Planetary Radio: Space Exploration, Astronomy and Science - Talking with NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

Episode Date: May 22, 2019

The former Oklahoma congressman and Navy aviator stepped into the leadership role barely a year ago. Now he wants to see humans back on the Moon by 2024 as a vital stepping stone to Mars. Join us for a wide-ranging conversation about this ambitious plan and much more. Planetary Society Chief Scientist Bruce Betts continues the countdown to launch of LightSail 2 before he takes us across the heavens in What’s Up. You can learn more about this week’s guests and topics at:  http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/planetary-radio/show/2019/0522-2019-2019-jim-bridenstine.html Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A conversation with the leader of NASA, Jim Bridenstine, joins us this week on Planetary Radio. Welcome. I'm Matt Kaplan of the Planetary Society, with more of the human adventure across our solar system and beyond. I'm back from the last of my many trips in the last month. They climaxed with last week's Humans to Mars Summit in Washington, D.C. You'll hear the great material I gathered there in the coming weeks. It was backstage at H2M that I met the man who has been NASA Administrator since April of 2018. James Frederick Bridenstine was an Oklahoma congressman when he decided to go for leadership of the world's foremost space agency. Now he is at the forefront of the latest plan to return humans to the moon and to do so

by 2024. As you'll hear, he views this as an essential step toward reaching Mars. It has only been a couple of months since this ambitious goal was announced. Plans are still being formulated, and we only know how much additional money the agency wants for the first year of its development, but it has a name, Artemis, goddess of the moon. Choosing a female namesake was very important to Bridenstine. First, though, there were several other topics I wanted to cover in our interview, recorded on the morning of Tuesday, May 21st, while the administrator was in the Washington headquarters of NASA. Administrator Bridenstine, it is an honor and a pleasure to welcome you to Planetary Radio. Well, thank you, Matt. Always good to be here. Let me start with

something on the personal side. I made a great visit to your home state two weeks ago. I joined my boss, the science guy, for a fun event at Science Museum Oklahoma. I got to interview author and historian Bill Moore. Have you seen his terrific book, Oklahomans in Space? I have, and I know Bill Moore personally. I used to run a little non-profit museum in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and so I got to know him. And Oklahoma has an amazing history in space exploration. It really does. I mean, I was aware that you had a lot of astronauts come out of Oklahoma, but the overall contribution by Oklahomans has really been tremendous. That's right. And in fact, if you go back, you think about the Oklahoma heritage, Oklahoma, I should say Tulsa, Oklahoma was at one time the oil capital of the world. People wonder, well, what does that

matter? Well, you have to remember in the 20s, 30s, 40s, aviation was really being, it was being brought into the mainstream. The oil companies in Oklahoma were very keen on seeing aviation be successful because it would mean that they could sell more oil. And so they invested heavily into the aviation industry. And of course, that eventually translated into the space industry. And when I say in the aviation industry, they sponsored air shows and air races and those kind of things. They did everything they could to normalize aviation. And then when it came time for a space enterprise, Oklahomans actually stepped up and said, well, wait a second. We think we could build the external components for the Saturn rockets that are going to take our astronauts to the moon.

And in fact, we bid on it and won those contracts. Going forward in Oklahoma, we built the Bay doors on the space shuttles. We built all of the truss structures on the International Space Station, the big devices on the International Space Station that maneuver the solar arrays for power on the ISS. So Oklahoma has a proud legacy of supporting America's space agenda. When I had the opportunity to run a little nonprofit museum, I got to tell these stories quite a lot. You sound fairly proud of the accomplishments of your state. When did you get bit by the space bug?

I was an aviation enthusiast my whole life. When I was five years old, they made us draw a picture of what we wanted to be when we grew up. And I drew a picture of an airplane and I said I wanted to be a pilot. And I spelled it P-I-E-L-E-O-T. That was kindergarten. When I got in, eventually I went to Rice University. I was interviewing for like investment banking jobs and consulting jobs and I couldn't do it. It just wasn't me. It didn't fit my personality. I wanted to be a pilot my whole life. So I joined the Navy. I became a pilot. When I got my wings of gold as a naval aviator, my mom actually came to my winging ceremony and she brought that picture

