting a lot more tonnage on the, on the lunar surface. You have a lot more direction as to the type of hardware and capabilities you want to lock in on. So you don't need to have maybe monthly landings when we get into Phase two, but you have a lot more direction as to what should work for our intended objectives, which is to build out that habitable environment. And then Phase two, we're going to learn now having astronauts go from, let's call it a period of maybe even days on the lunar surface in Phase one to potentially weeks in Phase two, where you might get, by the time we move into Phase three, a similar astronaut rotation like you see on the International Space Station, where we could have crews potentially being on the lunar surface for, for months on end.
- [04:05]
B
You don't have that marked on your calendar administrator when Phase three might have a base that has humans actually living and working inside it.
- [04:14]
A
Oh, we absolutely have timeframes. I mean, we are looking at basically 2027 through 2029 for phase one. You have 2029 out into the early 2000 and 30s for phase two. But again, this is all going to be informed on what we learn during those first landings in Phase one. We have a plan which is really good, but we are going to learn and we're going to learn from every one of our robotic missions, every lander that we put on the moon to inform the next. There is a world we could pull in timeframes. And I was just talking with our moon based team on that just a week or two ago. You may not need 20 some odd landings under phase one in order to get the, in order to make determinations as to what the early phase 2 habitation and power and mobility considerations should look like. So I would say we're extremely focused on the mission of making sure when American astronauts return to the lunar surface, there's going to be infrastructure there and to evolve into that enduring presence to master the skills for where we go next, which is Mars. We have a great timeline, it's very well resourced and we certainly have the best and brightest and NASA work on it. We'll adjust those timelines as we learn.
- [05:22]
B
Jared, what gave you so much conviction on Blue origin and Mach1 in the first instance?
- [05:28]
A
Well, I would just say we have a lot of industry that's very excited to participate right now. So we put a heck of a demand signal out to industry during the ignition event. There were a lot of bidders across the landers, across the rovers. The Blue Origin Mark 1 is extremely useful for us in terms of the amount of mass it can put on the lunar surface. That's why we're going to use it for the actual rovers themselves, which are not small. I think also very importantly is we are partnered with Blue Origin as one of our two providers for putting astronauts on the moon. So we're going to learn an awful lot from these Mark 1 landings that are coming up. The transfer stage is very comparable to Blue Origin's approach for putting astronauts on the surface. And even though the lander itself will be different, there'll be eclss and other other capabilities necessary to sustain life and to crew rate it. They will obviously learn a lot putting their landers on the surface. The moon will learn a lot and that will help inform for, for Artemis 4 and beyond where we are going to count on Blue Origin as we are going to count on SpaceX for getting our astronauts and even more mass on the surface of the moon when we move into phase two and three.
- [06:35]
C
Let's talk about SpaceX. Let's talk about Starship. Let's talk about what, what you learned for Artemis on Friday night. How much confidence do you still have and dependence do you have on Starship succeeding?
- [06:48]
A
I mean, I think said it simply, Space X is our, is probably our greatest commercial space company hands down. We rely on SpaceX heavily to put our astronauts to and from the international space stations. We just modified an award to provide up to, I think six additional missions to SpaceX in that regard. They pioneered rapid reusability, catching rockets on ships on land. That directly supports our scientific endeavors. We are able to launch more missions of science and discovery thanks to SpaceX. It substantially brought down the cost of capabilities that we put in geostationary orbit. Some of the heavy mass items that we use Falcon Heavy for. I have no doubt Starship is going to contribute in a very meaningful way I've described it as almost a light switch moment for humanity when you have a fully reusable booster and upper stage that's going to be able to efficiently put lots of mass not just on the surface of the moon, someday on Mars. So you have Space X, you have Blue Origin, you have an extremely healthy commercial industry that's going to be able to support the construction of the moon base.
- [07:48]
C
Is Blue Moon a good backup if, say, the big bold bets that SpaceX takes? Does it take a bit longer than perhaps have been anticipated and we do see some timeline shift back?
