tv Edward Hudgins Space CSPAN September 3, 2019 4:20am-5:16am EDT
and welcome to the next session that i will be speaking about mars and the future of space. when will we celebrate the first human on mars? i am edward hudgins, by the way. research director of heartland institute. words that kato and heritage and other places. we are having this discussion on a very auspicious day. this is july 20, 2019. the 50th anniversary of the landing of human beings on the moon. to give you more of my background, i was - - at nasa center. in maryland i was like a kid in a candy store. i got to watch the first moon landing from a major space center. i kept - - i could probably
sell them on ebay but i'm not going to do that. so i got my id badge. you know how strict security is these days. for a high school kid, that was enough to get me into space flight center. at the cato institute, i did a space policy forum and i've got a book on space, the free market frontier. and i managed to get buzz aldrin to do a chapter in my book. the first human being to land on the moon. i'm a space geek from way back. so i too ask the question, when are we going to land on mars and frankly, why haven't we landed on mars yet? what i'm going to do in this
talk. i have five points. first of all, i want to say a few things about what made apollo possible. because we're talking about why we haven't gone to mars yet. you understand how we were able to actually go to the moon. first of all, technology had developed at that - - to a point where we could seriously think about it. if you look at the science fiction writers, hg wells. a century before, the technology really wasn't there. by that time, thanks to robert goddard - - was working for the germans. we reached the point where we could technologically to that. the new york times published this stuff about how this not ball - - nutball says we can go
to the moon. ha ha. in march i believe, then your time writes, ha ha, it only went 44 feet. what a crackpot. by the way, when apollo is going to the moon, they actually published an apology. i posted it at the goddard space center. it was kind of cool. anyway, there was an achievement ethos at the time of americans thinking of doing great things. we have the human capital at that time as well. people were thinking and innovative way. by the way, they were in all harvard graduates. they were people from more regional schools who loved engineering. who loved tech and wanted to do something great and signed off. we had a free, open society. i was mentioning that to some of you earlier. that we had a situation where,
if you looked at how nasa ran at the time, basically - - you know, the folks involved in this would question. they would say how do you do this? remember, no one had done this before. do you have one big rocket that goes to the moon or the whole idea of lunar orbit and basically putting a separate lunar vehicle been that was very radical. there was a lot of internal discussion about, this is nuts! we can't want - - rendezvous in lunar orbit, can we? most important, you had the political and world focus. the soviet challenge was there with sputnik in 1957. in the first human in space - - in 1961. really shook up the americans.
jfk and london johnson. jfk was reluctant. it was really lyndon johnson, why don't like politically, pretty much on anything. it was lyndon johnson who pretty much pushed the space program and kennedy went ahead and signed onto it. the idea was also, the soviet union was getting the reputation of, you want some stuff done, you've got to become a communist country. this was part of our way of saying a free and open system can do better. by way, we had american industry at the time and that was important. the notion of notebook rogers. we did have political support to spend the big bucks necessary to get us to the moon. finally, very important, nasa was not a big bureaucracy at the time. nasa had just started to be cobbled together in the late 1950s. by eisenhower. and bringing various centers at langley for example, together.
at this point, it was still a lot of folks that said yeah, this is the bureaucratic thing. but let's go out and have a beer to talk this thing over. it wasn't the barack to see you have now. that's what got us to the moon. what's keeping us from mars? well, i want to start with the ãtalk about space and political - - i will go through this quickly. a quick history of nasa in our space policy from about the time of the moon landing until today. at the time of the moon landing, thomas paine, head of nasa and those folks were saying, we can have a permanent moon base by the late 70s. we can work our way and go on to mars by 1981. or in the early 80s. of course, that didn't happen. president nixon canceled the
last three apollo flights. there was supposed to be 18, 19 and 20. they already built the hardware for the mission. and they said, let's not do it. there was some savings but not a humongous amount. part of that was because public interest was drying up. we did that, went to the moon. [indiscernible] and then through a couple decades, while we get a usable shuttle. a big rocket. every piece of it gets thrown away except for the final capsule that comes back to earth. surely, we can do things cheaper if we get a usable shuttle. what happened in fact is that
the shuttle, once it was operational. first flight was 1981, and through the decades, the inflation will cost went up with the shuttle rather than down. jimmy carter was kind of gone, nothing really big except letting the shuttle be built. they said government payloads have to go up and government carriers. because there are private companies that think maybe we can get into this. so that was unfortunate. reagan of course in the mid-80s came up with the idea - - approved the idea of a space station been that something, right? it gives the shuttle a place to fly to rather than flying around in circles. so we will build a space station.
