Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Dr. Geoffrey Landis: Refining Regolith, ISRU, NASA, Power Beaming, Solar Cells, and Space Economics | ANTHROFUTURISM | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Dr. Geoffrey Landis: Refining Regolith, ISRU, NASA, Power Beaming, Solar Cells, and Space Economics
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
This content is an interview with a pioneering figure in Lunar In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), discussing the historical development, current challenges, and future potential of space exploration and resource utilization, with a particular focus on the Moon.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
So, I originally found your work
whenever I was researching like ways to
refine lunar regalith
>> and I found like one one of the hardest
problems is how to reduce all of the oxides.
oxides.
>> And I found your your paper on calcic
reduction. And then from there, I just
started reading other work that you had
done um your florine uh process and um
and so that was really cool. and I made
a video on refining regalith. And then
later I was making a video on how to
make solar cells. And of course I ran
into your work again. And then later I
was making I was looking into making
lunar glass and there your name was
again. And so you're kind of everywhere.
Um and so we we kind of call you like
one of the founding fathers of lunar
ISRU. And so it's an incredible honor to
interview you. Yeah. And um I know it's
been a while since you've really done a
lot of that work, but um to a lot of
your work is very near and dear to our
hearts and we're um it's pretty it's
like stuff that's currently being
relooked into today. But um but I guess
my question for you is how did this
journey kind of start for you? How did
you get into NASA and ISRU?
>> Uh well actually I started out uh as a
posttock at NASA working on solar cell development.
development.
So my entry into the field was through
power systems and and solar cells. But I
should also say I've been kind of a
space fanatic since way before then. I
was the generation that was just coming
into uh uh college etc. when uh Gene
O'Neal uh came out with his uh well
great book on uh L5 colonies, lrangee
point colonies and was sort of very
interested in uh in that and of course a
big portion of O'Neal's argument was
saying that if we're going to do this we
have to use the resources already in space.
space.
So, one of O'Neal's
ideas was he did ask the question,
what's the economic base of a space
colony? And that is the most critical
question. I think we have to say we
still haven't totally answered that. It
needs to be answered. Uh but he pulled
away uh Peter Glazer's concept and said,
well, the economic basis is to make
power systems. make power systems that
could beam power to the earth. Uh but
just as important, maybe more important
I think is well, you need power
everywhere in space. So he got me
thinking about the question, how would
you actually realistically make solar
cells on the moon? So I was sort of
combining my knowledge of how to make
solar cells with uh the question uh
what's available on the moon and how do
we how do we use it?
Yeah. So, there's several branches of
that I wanted to get into. Um, I guess
what do you think ultimately is the
utility of the moon?
>> Well, to start with, it really is the
closest destination that has resources
that we can use. So, if we're going to
start making settlements in space, it is
the place to start because it's it's the
nearby place and we can learn how to
utilize the things we can find in space.
Uh, of course, asteroids are also
something we should think about, but
they're thousands of times further away.
Uh, there's a strong argument among some
people in the space community that says,
well, ultimately we'll get our resources
from asteroids in the near term,
probably nearear asteroids and a farther
term main belt asteroids and maybe
beyond that into the uh uh into the ice
belt. But to start with, they're just
too far away. We have to start with what
we have nearby and that's the moon. Of
course, recently we've been pretty
fortunate in that uh after many decades
of speculation. Uh we're pretty sure
that there is large amounts of water ice
at the pole regions of the of the moon.
So a lot of the thinking recently has
been well let's uh stop exploring the
near equatorial regions that was mostly
the focus of Apollo and uh well let's go
down to the near polar regions where we
have not only all of the regalith and
all the things that you might be able to
make with the various components of
regalith uh but we also have some of the
volatile compounds most notably water of
course but several other volatile
compounds seem to seem to be there. So
the story is beginning to come together.
But again in the long term for
settlement the question is what is the
economic base going to be? Uh what are
we getting or what are we making that's
going to to pay for the endeavor?
>> Yeah. And O'Neal argued heavily for
space-based power. And I know you're
you've you have a long history of
looking into power beaming and you're
you've done recent research with that.
Um, and I had a whole list I had a whole
list of questions regarding like
refining and stuff, but you're jumping
right ahead, so I'm all for it, though.
Um, I guess
>> jumping behind sort of how I got started.
started.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, it makes sense. Um, so
you were interested in the power beaming
and sort of um trying to see where you
could help fulfill O'Neal's kind of
vision. And uh I read the high frontier
and it's I feel like a lot in that book
still stands today. Um, and I could tell
he was trying to give um, a hopeful
vision during troubling times uh, during
the 70s and stuff. And I see a lot of
parallels with um, what he was pushing
for then and today. Maybe it's just the
continuous state. Um, maybe it never
really changes, but um, I definitely
think I guess I was curious. So a lot of
the the the biggest push back that I
hear when it comes to space-based power
beaming is that well the difference
between like a no Neils day and today is
like today solar panels are so cheap and
uh I'm curious if you still think
there's a strong case to be made for
space to earth power beaming and then
that kind of answers the question of
what's the utility of the moon because
the if the answer is yes then it's like
well the moon is
>> it's mass already in orbit right it's
the feed stock from which we can make
those um so yeah but I guess I'm
wondering do you still think there's a
strong space for space power beaming to Earth.