that I drew when I was in kindergarten and I had not seen it for, well, all those years. And when I saw it, I immediately remembered, I'm like, oh my God, I remember that. I remember making that pitch. And of course, now it's framed, hanging on my wall. I had the aviation bug, I would say, my whole life, Matt. And then there came a day, really, when I got to Congress, I ended up on the Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which deals with our national security space capabilities. But I was also on the science committee and the space subcommittee, which oversees NASA. And then I was on the environment subcommittee, which oversees NOAA. And about half of NOAA's budget, 40% of NOAA's budget is space related activities. So for five and a half years in the House of Representatives, I was working

space issues. I got the impression when you were up for this job, when you were nominated, and of course, you've been in now for a little bit over a year, that this was something you really, really wanted to do. Yeah, it absolutely was. I really believe that the United States of America has a lot to offer when it comes to leading the world in space exploration. And it's different today than it's ever been before. You go back to the 1960s when we went to the moon, it was the United States against the Soviet Union. It was about politics. It was about economic systems. It was about demonstrating technological prowess. And today it's totally different. We have a

partnership now with Russia that goes back to 1975, the Apollo-Soyuz program. We have a coalition of nations on the International Space Station, 15 different countries that operate the International Space Station. that have flown to the International Space Station. And we've had 103 different countries from all around the world that have had experiments on the International Space Station. So this really demonstrates an ability of the United States of America to lead, to bring people together. And when geopolitics are struggling, we're able to continue to collaborate on space exploration. I think that's really unique and special about space. And it brings people together, even in Congress. It's bipartisan. And so I really thought this was a great opportunity. And yes, I'm very, very thrilled about having this opportunity. And you can expect me to come back to that international collaboration that Space Fosters.

You know, after all, my boss says space brings out the best in us and brings us together, just as you just said. Absolutely. All of us at the Planetary Society, we hate it when we hear people say that NASA went away when the last space shuttle landed. Does that get to you too? It does. And a lot of people say that. And I'll just tell you, just since I've been the NASA administrator, I'll give you an example. It wasn't, I guess it was three or four months ago, China landed on the far side of the moon. And it was an amazing achievement.

I tweeted congratulations. That's a really big deal. Landing on the moon is very difficult. Landing on the far side of the moon is even more difficult. on the far side of the moon is even more difficult. But the amount of questions I got from members of Congress and people, public in general, about how has NASA lost its way? And I remember sharing, okay, let's talk about this. They landed on the far side of the moon. And for that, we should all be very thrilled. What a great accomplishment. It's also true that the United States of America landed on the far side of Mars. And we did it just a matter of months ahead of their landing

on the far side of the moon. And by the way, we've landed on Mars now eight times in human history. And the United States is the only country that's been able to achieve that. And while that was happening, just a few months after that, I should say, that. And while that was happening, just a few months after that, I should say, we had the Osiris Rex probe enter orbit around Bennu, which has never happened that you can enter orbit around an asteroid that small. And Osiris Rex is going to be bringing back samples from Bennu so that we can get those samples and not just do research on them here in the United States, but share those samples with the world and demonstrate that when it comes to exploration, this is an agenda for all of humanity. At the same time that OSIRIS-REx was entering orbit around

Bennu, we had the New Horizons spacecraft flying by Ultima Thule in deep space, four billion miles from Earth in the Kipper Belt, and getting these beautiful images of this snowman-looking asteroid, this binary contact, as it were. And we're still getting amazing data back from that. So when I hear people say, what happened to NASA? I'm like, we're going gangbusters. We're doing great things every day. And now we just had the Crew Dragon attached to the International Space Station.

So we're getting ready to launch American astronauts from American soil again. There is no shortage of amazing achievements happening here at NASA all the time. I'm thrilled that there's an organization like the Planetary Society that's willing to go out and share that with all of the world, as a matter of fact, all of the world. These collaborations are really important. And thank you guys for what you do. On behalf of the society and our members, I'll say you're very welcome. And thank you for the enthusiasm, the passion that you bring to it. Just last week, your former colleagues, the ones on the House Appropriations Committee, approved a $22.3

billion budget for NASA for next year, fiscal year 2020. And I'm told the bill doesn't have a whole lot to say about your new moon plans, which we'll get to. But there is a lot of good news for other programs. How does it look to you? It's great. Now, I will tell you, we certainly want to have resources to go back to the moon, to accelerate the path to the moon, to accelerate the path to the moon, to land the next man and the first woman on the South Pole of the moon in 2024. That is on our