and here's the thing, it's only going to cost 8 billion bucks and it will be up there by the early 1990s. it wasn't up there until the 2000s and ended up costing $100 billion. the 20th anniversary of the first moon landing. they finally got mars on the agenda. nasa said, 450 billion dollars. this was 1989. mars didn't go very far. nothing really drastic. some programs continue. bush junior was interesting. i was writing public policy about this at the time. after this columbia disaster, there was thinking about what we will do in terms of the future of space.
they said we been doing this pay station thing and going around in circles for years. why don't we commit to going back to the moon. after all, we can prove we can do 50 years later, what we did 50 years ago. that was the goal. that was the constellation rocket and orion capsule. and it's going to be great. it was kind of, what we did 50 years ago. when obama came in, he said that's not such a great idea. but they kept the orion capsule but in a different form. again, politics was involved and who does what. another thing, what about mining asteroids. there are good private companies looking at mining asteroids. they wanted to get into that business as well. by the way, obama canceled
constellation and sort of canceled orion. then trump came and did what did trump do? he canceled asteroids by the way. but he said we really should go back to the moon. and we should go to mars. but he kind of had this thing where he was going back and forth about it. he made one statement saying we should go to the moon and then on to mars. then he did a tweet, basically saying, we've been to the moon but let's go to mars. and then his nasa ministry to said can you clarify a little bit? he said well yeah, i guess we will go to the moon and then mars. but he really is interested in mars. restarted the space council. he has a genuine interest in space. this is hot off the press for this as yesterday for those of you watching on c-span. that was july 19 met with buzz aldrin who walked on the moon
during that first walk and mike collins in the command module. and during that ceremony. he turned to the administrator and said, is there anyway we can go to mars directly? >> since the first moon landing, this is how government bureaucracies work and this is what politics does. there's no way to get away from
it. this is what happens when the government is involved. they can do something like landing a man on the moon or humans on the loan if they throw a lot of money. but they cannot commercialize pretty much anything, including space. let's turn to the private sector. because this is an interesting story. let me do this - - aircraft and airlines started as a civilian operation. and there was the government operation. military stuff. but the civilian operations were run by private people. the government would carry the mail anyway so they contracted airmail out instead of building government planes. one of those private providers
was charles lindbergh who started by flying airmail. it was in this kind of way. for example, if they wanted to build a military plane, they would simply put out a bid. private prizes were important, not just for the government, but for example, a guy and put up $20,000 for the first person who could fly across the atlantic that were to happen to be this airmail fellow, charles lindbergh. one of the ways civilian aviation was growing. finally, the deceit came along and the - - the dc 3's came
along. after world war ii for a number of political reasons, civilian operations, so-called civilian space and military all became part of the government sector. and that was of course, one of the problems. and one of the problems was that, when private provider said hey, in the 1950s and 60s. we want to get involved with trying to develop our own pockets.we are sorry, that's the government's purview. in the early 80s, - - this rocket was a private rocket and they went through hell trying to get approval for a launch. and it led to reform later which i will talk about in a minute. anyway, so that was a different story for civil aviation compared to pockets and space.