Earth.
>> Yeah. Uh I should emphasize of course
that that's not the only possible
utilization of the moon. It was just the
the one that sort of kicked me off. Uh
and once we can start manufacturing
things on the moon, there's a lot we can
do with it. And uh probably a nearer
term case would be if we are going
forward and settling space uh we are
going to need power. So the customers
very likely the first customers for
solar cells made on the moon would not
necessarily be customers on Earth but
would be customers that are moving out
uh into the solar system that would want
power systems that are made and we don't
have to lift up uh from the from the
surface of the earth. The case for
beaming power from space to earth is so
complicated and so technology dependent
that it's hard almost to answer that question.
question.
Uh it's a question of can it beat out
other technologies.
Uh other technologies would be for
example uh what if we could use
superconductor cables to
to
move power over distances of tens of
thousands of kilometers.
So well that's a crazy idea. Uh it's
really hard to make systems that
transmit power tens of thousands of
kilometers. But if we could, then it
obiates a lot of the same problems that
space-based power uh deals with. It
allows you to make power, for example,
in Africa and use it in England or to
make power in uh who knows in Mexico for
example and send it to Alaska.
Uh so it's very technology dependent. uh
can we get
uh space-based power to the point where
it's a clear winner over other
technologies? And the answer is maybe.
Uh it would probably be a development
system that we just keep incrementally
improving. So, well, let's see.
Yeah, I think the best argument I've
heard for it is that there's um
ultimately if you think further into the
future, it is like the ultimate scalable
technology. Like there even if we
covered the entire planet in solar
cells, um the only contender that kind
of could give it a run for its money
could be fusion. Um but then fusion has
its own problems. Um whereas spacebased
power is just a matter of scale. like
we've had this technology for, you know,
decades now. Um, so I'm all for both,
but I definitely I question. So I I do
question if you have any thoughts
regarding um microwaves versus lasers
for beaming, if there's inherent
advantages or disadvantages.
>> That would be a long discussion that I
think probably should should push off to
another uh another discussion. That
really is a long discussion.
>> The quick answer is different
technologies have different niches. >> Okay.
>> Okay.
I wasn't trying to get too lost in the
weeds regarding this subject. Um, so you
mentioned the first customers for spaceb
space power will be customers in space
and I was curious what you thought about
um instead of sending all the power from
space to earth industry the idea of like
moving earth industry to space and so
you're using the energy where you're
creating it and sort of offloading the
power burden from earth you know it's
kind of approaching the problem from the
different from the other direction.
Yeah, that's been one of the arguments
that people have been made. Uh once we
have resources in space, once we can tap
the resources of of the moon and beyond
the moon, uh why not move manufacturing
off of Earth? Why don't you just
manufacture everything in space? Why
dirty up the planet that we love?
uh when here's a a a planet where we
really can't pollute it because there it
isn't uh there's there's nobody there.
Uh I love that idea. I think to some
extent people are arguing it backwards.
What will happen is when we start
manufacturing in space, we discover that
everything that we call a waste product
on Earth, we would call a resource in space.
space.
um all of the things that are
pollutants, we'd say, "Oh my gosh, look
at how valuable that is. We can use it."
So, the space industry is going to teach
us how to recycle all of the products
and the byproducts of manufacturing.
Uh we're not going to just dig stuff up
and throw out most of it and and say,
"Well, okay, it it doesn't matter if we
use two tons of kryolyte for every ton
of aluminum we make cuz oh, we'll just
dig up some more." Well, uh pretty much
have to learn technologies that reuse
everything. We can't afford to throw
away stuff and say, "Oh, we've used it
once and and thrown it away."
So I think the real benefit of space
manufacturing is it will teach us to
manufacture without polluting.
>> Why do you think it takes space to do
that? Do you think like why couldn't we
do that on Earth? Do you think there's
sort I guess to kind of answer my own
question is like I feel like the value is
is
>> when we start sort of new like in a new
>> space it's um
>> it's easier to we have all the Yeah. you
don't have the baggage, the historical
baggage. That would be
>> Yeah, that's a big part of it. Uh when
we start a new in space, we're not
forced to do the techniques that uh that
we've always used on Earth. In fact, we
can't if we make steel on Earth, we dig
up a couple of tons of coal and use that
to reduce the iron oxide. And of course,
we wouldn't do that uh in space. We have
to come up with a a non-polluting uh
technology. We can't burn fossil fuels
for energy in space. We have to do
something that uh gives us the
technology to work without uh without
burning stuff we dig up out of the ground,
ground,
>> right? And people lots of people talk
about the um advantages of the uh you
know nearly limitless solar energy in
space. It's just how much surface area
you can you know collect. But I think a
very overlooked is actually is the
advantages of vacuum in space especially
when it comes to things like True. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And uh that could be a huge boon to our
industry just that alone. Um you
mentioned steel and uh of course I
mentioned like I discovered your work
when I was looking into refining
>> and um I know you did the calcic
reduction. I've I actually recently did
some calcium reduction experiments of uh
some lunar regalith and uh the results
were very interesting. Um yeah it's very
cool. Um and then uh your florine
process and um
and I was curious um do you have any
thoughts? Are you familiar with like
pyrolysis the concept behind you know
pyrolysis and using the vacuum and just
like thermal energy to reduce the oxides?
oxides?