agenda. We certainly want to do that. It is also true that the amendment to our budget request came in the same week they were marking up the bill. So the idea that that was going to get somehow weaved into the bill that late in the game was not realistic, but we did share with them what we're trying to achieve. The Senate has not yet marked up their bill. What I'm hoping is the Senate will mark up with the resources necessary to get to the moon. And then of course, the House bill and the Senate bill will be conferenced, and we'll get a really good budget for NASA to achieve all of these important missions. Well, let's talk about Artemis, the name that you've given this lunar program. I love that name, by the way, the sister of Apollo. We've been here before.

There was the Space Exploration Initiative. There was, years later, the Constellation Program. Neither one of us got this to the Moon or to Mars. What do you hope is different this time? You're making such an important point, Matt, and this is why the Planetary Society is so important to this effort. We need to be able to communicate to people that there is a reason we're not at the Moon right now, and there is a reason, in fact, we're not at Mars right now. We should have humans on Mars even right now. And the Planetary Society has been doing great work on this for many years. But here's the reason, politics. That's what it comes down to.

We've had these ebbs and flows where we've got this agenda to go back to the moon and on to Mars. The Space Exploration Initiative back in the 1990s was that effort. And then, of course, priorities changed, budgets changed, Congress changed, you've got administrations changed, and next thing you know, it's out the window. Then in the early 2000s, we had the vision for space exploration, same thing, challenges with the war in Iraq and distractions, and next thing you know, the program gets canceled. So in this particular case, what we're trying to do is make sure that we learn the lessons of history, that we build a program that is, in fact, sustainable so that we can get out the door, get to the moon and get there in a sustainable way so that America and all of our international partners, we can have a program that we are all very proud of for years to come.

Part of the reason we want to accelerate the path to the moon, and I want to be clear because I know the Planetary Society is very keen on Mars. So are we. The best way to get to Mars is to use the moon as a proving ground. It's a place where we can learn to live and work on another world, to utilize the resources of another world to live and work, and build a sustainable architecture that we can then apply for a mission to Mars. The moon is our best, quickest, safest path to get to Mars. That's our agenda here. Our intent is not, we do not want

to get bogged down on the moon. We want to have a sustainable presence at the moon, but we also want to get humans to Mars. How do we not get cast to and fro the way we've been cast in the past? And in my view, Matt, our right approach is to accelerate. How do we reduce the political risk? is to accelerate. How do we reduce the political risk? We go faster. The sooner we get there, the less opportunity there will be to cancel the program. I mean, I'm just being brutally honest about it. This is really about reducing the political risk. Everybody knows the technical risk. NASA has thousands and thousands of amazing scientists and engineers that can retire the technical risk. I have no doubt if it's just technical, we'll be on the moon in 2024 with a sustainable program, and we'll be

architecting the path to Mars. But I will also tell you that in order to make this happen, we have to not just retire the technical risk, we have to retire the political risk. And to do that, we need to accelerate the program. And that's really what we're trying to achieve here. Five and a half years, maybe, if we're going to get there by 2024. I'm not alone when I say I'd love to see this is, as you know, pretty far behind schedule. But whole new systems, like a new lander. I mean, I joke, you could just pull the lunar module out of the Air and Space Museum and go with that. But there's so much more that's left to be done. And those political considerations, challenges that you've said are the biggest challenge. That's right. So in a way, politics has actually been beneficial. In this case, there was a time when there was a move to cancel what was called the Constellation Program. And

instead of canceling the whole program, in fact, the House and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, stepped up and said, we need to preserve the SLS rocket, the Orion crew capsule, the European service module, we need to preserve these elements. The House and the Senate actually did that. And because of that, we actually now have the tool to get our astronauts, no kidding, to the moon. Then the question is, well, how do we get this done in five and a half years? As you said, that's an aggressive schedule. Well, because of what was done in years past, we have those elements of the architecture.