- [07:59]
A
Well, I think that's why, in the wisdom of Congress, they were very supportive of NASA to have two HLs, two commercial landing providers under contract. And look, just as competition on the geopolitical stage is driving a lot of NASA's moves right now, which is a good thing. It worked incredibly well for NASA during the first space race. Well, competition works very well among industry. You know, you go to the Air and Space Museum here in Washington, D.C. when you walk through the main doors, you're going to see a Grumman lem, the landers that we use to put astronauts back on the moon during the first space race. I have no doubt whether it's SpaceX or Blue Origin, that they'd like to see their landers there as well. So I think they understand what's at stake. We love the competition between the two of them. And the nice thing is, over the next couple of years, we're going to see an awful lot of New Glenn's launch, we're going to see an awful lot of Mark one landers, we're going to see an awful lot of starships, and then we're going to bring them all together with Artemis 3 in 2027.
- [08:53]
B
Jared, there's an awful lot of focus right now on the orbital economy or future orbital economy, in part because of SpaceX's S1. Right. But I believe earlier this year on a podcast, you said that the orbital economy, or the idea of it, has been grossly overstated. Right. You were pretty modest, I suppose, about what the reality of that looks like. Has your thinking on that changed and what led you to make those comments? What is it that you see about a future economy in space, indeed, on the moon, that maybe industry is overstating or the outside world is overstating, saying,
- [09:33]
A
well, look, I'm just to be clear, I want nothing more than to see an orbital economy. I want to see a lunar economy come to fruition. I want lots of commercial space stations, lots of outposts on the moon. I want my kids to grow up in a world where maybe they could go to the moon and then we press on, we press onto Mars. I think it's my job when I, when I take a look at the resources that are entrusted into the agency by Congress, by the taxpayers every single year to make sure, you know, that we maximize the scientific and discovery value out of every bit of it. And that results in making, you know, kind of a build buy, partner decision on almost every procurement. And in that regard, there are some areas where we can buy services. NASA can, where we are one customer of many. And that's a great thing because then you have competitive forces that can improve a product and service capability and drive down costs. We know this to exist as it has existed for more than a half century in launch, observation and communication. NASA is one customer of many across all three of those, those services. The Dow is the other commercial companies are. When we start looking at other things to do, like let's just say, build a moon base. And I said this in yesterday's press event, look, I can put a demand signal out to industry and buy dozens of landers for the lunar surface to start constructing the moon base ten years from now. Can I tell you who's going to buy the 50th lander if it's not NASA? I don't have a clue. But I certainly hope that we will find a way to get more value out than what we have to put in to being on the lunar surface or being in microgravity outside of the established launch, observation and communication economy that already exists.
- [11:10]
C
Right, and the demand signals being put out by NASA, but they're also being put out by other countries and other ways in which we see competition. US versus China. How do you see the Chinese focus on the moon and whether it is a real competitive, competitive force versus NASA right now?
- [11:27]
A
Well, like I said, competition is a great thing. It worked incredibly well for us during the first space race in the 1960s. It allows us to do exactly what we're doing now at NASA, which is concentrate our resources on the most pressing national objectives and then also to empower our workforce to move at a speed that they haven't done in decades. And I'd say we're, we're off to a good, a good start coming off of Artemis II and where we're going Next with Artemis 3 in 2027. In terms of how I see this competition now, look, the getting the boots on the surface of the moon itself is probably going to be the closest element to this. I would say that the Chinese approach to it is very similar to the Apollo program. Lots of missions, iterative approach. You know, we were up until a couple months ago going from Artemis II flying around the moon to waiting three years to landing on the moon, which I've said many times is not ingredients for success. You need to be in the business of launching heavy lift rockets with frequency and you can't turn them all into a work of art. That said, I think NASA is extremely advantaged thanks to our partnership with industry in building the moon base. Like I said, we had the CLPS program, we have the LTV program, we have the healthiest launch market in the history of America's Space program from SpaceX and Blue Origin Rocket Lab Stoke. I mean, you name it, that means we have the ability to put a lot of mass on the lunar surface exactly where we want to be. Not just landers, but rovers. Start experimenting with power, mobility, communications, all the things you need to build a moon base. We are very advantaged in that regard. And then in terms of what comes next, we are going to finally America is going to finally get underway on nuclear power and propulsion in space in 2028 when we launch SR1 Freedom. And that is key to extending to achieving human missions to Mars someday and exploring the outer solar system. So we have a lot of advantages, but probably the one that people are paying most attention to that is going to come down to months.
- [13:16]
D
When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering and claims experience. Learn more@the Hartford.com riskmitigation policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates Hartford, Connecticut.