>> Yeah, people have proposed vacuum
pyrolysis. I'm a little bit skeptical of
it. Uh when you start vaporizing things,
what you discover is that the vapor
condenses everywhere. you're sort of
getting uh uh junk over over everything.
The other problem with vacuum pyrolysis
techniques is that they're very very
high temperature and high temperatures
are just hard to deal with. Uh you
always have materials problems. It's
even hard to it's easy to get a moderate
temperature solar furnace. It's okay if
you start pushing it up into high
temperature, but when you start really
getting into uh the temperatures where
you can start dissociating these uh
complex oxides and silicates, wow, it's
hard to hard to produce that. It's very
energy inefficient. So, I'm I I've
looked into it, but it's not my favorite
technique. But I won't uh if somebody
can develop it, I'll say, "Hey, wow,
great. Do it. See see what you can
learn." Yeah, I think the idea behind
that is that like with the uh levels of
vacuum that you get on the moon, you can
do it at like you could break like uh
silica uh silicon dioxide or aluminina
at like 1500°C. So that's like around
where we melt still today. But like you
said, the vapor just kind of gets
everywhere. And I think that the real
the the lynch pin of that techn the hard
thing to figure out is how to do like uh
like uh differential distillation, how
to kind of separate, you know, molecular
distillation. And I would really like to
see that done more, but it's kind of
hard to like, you know, test that in
vacuum and then try how you don't dirty
your vacuum system. And um >> yeah,
>> yeah,
>> and and then also like regarding that,
it's um if hopefully you could get high
purity. That would be the dream. But
that's also I I think that's why you
made the florine process.
>> Um because your goal like in order to
make solar cells, you have to refine
regul, right? And then the florine process,
process,
>> we would have probably have to import
florine from Earth. probably the the
nickel alloys of the system from Earth, but
but
>> you could have that 99.9999,
however many nines it is that you need
um and and silicon for solar cells.
>> Um so I I I guess I was curious if
you've uh had any more thoughts or done
any more work with the florine process
since that paper you published.
>> No, actually I sort of moved on from
that to think about calcium instead. uh
mostly because a lot of the calcium
process has been kind of thought out by
people working on refining titanium.
So it's a little bit further down the
the learning curve there. I think
there's still a lot to be said for
florine. Uh but there's also a lot to be
said for something that people have been
trying to industrialize for a a
different a different metal. And
actually titanium would be very useful
if we can make that on the moon as well.
Of course, uh ultimately we want to
distill everything out of the the
regalith. I think all of the components
are are going to be be useful.
>> Yeah, I think aluminum is like the holy
grail. I think if you can get that
because it's one of the hardest to get,
that's how you can make electrodes.
That's how you can make solar cells.
It's how you can make a mass driver. And um
um
>> but I did uh some calcium reduction, but
we haven't had it like fully. We did
like uh some um hydraulysis on it, but
we haven't done like a full quantitative
um analysis. that's coming. But we did
get like slack separation even though it
cooled so quickly. And I was just
thinking like, you know, we might be
overthinking this with all of these
different um methods of trying to figure
out purity. But if we're in like
somewhat low gravity and in the vacuum,
it's going to like self- anneal, right?
It's going to take so long to slow down.
What if all these like reduced oxides
just separate on their own? And so
you're just going to have like
>> oil layers of and it's like that would
just be so easy.
>> I guess the hard part would be returning
the calcium from the calcium oxide. Um, >> yeah,
>> yeah,
>> but you have electrolysis and different
approaches to do that.
>> That is the trick. You've got to you've
got to recycle at least all the calcium
that you used and uh and probably you
want to make some more as well. >> Yeah,
>> Yeah,
>> it is in itself useful.
>> That's not
>> Do you um do you have any thoughts on
like mass drivers or just
>> Yeah, mass drivers is one thing that I
haven't worked on. And I know a couple
of the people that have have worked on
on mass driver type uh experiments. Uh
but I think I'll have to say no, it's
out of my expertise.
>> Yeah, that's um I I feel like mass
drivers need a lot more uh attention.
And I also think like in a lot of ways
they benefit from like the equatorial
regions of the moon. And if like you had
a mission that was more about
establishing a mass driver rather than
boots on the ground, um it would change
a lot of the strategy and how strategy
kind of dictates tactics and it would be
like, okay, actually the equators are
really good for this.
>> Um like in order to make a mass driver,
you have to power it, you know, and you
can send up nuclear reactors, but you
could also make solar cells from the
regalith. And if you can refine
regalith, you could do both,
>> you know, and so the key to everything
is I think refining. Um, >> yeah.
>> yeah. >> So,
>> So,
>> solar cells of course has been kind of
my passion, but there's a lot more of
course that we want to be able to uh
build and make. We want all sorts of
structural materials. And as you say,
aluminum is going to be a very high
uh high value material, not merely for
structural, but also because it's a a
decent conductor. So, we can make wires
from from aluminum. Uh, copper, on the
other hand, is pretty rare on the moon.