We are right now underway with what we call Gateway, which is think of a small space station in orbit around the moon. And the Gateway is going to be maneuverable, so we can have more access to more parts of the moon than ever before. That gateway is ultimately where we are going to aggregate components of a lander to go down to the surface of the moon. So between now and five and a half years from now, five years from now, I should say, we need to have the gateway on orbit around the moon,

and we need to have a lander aggregated at the Gateway. So those are the two components that are going to be the highest focus for the next five years. SLS and Orion, with the European service module attached to Orion, those elements are going to be ready easily by 2024, 2025. And in fact, we'll be ready to fly our crew to the gateway in 2024. And at the gateway, we're going to have a lander assembled for those crew members to go down to the surface of the moon. The other thing is, if you'll indulge me for just a second, there's another

important piece to this. And you mentioned the Artemis name. We are also proud of Apollo, which was 50 years ago. 50 years ago when we did the Apollo project, it was test pilots, it was fighter pilots. That's where we got our astronauts from. Back then, there were no opportunities for women. And now we have this very diverse and qualified astronaut corps. So think of this, 50 years after Apollo, we can name a program after the twin sister of Apollo, who happens to be the goddess of the moon. And in this new program, Artemis, we are in fact going to take America's first woman astronaut to the surface of the moon. I just think it's a wonderful story. I want people all around the United States, all around the world to see themselves as having this amazing opportunity that wasn't available back in the 1960s and the 1970s. I've got an 11-year-old daughter. I want her to see herself as being an astronaut capable of flying to the moon. So I really think we're at a unique moment in time to make this a reality. And why not? Just yesterday, as we speak, Eric Berger at Ars Technica, I bet this is a big topic around

NASA HQ today, published what is apparently a preliminary breakdown of the missions that will be required, not just to achieve that human landing in 2024, but to establish a permanent presence by 2028. It's very ambitious. And I realize this is preliminary. It wasn't really ready for publication, it looks like. I mean, do you want to talk about it? Does it though lay out what is at least being talked about there in the halls of NASA? So I have not read the Eric Berger article, although I should, because you're not the first person to bring it up. I'll need to read that. But but here's the thing. SLS, we've got we've got three launches of SLS that we need to get done between now and 2024. The first one is uncrewed around the moon with Orion and the European service module.

The second one is crude around the moon with Orion and the European service module. The second one is crewed around the moon with Orion and the European service module. The third one, the third SLS launch, I should say, we're calling it Artemis, the third Artemis launch, Artemis 3. It will be an SLS with an Orion service module and crew going to the gateway. That's three SLS launches, the third one with crew to the gateway. Between now and that day in 2024, we need to build the gateway. There's two elements to the gateway that we have to have to get to the surface of the moon. We need the power and propulsion element. It's solar electric propulsion. So the gateway will be sustainable.

It's going to be around the moon for 15 years. It can stay there for long periods of time. And it's going to have around the moon for 15 years. It can stay there for long periods of time. And it's going to have what we call a utilization module. Think of a very small habitat. We don't want people staying there for months at a time, but certainly it's going to have the ability to sustain life for a period of time. So those two elements are going to require commercial launches to build the gateway, which is the first two elements of the key pieces to get to the surface, and then attach the gateway. We're going to have three elements potentially, and different contractors could offer different proposals, a transfer vehicle to get from the

gateway down to low lunar orbit, a descent module to get to the surface of the moon, and an ascent module to get back to the gateway. So the idea is you have two elements of the gateway that will be assembled. You'll have a lander that includes three elements. And in fact, we want two very distinct landing systems provided by two very distinct contractors in order to reduce risk. And if there's a setback by one, the other one can go forward. And if there's a setback by one, the other one can go forward. Right there, there's eight commercial launches to get that first woman and next man to the surface of the moon, the south pole of the moon, in fact, in the year 2024.

That's the architecture that we're looking at right now. But I want to be clear, Matt, we're doing this in a way that's never been done before. People say, well, how much is it going to cost? We want specifics how much it's going to cost. This is what's important. To get from the gateway down to the surface of the moon and then back to the gateway, we are talking about buying this as a service. We're not going to purchase, own, and operate the lander. We're not going to generate thousands and thousands and thousands of requirements and micromanage every piece of this architecture. We're going to buy a service from a commercial provider that is going to have customers that are going to be people other than NASA. So who are those customers? Well,