It's not uh it's not completely absent
from the moon, but it is certainly not
something that we're going to get very
much of out of a refining process.
Calcium on the other hand is also a good
good material for wires. So,
>> and uh yeah, and we wouldn't have like
um the problems with reactivity as much
like with the you know the atmosphere
and stuff like that.
>> You don't have to worry about the
calcium wires going up in flames. Yes.
>> Uh your original papers looked and
suggested amorphice versus like
crystalline. Um, and I thought that was
just genius cuz the advantages are um,
like yeah, they're 10% less efficient
than like monochrystalline or polyrystalline,
polyrystalline,
>> but it's 100 times less material and you
could do like thermal annealing if you
have the hydrogen, you can, you know,
get the
>> uh, if you can, you know, saturate it
with the hydrogen. Um,
>> do you still feel like that's the case
that amorphice is still the best bet or
have there been some developments since
then that make you
>> Actually, I've somewhat changed my mind.
uh on that. If you're using silicon,
there really is a lot to be said for
amorphous. Uh you do need hydrogen, but
it looks like there's enough hydrogen on
the moon that you can make hydrogenated
amorphous silicon. Uh as you point out,
the efficiencies are a little bit lower,
but you don't have to grow the single crystal.
crystal.
Uh and in thin films, uh the
hydrogenated amorphous silicon has beat
out the uh micro crystallin silicon.
Nobody's really made good microchrystallin
microchrystallin
uh thin film solar cells with silicon.
It's a pity that would be a nice
solution. Uh but recently the solar
industry has turned to looking at a new
material called peravskites.
Uh now perovskite is just a mineral
structure. Uh it's a crystal structure.
It's not actually the material. But the
particular perovskites that they're
using uh have phenomenally high
absorption coefficients meaning that
they absorb a lot of light in a very
very thin layer which means that you
really don't need very much material.
Now the bad news is we may not be able
to make the peravskites easily from
lunar material. But the good news is
that their thickness that you need is so
little that it just isn't going to be a
problem to bring the peravskite base
material uh to the moon. I mean you need
a handful literally a handful of of
material can make a uh many many square
meters of of solar cell.
So the thinking would be that you make
all the heavy stuff from materials made
on the moon. You make the glass and
glass is a big deal. You make the
aluminum frame. Uh if you need
structural steel, you use make the
structural steel. You make the
substrates for deposition. All of the
heavy stuff is on the moon and the
peravskite layer is literally thinner
than a coat of paint. And well, okay,
you bring the paint can from the from
the earth. Uh there's a lot of interest
in peravskites on the earth. Uh and the
best perovskite cells are pushing the
efficiency of silicon cells. And
actually a lot of people are saying well
why don't we do both make one layer of
proskites and a layer of of silicon. The
difficulty of perovsky so far part of it
has been degradation.
Uh can you make them last? And for
terrestrial solar cells you want them to
last for 30 years. You buy a panel on
Earth and it comes with a 30-year warranty.
warranty.
The worst enemy of perovskite solar
cells on Earth is humidity. They degrade
when exposed to too much humidity. But
hey, no problem on the moon. There is no
humidity. Uh so it's very likely that
that might be the uh the absolute killer
solution in the moon is to bring the
paravskite layer, the actual solar
conversion layer and everything else,
the wires, the glass, the substrate, the
structure, everything else you can make
on the moon. So that would currently be
my uh my thinking.
I yeah I didn't realize that they could
be we call it uh um like magnification
or amplification of imports where you
have to probably there's potassium on
the moon obviously but it's in like
parts per million I forget what it is
going to be hard to get
>> the crate material one day
>> so you already have to bring um some of
your dopins but it's okay because it's
like you know a kilogram can make like
you know 100,000 square kilm or whatever
it is you know it's it's such a small
amount um because it's an atomic amount
and I I didn't realize props skites had
that similar effect. That's actually
really exciting cuz yeah, if you can
like you said bring you know a few grams
can turn into you know a square
kilometer or whatever that's
>> well that's awesome.
>> Probably not a square kilometer but many
many square meters. Yes.
>> Yeah. there's somewhere like I don't
know what the line is and I guess it
would depend on cost but there's some
trade-off where it's like it just
becomes worth it to just import versus
>> you know not and then like you said a
combination of like sourcing your glass
and all the heavy stuff
>> on the moon
>> that makes sense that's cool and I guess
if you if not then the fallback would be
probably amorphice >> well
>> well >> so
>> so
>> whatever people can make maybe people
will make those breakthroughs and can
make a uh a high efficiency cell from
thin film crystal and silicon so far the
people have tried it have not gotten
good results, but well, people keep
coming up with new ideas, so maybe
they'll maybe they'll find the solution.
>> Yeah. Well, hopefully. >> Um,
>> Um,
so do you have any unusual ideas for the
moon or space that people tend not to
talk about?
>> Oh, I have a ton of old ideas that are
in sort of my uh my idea files and say,
"Whoa, somebody ought to work on this,
but I'm too busy right now." Uh,
>> please share. Maybe we can make a list and
and
Well, one of the odd ideas that uh I
wrote up once for the journal of the
British Interplanetary Society was the
idea of a a sling launcher.
Now, actually people are working on a
similar idea for Earth where it's a
crazy idea. The idea of a spin launcher
where you spin around and then you
eventually let it go and uh just push it
off through the atmosphere uh based on
its momentum. That doesn't seem like a
reasonable idea. I mean, I love the guys
doing it. I wish them success, but I'm
thinking, well, pushing through an
atmosphere. Uh, essentially with a
sling, man, that's going to be a hard a
hard cell. But on the moon, that makes a
lot of sense.
So, my calculation was that you could uh
basically do a a tether, a thin rope of
a high strength material.
uh Kevlar would do. Uh ultimately, of
course, people talk about these uh
graphine nano tubes uh bucky tubes and
then you can just sort of slowly spin it up
up
uh and eventually spin it up to speeds
where you can exceed the uh escape
velocity of the moon. And I think, wow,
that should be would be straightforward.
Uh but I've just been too busy with
other projects to work on that one. I
really need a mechanical engineer for
for a collaborator on that one. If you
know any, send them my way.
>> Yeah, you need um so yeah, in general
like the moon the free vacuum means it's
like the capital costs are orders of
magnitude smaller and and also the
target orbital velocity is so much smaller
smaller
>> that mass drivers just make a ton of
sense for the moon and then for Earth
they would be nice, you know, but it's
like it becomes a much more of a mega
project. Um, I guess do you have any
thoughts regarding like the the um the
trade-offs between I guess spinning
versus just a linear like you know a
coil gun or a rail gun versus this you
know the kind of the spin launcher on
the moon
>> it just it uh takes less space in
general I guess
>> yeah in some ways it would take less
space although very likely space is not
going to be the biggest deal on the moon
if we have to make a master ivory that's
10 15 km long. Well, it's it's not a a
big deal. The real question on mass
drivers is can we can we scale them up
to that the speeds needed and the uh the
masses needed and that's an an open
question. There's certainly people
working on that uh that sort of problem.
Uh then people have proposed other
things from time to time, but uh I'm I'm
I'm good with whatever people can make
that can work. uh just launching off the
moon is uh it would be nice if we can do
that without using fuel.
>> Yeah, I was talking with a friend about
the spin thing and I and I I said I
think that the disadvantage is that you
have to wait for it to kind of spin back
down before you reload it versus like a
coil gun you can just shove, you know,
constant stuff in. And he responded,
"Well, not necessarily because if you
have a long spinning one in the center,
it's going to be going really slow and
towards the end it's going to be going
extremely fast. So you could just sit
there and load it on. you could feed it
from the center. Yeah. In general, mass
drivers and coil guns, uh, the limiting
factor is how fast you can charge up the
capacitors. So, you're probably not
going to be shooting off, uh, one
payload every minute or two. You're
going to be spending most of your time
charging it up and then uh, then one
brief uh, 30 second discharge and then
back to back to charging it up.
Yeah, I think that's like a big
advantage of the a spinning launch
system if you can feed it in the center
is it can just be kind of fed constantly.
constantly.
>> Um just a giant, you know, motor more or
less. And then uh yeah, were there any
other uh crazy ideas you have?
>> Oh, I could probably go through files
and find uh my share of of crazy ideas. There's
There's
ideas are one thing. Uh turning them
into reality is the hard part,
>> right? Um and some of these questions
are coming from like my audience and
stuff. Uh and someone asked are there
any common mistakes or misconceptions
you have seen among like space
knowledgeable people like in the NASA
expert pool or just in general uh which
you feel are sort of holding us back in
some ways?
>> Wow. Now that's an interesting question.
There's certainly a lot of
misconceptions in space, but I'm not
sure if
because once you get to the people who
are actually doing the engineering, they
mostly know what the what the
misconceptions are. Uh
I think the one thing that I'd like
people to think about a little bit more uh
uh well
well
not really a misconception but I really
would like to see more work done on some
of the nuclear systems for the moon. Uh
both nuclear power systems but also
nuclear rockets. We worked hard on
nuclear rockets in the late 1960s
and then when the program to go to Mars
got abandoned,
the thought was, well, we don't have a
target for the nuclear rockets. Why are
we making them? So, I guess that's not
really a misconception,
but it's a line of research that I think
we really need to get back into to uh
expand uh both from the moon and even
from Earth to Moon. That would be nice
to have. Uh but really useful when we're
going to go out from the moon and go
further out into the into the solar system.
system.
>> There's a lot of different like designs.
Is there are there any nuclear
propulsion designs that are sort of near
and dear to your heart or
>> I would like anything that works. Uh
right now of course the two uh major
contenders are nuclear thermal
propulsion which is high thrust and
pretty good specific impulse but
requires hydrogen as a fuel and nuclear
electric propulsion which is low thrust.
So it's slower uh but is tremendously
fuel efficient. So my thinking is well
let's uh let's do them both. We need
them both.