we don't know yet, but I believe that they are out there. Could be tourists, could be manufacturers, could be people interested in pharmaceuticals. There's a lot of different customers that could be out there that would have an interest in getting to the surface of the moon, could be interested, could be people interested in using the water ice that we discovered back in 2008 and in 2009. So there's all kinds of opportunity here. We're going to receive proposals from industry and see who can provide what and see what they're thinking as far as costs. And of course, we want to share in that cost, but we're expecting our commercial providers to also invest their own

resources so that they can have a market that goes beyond NASA. Would you call this new commercial lunar payload services program, otherwise known as CLPS, Is that sort of a first generation of what you're talking about? That's exactly right. So CLPS is our intent to buy access to the surface of the moon without us purchasing, owning, and operating the hardware. We have scientific instruments, we have landers, we have other things that we want to get to the surface of the moon to do all kinds of different scientific experiments. What we don't want to do is we don't want to purchase, own, and operate the hardware to get our science capabilities to the moon. We want to have a commercial provider. And for CLPS, we're talking about very light payloads. We're talking about 15 pounds, 20 pounds, small payloads to the surface

of the moon. And we want to use these scientific instruments to make characterizations about the surface of the moon so that when our astronauts get there in 2024, they can no kidding do very meaningful work. And so we're going to have potentially dozens of missions to the surface of the moon between now and 2024 that are going to be small payloads, NASA payloads delivered commercially to the surface. And through that process, that's going to be run by the Science Mission Directorate. We're going to learn all kinds of things about precision landing, about the surface of the moon, about communication architectures.

We're going to learn all kinds of things that will then be applicable to our eventual human landing. So the answer is yes, absolutely, Matt. We intend to use CLPS as a technology demonstration capability as well as a science capability to feed forward to our eventual moon landing in 2024. More of my conversation with NASA Administrator Jim Breitenstein is moments away. Stay with us. with NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine is moments away. Stay with us.

Forty years ago, my professor, Carl Sagan, shared his dream of exploring the cosmos with solar sails. The Planetary Society's LightSail 2 will soon become the first small spacecraft to be propelled only by the light of the sun. I'm Bill Nye, and I'll be there as a rocket carries our craft into orbit. Tens of thousands of members have made this day possible. Already part of our LightSail team? Thank you.

It's never too late to join us. You can learn more at planetary.org slash membership. Back to Artemis directly. You called the $1.6 billion augmentation that NASA and the administration have requested for FY 2020 to begin this. You called it a down payment. It doesn't sound like a lot of money. Several old hands have warned me that it's a mistake to go small upfront because the initial planning phase is so critical to success for a big program like this is inevitably going to be. Are you concerned about that? So the answer is yes. That's something that I worry about. I want to make sure that this program

not only gets out of the gate, but actually gets completed. And so learning the lessons of history is critically important. And understanding the concerns of the old hands is definitely important as well. I will also say, listening to this particular podcast from other folks, if you go back and you hear the Space Exploration Initiative in the 1990s, what resulted in its cancellation? They came out of the gate with too much money. And Congress immediately said, well, that's too much. We're not going to be able to achieve that. And Congress, it never got launched. So the answer is, when we talk about any kind of development project, and for this, we're talking specifically about landers to go from the gateway to the surface of the moon, we are talking about a standard bell curve of funding, where the initial

years are pretty low. I should say the initial year in this case, since we are accelerating, is fairly low. And then it goes up from there. So the second year, the third year, it accelerates. And then the fourth year, the fifth year, it starts coming back down as you get into sustainable operations. That bell curve, what I would like to have had, and who knows, maybe the Senate will help us with this. I'd like to take the money that's required for the entire program and get it all in year one. Then we don't have to worry about the bell curve and whether or not we're going to get it in year two, three, and four. But instead, the way Congress funds things, it's one year at a time. And we need to make sure that

for the year 2020, we're getting the money that we need in the year 2020. And then from there, we go to 2021. The appropriators very fiercely guard their ability to control the money year in and year out. And I understand why they do that. I used to be in the House myself. That's how they have checks and balances on the executive branch. It's written into the Constitution. Certainly, I fully respect that.

But you're right. It does create concerns. We want to make sure that we not only get started, we want to make sure that we finish this project. I will tell you that there is bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for this project. And I will work very closely with the appropriators as we go through this. You've made my colleague Casey Dreyer very happy because I think you were referring to our monthly Space Policy Edition and his recent conversation with Mark Albrecht. Yes, that was what I was. Yeah, good, good. Yeah. Well, Casey, we'll have to send you a note. Thank you for that.

You know, speaking of you said bipartisan support. Now, maybe I'm not as well informed as I should be, but I haven't heard of anyone in Congress so far out and out saying that they oppose this plan, but there are definitely members who want to hear more. How are you going to win over the more skeptical among them and maybe even a few of those who have other motives? Well, the key to this whole thing and the reason it hasn't succeeded in the past, we have to keep it bipartisan. That's what I've been working on. When I went through the confirmation process, I committed to everybody that we would run this in an apolitical bipartisan way. I think we've had a lot of success with that. It is true. As far as I know, nobody has come out and opposed it. There are people out there that say we need more information. Believe me, I understand that. We want to work with them to get them all the information they need to feel comfortable

with this project. I will also tell you that members of the House and the Senate on both sides of the aisle have said to me privately, we want to make sure you're getting what you need. We don't want to shortchange you. Is this enough? There was actually one questioner on the record. It was Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan, who I have great respect for because he cares a lot about space, especially when it comes to

space weather. He's really involved in space weather. And he asked me on the record in a hearing, he said, is this enough? And I answered, I said, well, sir, it's enough for the first year, And I answered, I said, well, sir, it's enough for the first year, but we're going to need more in future years. I really think that this is an apolitical bipartisan kind of thing. People want to go back to the moon. They want to have this moment where we recognize we haven't had a person on the moon since 1972. And because of that, there has been no women on the moon. 1972. And because of that, there has been no women on the moon. I think that there is strong bipartisan support for this Artemis program, where for the first time, we're going to demonstrate that this is a program for all of America, everybody, that includes not just women and men,

but all races and ethnicities. We really have a moment of opportunity here that we didn't have in the 1960s and the 1970s. And I think it's important that we capitalize on it. Let's turn to the international side of this that you brought up earlier. I talked last week at the Humans to Mars Summit with the representative of JAXA, the Japanese space agency. She had positive things to say about support for the Lunar Gateway. And now I've read that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may sign an agreement for support of the Gateway, participation in the Gateway effort as soon as next week. Do you expect the same to happen with other international partners that will depend on? I absolutely do. If you look at what the Canadian Space Agency has already done, they've already

signed up for a 24-year commitment to our lunar activities. I should say, when I say our lunar activities, I'm not talking about just the United States. I'm talking about ours, like collectively, all of the international partners. As we go through the budget process for these other countries, I think what you're going to find is strong support for going back to the moon. I don't want to preempt any announcements by the prime minister of Japan. But I do think that it's not going to just be Japan. It's not going to just be the European Space Agency. I think it's going to be countries. There's countries right now that have space agencies that are a year old.

There's countries right now that have space agencies that are a year old. Greece and Poland and Luxembourg. And there's all kinds of countries that want to participate in this. And we're trying to figure out ways where they'll have that opportunity. India has a great space program now. They're interested in going to the moon. In fact, they've got their own moon mission coming up. They could be helpful.

Brazil is interested. There's countries out there that right now are not partners on the International Space Station, but that want to be partners with us when we go to the moon. And we are interested in figuring out how we work with them to achieve that. I will just bring up once again that quote from my boss, space brings out the best in us. You've been very generous with your time, and you do have a space agency to run. I got just one more for you. I read that you made 333 carrier landings in your Navy career. I've had astronauts who've done both tell me that landing on a carrier deck at night is a lot scarier than anything they've done in space. Do you want to

make it at least into low Earth orbit someday so that you can make that comparison? Well, I think I'm beyond my prime as far as that goes. But as far as carrier landing, I was never scared. I always had it made. It was always good to go. I'm kidding, of course. I'm kidding.

I was every bit as my heart rate was probably over 200. I remember those days. And I'm glad that I'm kidding. I was every bit as my heart rate was, you know, probably over 200. I remember those days. And I'm glad that I did them. I'm glad that I served my country in that way. I'm also glad that I'm not doing it right now. But do you want to get up there someday? I mean, if somebody offered you a ride, at least up and back, or maybe in a low Earth orbit, or maybe a visit to a moon base? Without question, if there was ever an opportunity, I would take it in a heartbeat. And certainly, I will also say, and Bill Nye talks about this a lot, if you look at our astronaut corps, these are all just amazingly accomplished individuals, people that have three or four PhDs plus being a Navy SEAL all at the same time.