>> Yeah. I always like the uh I think it
was the Orion um the craziest one which
is you know where they drop a bomb out
the back and push. I've always
questioned why can't we do that instead
of a big spring like a mechanical spring
why not use um like electromagnetic
fields like as a spring so it I don't
know maybe you could tune them in and
then tune them out with the explosion so
it'd be like squeezing you know a bar of
soap in some ways. Um anyways that's
just my crazy thinking. Yeah, I think in
the Orion uh pulse nuclear propulsion,
the mechanism of shooting the bombs out
behind the spacecraft is the least
difficult problem in the in the whole system,
system, >> right?
>> right? >> It's
>> It's
riding a riding a nuclear explosion at
close distance. Now, that would be exciting.
exciting.
>> Yep. For sure. Um, and then I've always
thought, you know, in general, like most
of our biggest achievements like
throughout history have come from
infrastructural developments and stuff
and and energy like if you have energy,
you could do anything. So that kind of
gets us back to the
>> energy and space question. >> Um,
>> Um,
>> so I guess going back to the I think the
first thing you said, which is that like
the the economic um side of things,
>> what economic incentives do you foresee
very early on? I know O'Neal said
space-based solar power and also living
in space habitats. I question I think
people would like to live in habitats
but I'm don't think that sort of solves
the chicken and the egg problem. M
>> I think that comes after um for me I see
oxygen exported from the earth uh for
you know our low earth orbit um
infrastructure um as a potential first
uh market and then also possibly tourism
although I
>> that one is probably more limited and it
comes with its own human spaceflight
>> drawbacks. What are your thoughts on this?
Well, actually another idea that I think could
could
be looked at in more scrupulous detail
on the moon would be mining for precious metals.
metals.
A lot of people have talked about, oh,
we should go to nickel iron asteroids
and try to harvest platinum group metals.
metals.
And that's a tricky idea, but might not
be a bad idea. The problem is that while
platinum group metals are enhanced in
the asteroids compared to the Earth,
that's not quite the same as saying we
have ore deposits. You still have
deposits that are now many parts per
million instead of a fraction of a part
per million. But that's still not
entirely a dumb idea.
But there's plenty of nickel iron
asteroid fragments on the moon. Uh if
you just rake break through lunar
regalith uh with a magnet uh you'll find
pieces of nickel iron because it's been
sitting out there for four billion years
getting bombarded and some portion of
the bombardment has been with with
nickel iron.
So, what I would look into if I were
trying to be an entrepreneur to come up
with a trillion dollar idea for how to
use the moon, uh, I would look into
separating out some of these nickel iron
fragments and using a uh probably a carbonal
carbonal
uh processing to harvest out the
platinum, platium, aridium, erodium
group metals. So, that would be my
thought for an economic basis for the
moon. Uh, shoot it down if you want, but
uh, it's it's something that we could
use on Earth.
>> Well, uh, yeah, there's a lot to say. I
was going to mention earlier when you
mentioned people say we should go to
like Earth asteroids, but they're so far
away. It's like people forget the moon
is covered in asteroids.
>> Um, so that's there and it's easier to
get to. It's uh like also the thing with
like even near-earth asteroids is the
time involved and just getting to them
due to like orbital dynamics and stuff
which if you've ever played you know
like Kerbal Space players will know like
getting to a near earth asteroid is not that
that
>> it's near Earth but it's harder to get
to. Anyways, um but you mentioned uh
carbonal uh processing for those specifically.
specifically. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> How why that versus like calciumothermic or
or
>> Well, in the nickel iron asteroids,
they're already reduced. they're already
in the metallic form. So you're not
trying to get rid of the oxygen. What
you need to do is separate the platinum
group metals from the iron and the
nickel. So the question is
what chemical process will pick up iron
and nickel and move it away and leave
the platinum platium aridium behind.
One of the interesting things is if you expose
expose
uh nickel, iron to high temperature
carbon monoxide,
it will form a a complex uh called a carbonal
carbonal
uh which is easily vaporized.
So in principle you could transport away
the nickel and the iron uh leaving
behind the elements that don't quite so
easily form carbonal. So it's a question of
of
temperature. What's your processing
temperature? And the interesting
byproduct of it by the way uh is that
you can distill out absolutely pure iron
and absolutely pure nickel uh because
they have different carbonial vapor
points. It's easy to distill them and
then uh you can pyrolyze. It's a
reversible reaction. Uh you can reverse
it and pull the uh carbon monoxide off.
Again, of course, you do need carbon for
that. Uh but there's some fraction of
carbon in the lunar regalith. can find
it. It's uh not the major component, but
it's not a trace component. And
especially if you harvest uh you know
thousands of tons of of regalith for
other purposes, you can just drive off
uh carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide
that's been absorbed into the surface.
So it's a it's not an impossible
process. It would take a lot of chemical engineering.
engineering.
Yeah, that kind of that was another
question I had which was um but I think
you already answered it but we could try
kind of change it a little bit. I was
going to ask if if you um what would you
send to the moon if you had a billion
dollars kind of a king for a day but I
guess I could do if you were like put in
charge of NASA or the you know but I
don't want to get you in trouble because
I you still work for NASA so so how
about if I yeah if you had a billion
dollars um what would you send to the
moon to kind of kickstart this? Would it
be that carbonal reactor?