I'm pretty sure I would not make it through that process. But I will also tell you, I'm glad that we have the amazing astronaut corps that we have. But I also want to make sure that as we commercialize low Earth orbit, we are expanding access to space for everybody. That's the goal. We want everybody, the more people we can have experience space flight, I think the better we're going to be as a country and the better it's going to be for all of humanity. I'd like to make that trip with you, Administrator Breitenstein. All right, we'll do it.

Thank you very much for this and best of success as you continue to lead the leading space agency on planet Earth. Thank you, Matt. And I just want to say a shout out. I know your listeners at the Planetary Society, they listen to this. We are so grateful for the great work of the Planetary Society. And without your leadership, we wouldn't be where we are right now. And I just want to encourage everybody to continue doing what you do to make sure people understand the importance of space exploration. Many thanks for that as well. Jim Bridenstine, he became NASA's 13th administrator, just 13

since what, 1959, I think. Barely a year ago, April 23rd, 2018. He came to NASA, of course, from Oklahoma, where he represented the first congressional district. Time for What's Up on Planetary Radio. We are joined once again by the chief scientist for the Planetary Society. And he, well, we're going to get to what's up in the night sky and all the other stuff. But obviously, light sail is on our minds at the Planetary Society right now. You've got an interesting little sidelight, an insight rather, into what it takes to get a spacecraft up there, having to do with what, paperwork? Indeed, having to do with paperwork. So in addition to all the paperwork you want to keep, or at least electronic versions of everything you're doing to the spacecraft, there are also wonderful regulatory requirements from the

U.S. government, including from the FCC for having a radio license, which we just got radio license applicable to the new launch period. Then we've been having lovely required correspondence with NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who, of course, is the organization in charge of monitoring any spacecraft, U.S. spacecraft, that has a camera on board. Really? That's great. We filed our pre-launch submission to them. We also had previous submissions to them. We've got the new license from the FCC. And so it's fun times. Things that most people don't know, nor do they want to know, are required when you fly spacecraft in space. But you, you lucky dog, you get to deal with all this.

I do. I do. And I have a good team that helps me out. That's good. I'm glad because I know how much you love bureaucracy. One of the reasons I work at the Planetary Society is my dislike of bureaucracy. Let's go ahead and talk about what's up there in the night sky, soon to be joined by LightSail 2. The morning sky is kind of petered out except for Jupiter and Saturn still being up in the south in the pre-dawn. But in the evening sky, Jupiter and Saturn moving into the evening and they're rising. So Jupiter's actually looking like a very bright star in the east in the mid, early mid evening. It'll be brighter than any other star in the sky.

And then Saturn's coming up around the middle of the night looking yellowish. Oh, and Mars, don't forget about Mars. It's really recalcitrant if I actually know what that word means. And is hanging on in the southwest in the early evening looking reddish and not that bright. That doesn't have anything to do with calcium, does it? It's the reuptake of calcium, recalcitrant. I really should try not to demonstrate my confusion on vocabulary on the radio, but oh well.

We move on quickly to this week in space history. I'd have to demonstrate my confusion on vocabulary on the radio, but oh well. We move on quickly to this week in space history. It was a long time ago, 60 years, 1959, the successful flight of the monkeys, Abel and Baker, suborbital flight into space and back. And then 10 years later, Apollo 10 descended with its lunar module to within 15.6 kilometers of the moon's surface in a full rehearsal preparing for Apollo 11. A happy anniversary, General Thomas Stafford. Indeed. And by the way, we've continued to put new pages on our website about the Apollos every time we pass an anniversary. So Jason Davis has prepared a wonderful Apollo 10 page you can find under our mission pages

on our website. Planetary.org, he's doing great work with that. Thank you for mentioning it. We move on to Random Space Fact. Well, I like that a lot. But, I mean, here's maybe the biggest omission I've ever made in not getting a celebrity to... You didn't ask Administrator Bridenstine to do random space fact? I'll call him back right after we're done. All right.