>> Well, there's a lot that we need to know
about the moon and there's a lot of
technology we need to demonstrate on the
moon. Uh the first thing is we still
haven't actually touched the lunar ice
and the polar craters. We don't really
know the physical form of that ice. So,
I'm just absolutely uh fanatic about
saying get missions like Viper,
get rovers into those craters. Uh we
really need before we can do anything,
we need to see what that ice is. What's
the form? Uh it could be Portland
cement. Uh we're sort of thinking, oh
yeah, well, we know how to cut blocks of
ice, but we don't know what lunar ice
looks like.
>> Yeah. Do you think it's as easy as just
steaming it out? It's probably, but we
don't know that for sure. Uh, keep in
mind Portland cement is also a high
water content material
and but we don't say, "Oh, we need some
water. Let's take a chunk of cement and
then uh boil the water off." Well,
that's that would be hard. So, in terms
and the science value is tremendous. We
need to learn, you know, there's layers
and layers of ice. What can we learn
from them? I don't know. So, part of
what I would do would be definitely uh
looking just getting a hands-on uh
experience with the the lunar polar ice.
Uh the other thing that I would really
push is getting a demonstration nuclear
reactor working on the moon. Uh that
long long nighttime and uh the craters
with no sunlight, you'd really like to
get a a nuclear power system there. So I
uh but to be fair, this is things that
NASA's already interested in. So I'm
really just saying uh you know, push
these things up to the highest priority.
Uh but other than that, there's a lot uh
a lot of useful things we could do on
the moon.
>> Yeah, I agree. And I talk a lot about
solar cells and we've talked a lot about
solar cells here. And I think solar
cells are awesome for like once you want
to scale to exporting thousands of tons
of mass to to mass drivers and all the
associated vehicles that will need to
come with that. Um but in the beginning
like new reactors are awesome and they
make a lot of sense. The hard part is
just having to import them you know
every single you know time you want to
increase your capacity for something.
>> Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. I love
solar cells. I've spent much of my life
working on solar cells. They're a great
solution to many problems, but every
technology has its niche and solar cells
are absolutely unbeatable in any
application where you have sunlight, but
there's applications in space where you
don't have sunlight. >> So,
>> So,
>> what what do you think about sort of in
that same vein? um the it's like it's
all or nothing but uh versus like humans
versus having robots kind of do most of
the work and then on top of that having
the robots only work during the day like
if 99% of your economy is machine and
then it only needs to run when there's
sunlight I think it solves a lot of
problems. What do you think about humans
versus robots? Uh do you think we should
really focus on boots on the ground? Um
do you think they're still necessary in
the loop or do you think tea operation
um can get us most of the way there? I
think humans and robots could and should
work together. Uh it's not an eitheror
thing. We would want humans and robots
uh there doing work. Having robots
exploring space is great, but it's like
having your friend go on vacation and
send you postcards. It's not quite the
same as as being there. And humans are
very very versatile. The main problem
with humans is that we're fragile.
But uh given that you can make habitats
and you can make a uh a place for humans
to to stay uh on the moon, I think uh
the humans and robots working together
>> Yeah. Do you think we would need like a
small amount of humans um to I guess at
first uh to just get the ball rolling?
Um, I guess I'm curious like the
proportion of human you foresee humans
and robots working together, but do you
think we could have like just a very
very small amount of humans on standby
for like repairs and stuff and a very
large amount of robots or do you think
we're probably going to need more humans
in the loop than we probably estimate nowadays?
nowadays?
>> It's nice. It's nice to have humans in
the loop. Humans are very good at
decision making in terms of things like
uh like what to do and how and and when
and uh what to do if there's a problem
and and what constitutes the problem. So
I think the humans are not just there to
every now and then troubleshoot, but
they're a specific and important part of
the of the solution in in working
together. And uh everybody thinks, oh,
you know, sooner or later we'll make
robots that are self-repairing,
but well, I don't know. Right now, we're
going to need uh need humans to sort of
do the tweaking and uh and running
running the operations.
Yeah, I kind of forced the like humans
in a in a machine shop if they have like
access to CNC and all the equipment that
they would need and then they have an
ability to refine that metal from mostly
metal, not all metal, but from regalith
that's like such a powerful thing. You
know that if you're thinking about like
a seed to send to kickstart everything,
it would be like humans with a and a mill.
mill. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> And the ability to refine,
>> right? You want both,
>> right? So, somebody asked, um, there's a
high chance that you met some guys from
the age of heroes like O'Neal. Um, do
you have any cool stories to tell about anybody?
anybody?
>> I don't have any cool stories. I don't
know if I have any uh any cool stories.
I've met O'Neal, of course, and Freeman
Dyson and uh uh Peter Glazer and and
those guys. Do I have any great stories
of those guys? Oh, I'd have to you'd
have to give me some time to think about
that. Uh, can't think of anything
offhand. Sorry.
>> No worries. Yeah.
>> Um, what do you think is a underrated
work that people should look into? I
feel like even nowadays a lot of people
are starting to I don't want to say
forget or O'Neal, but he's not as much
as of a household name as I I would
like. Um, do you think there's other
people in that same vein that we should
remember and you know, people should
check out?
I don't know if we need to check out but
certainly there's a lot of giants upon
whose shoulders we stand.