Well, you have my permission to replace mine if you actually did that. Thank you. Speaking of NASA and who works for them, there are more than 17,000 people who work as employees of NASA. And of course, lots, lots, lots more who are funded as contractors and getting grants and other things, but about 17,000 actual employees. Big organization, yeah, that he runs. All right, we move on to the trivia contest. And I asked you the somewhat complicated question. What is the name of the 930-meter asteroid that will fly by Earth

at 0.65 the distance to the moon in June 2028? Spooky. How do we do? Most people came up with this. There were quite a few who had an alternative, 1997 XF11, but it actually is going to make its close pass later in that same year. Apparently it's a big year for big rocks going by our moderately big planet. The vast majority of people did come up with what I think you were looking for. I'll give you the full name.

153814-2001-WN5. Oh, boy, it's so sexy. Just even talking about it, I start to sweat. Yeah, I just call it Bob. Well, we had a few people who said that they're putting in either Kaplan or Betts as they're nominating us for the renaming of it. We got that, amongst other entries, from Paul in London, London, England. He's a longtime listener, first-time winner. Is he correct, first of all?

Yes. Fantastic. Paul, I'm glad to give this to you. Why? Because he has let me know in the past that among the things he does in life, he takes groups of young people all over the world to show them interesting parts of our world, and they spend a good deal of time looking up at the night sky. And he depends on what's up to give him clues as to what to, to point out to the kids. That's cool. Paul, you're going to get yourself a planetary society.

Oh, you, you jumped the gun. You're, you're warming up. I can tell a planetary society, kick asteroid. Asteroid and and a 200-point itelescope.net account, that worldwide network operated on a nonprofit basis out of Australia, where we have so many listeners, telescopes all over the world that you can use to look at stuff all over the universe. Anyway, that's what Paul's going to get. Speaking of Australia, Chris in North Turamura, Australia, Turamura, Turamura, he says, really, it really, it really does need to catch your name, like almost destroyer of worlds or, or something. He says he looks forward to Dave Fairchild's poem. What rhymes with WN? Staying Alive? Well, stay tuned. You'll know in a moment, Chris. Benton, I'm not sure where he is, but we've heard from him before. He says,

with a mean diameter of almost a kilometer, it's a big fella, the mean diameter of 932 meters means, you ready, that would have a cross-sectional area of about 21,300 light sail twos. Oh, it gets better. The new area unit of the universe. If it's a sphere, you could cover it with 85,300 light sail twos, but you might have to cut some up. Honestly, I could come up with some better ideas for what to do with that many light sails, but we've only got a little more than nine years, and we'll need to make more than 25 per day if we want to have that asteroid covered.

We'll take that under consideration. Here's Christopher in Williamsburg, Virginia. He says, coincidentally, 2001 WN5, they considered that name for their second child, but for some reason they went with Lindsay. Well, maybe there'll be a third. As promised from our poet laureate, Dave Fairchild, in just about nine years from now, an NEA comes near and how? It flies by in June, closer yet than the moon, much nearer Nye wouldn't allow. I'm going to have to talk to him. Yeah, good stuff this week.

Okay, we're ready to move on. All right. We will move on in the vein of NASA Administrator fun. This is a simple question, but I have to put all sorts of caveats on there because of the tricky audience. Name everyone who served as NASA administrator more than once. That's the simple version. Now, acting administrators count.

Terms of office must be non-contiguous, in other words, separated by some time. So acting administrators who are then immediately appointed administrator don't count. And that's the equivalent of my fine print. Are you sure you don't work for NOAA or the FCC? No, but I've been reading a lot of those documents. Maybe that explains it. All right. It's a great question. You need to get us your answer by the 29th. That's Wednesday, May 29 at 8 a.m. Pacific time. And you might win yourself one of those Planetary Society rubber asteroids

and a 200-point itelescope.net account. All right. Go out there, look up the night sky, and think about if you took NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine to ice cream, what ice cream flavor would you offer him? Thank you and good night. That whole asteroids on the brain thing makes me think Rocky Road. I'll go with that.

I like that. And I like doing this segment every week with Bruce Betts, the chief scientist for the Planetary Society. He's here every time with What's Up. Planetary Radio is produced by the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, and is made possible by our proud members. Mary Liz Bender is our associate producer. Josh Doyle composed our theme, which was arranged and performed by Peter Schlosser. I'm Matt Catlin, at Astro.