Uh you know looking at beamed power we
always come back to Bill Brown's work
the original
design of rectennas and microwave power.
I knew about Brown pretty well. My his
main flaw in my opinion is that he was
absolutely fixated on a frequency of
2.45 gigahertz. he just wouldn't even
consider a a different uh a different
frequency or wavelength. Uh I don't know
if anybody still remembers Ed McCulla
who did a lot of work on uh magma
electrolysis. He really sort of showed
that it was it was possible. Some very
very good work there. Of course uh I
love Freeman Dyson for his just
absolutely wide-ranging imagination. uh
he literally
went all the way to the end of the
universe and uh well some of his ideas
may be a little bit beyond the beyond
the edge of what we call technology
today but he was not afraid to think big thoughts.
thoughts.
>> You've been uh in this field for a long
time. Um what has kept you going and
kind of kept the the space fire alive?
>> Oh, there's always something new and
interesting that we learn. uh you know,
there's new missions that go out and
say, "Oh my gosh, look at that. That's
that's nothing we ever expected and
there's new technologies coming up and
we start saying, well, maybe we can
maybe we can use this technology.
Maybe we can find a way to do
interesting things with uh with some of
the technologies we're just just
inventing. So, we're not really at the
end of exploration. We're just at the
very beginning. And if we keep it up,
there will be some amazing things coming.
coming.
Yeah, I find I'm always I'm so often
like bogged down in the details of
technology and stuff. Like you said,
it's very um exciting. It's always
changing. There's always a new puzzle to
solve, which is like super fun. Um but
sometimes just going outside and looking
up at the moon and like realizing this
is real. This isn't just a a thing I'm
always thinking about, you know? I feel
like in some fields you never really
like get to see what you're always
looking at. Like you get to quantify it,
but you can't really look at it. But
with space, with the moon especially,
you can look at it and it's right there.
And it's so crazy that people will like
turn their heads and be like, "No, I
don't know why we should go to the moon.
We should solve some other problems. Um,
we have so many problems here on Earth."
But then
>> I guess they need to go outside more is
what I'm trying to say. It's like the
space version of Touch Grass.
>> It's not an eitheror. We can solve
problems on Earth and problems in space.
>> We don't have to pick just one or the other.
other.
Where do you see humanity in a hundred
years from now?
>> I certainly would like to see humanity
stopping having stupid wars. That's one
thing I'd like to I'd like to see. But
humanity expanding out into the solar
system. I think there's a lot out there
and uh and we should be part of it. We
should go out there.
>> I agree. I think uh the more we look
out, the more we realize how rare life
is. And I it seems like
>> a future civilization would view life
and spreading life as like almost like a
religious act. Um it just so important
just because it's so rare and like what
it took. I mean the more we learn about
even how the moon formed, the more we
learn about like the rare earth
hypothesis and like just the chances
that we exist, these crazy walking
talking chemical reactions.
It's uh yeah. So, um, you've what, uh,
you've spent a lot of time working in
teams, collaborating, um, in science in
general. What qualities do you look for
in people that make them stand out as
>> Uh, somebody with interesting ideas, but
with the background to be able to really
delve into the into the ideas. What's
useful in a team is to have people with
different backgrounds. I don't really
need somebody who knows the stuff that I
know. I need people who know uh
different things and can bring new
approaches and new uh technical
expertise to the problem. So a small
team with people each of whom has a
different specialty is a a real
excellent thing to uh to work with.
>> That makes sense. Do you ever find it
hard to communicate complicated ideas to
people that might not have that same background?
background?
>> Oh, sure. All all the time. I'm not sure
if I have a good solution to that. It's
uh I guess you have to work it out uh
for yourself until you you know all the
implications and then uh and then you
can start uh teaching other people.
>> Yeah. I mean, I figured if you could
solve that, that's like the ultimate
communication problem is like pervasive
across time and
>> it's probably what would stop all wars.
Like you said, if we could solve that
problem, um, we'd be good. Um, what
advice would you give to young people today?
today?
>> Uh, my advice is
do what fascinates you. Uh, whatever it
is that you think is really interesting,
uh, go work on that. And it might be
uh you know it might be space
exploration. It might be building and
flying rockets. Uh it might be art, it
might be writing, it could be anything.
But whatever it is, whatever you find
fascinating is what you will be good at.
And more important, it's what you will
be happy.
So So that's my advice.
>> Yeah, solid advice. Um well, is there
what are you working on nowadays? Is
there something in particular that you'd
like to talk about or let let people
know about?
>> I'm not sure if uh what I'm working on
is yet uh interesting, but I've just
finished a project looking at trying to
use resources of Titan for uh
exploration and bringing back a sample
from Titan. And Titan is just absolutely
fascinating in a scientific sense. So uh
spending a lot of time on uh on thinking
about Titan and of course uh trying to
come up with technology for exploration
of Venus has been has been very very
very interesting. So those are a couple
of the projects that I've been been
working on.
>> All right. Well, that's all the
questions I had. >> Okay.
>> Okay.
>> Well, send me a link when uh when you
put something together and if you have
more questions uh you know my email. So
>> All right. I appreciate it. Yeah, I
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