but, we have fortunately had a space entrepreneurial freedom revolution in the last decade or two. you've had a lot of deregulation. you have private prizes. the regulation by the way, this was created earlier on but it was really in the 90s that it got moved to the faa. created an office of - - [indiscernible]. we have a one-stop shopping place for folks that want to launch rockets. had a lot of private societies. that were really advocating for space and for more, getting the private sector involved. peter - - created the x prize
for the first spaceship that could fly twice above 50 miles into space. bert - - won that prize and his company was later taken over by richard branson. who says in a couple weeks or months, he will be on his own private spaceship. while this will be a suborbital flight. the fact is you have private sector folks getting interested and involved. most of us know about two heavyweights. let me mention the commercial orbital transportation services and the other stuff. basically, nasa, in the last decade or so, has begun to contract out and work closer with private companies. in the end, what it meant was world and spacex now carry cargo to the international space station. and of course you have elon
musk and jeff bezos with blue origin and elon musk with spacex. building rockets. more of the celebrity type, jeff bezos is kind of working away. he's got three rocket designs. the first one is armstrong which is a suborbital. second one is the glenn to put people in orbit and the third is the armstrong which can carry interplanetary to them one or elsewhere. this is very exciting. how many of you know robert bigelow? yeah, he is right up here in las vegas. he invited a group of 15-20 of space geeks. he made $1 billion i guess in his hotels.
is that i want to spend half of that putting a private space stations. so we had to three days talking about how to do that. of course what he came up with, are these inflatable modules. which he hopes to use as orbiting hotels, laboratories and moon bases. what's interesting is he sets up in orbit, there is now test module on the international space station. we wanted to talk about mars so let me get back to mars.
elon musk famously said i want to die on mars but not on landing there. and very understandable. it is his vision to go to mars. you can send it up and put the satellite in orbit or whatever it is. wring it down and reuse it again. and he's looking at building big, big rockets. that's the saturn five. it's not to perspective but building something comparable to the saturn five that can launch to a place like mars. consider this for example.
some years back- - there we go. okay. the rocket has the cones on the bottom where the fire comes out from the ignition, right? at one point he had a rocket he was going to test. and his engineers came and said, sir, there's a crack about six inches right at the bottom there. what do you want to do? had it been nasa, it would be, we can't launch the thing. we will have to have a major study to see what the implications are. run it through every agency and this and that and the other. lots of delay. cost a lot of money and so forth. so must asked, what is the cutoff that bottom ring and cut it off? do you think that would affect getting the rocket up there? the engineers talked amongst themselves and the number crunching.
they said probably not. and because it was his money he said, go ahead and do that. that's the point. when i talk about the private sector, it means the guy who puts up the money and owns it can basically call the shots and make the decisions and doesn't have to go through the bureaucrats. he will do his due diligence. he doesn't want his locker to the blowup. but that's the point of private entrepreneurs doing this stuff. so my prediction first of all, is that to get to mars, it's probably going to be at best, maybe a public/private sort of thing. we are nasa, just like they are going to spacex and orbital and they may go to jeff bezos to do moon stuff. they are going to probably end up, if nasa is going to lead the way. they will have to contract out
two people like elon musk because nasa is just too bureaucratic to get things done in a nice, clean way. where if they can simply contract out and that these guys figure out how to do it, that's probably a better way. i also want to talk about mission design. the one i like best is from robert ãwho is the founder of the mars society. i'm a founding member as well. the case for mars. he also has a new one. the case for space which updates the case for mars material. i encourage you all to read them. and he got interested in this. he's a rocket scientist. when bush came out and said we'd like to go to mars and nasa said it will cost only $450 billion. - - said that can't be right. you don't have to build a battle star galactica to do that. nasa, because it's so political, we have to contract with everyone.
he said there's got to be a better way. he came up with the mission design that using the calculations nasa used, this was back in the 90s. numbers probably other higher now. but, here's the mission design that's very exciting. first of all, one of the biggest expenses of flying in space is, carrying your fuel. so you have a spaceship. you need a rocket to get it to the mars or to the moon. every time you add payload, you have to add more fuel. but when you add more fuel, you're adding more weight. so you have to add more fuel to carry the fuel. it goes up exponentially. so that's a big problem to build a spaceship and to having a fuel to do that. it becomes very expensive and most people say you have to
build a big battle star galactica. - - said, why not live off the land? you've got carbon dioxide in the mars atmosphere. if you send up for any human being takes off. a lander with some hydrogen. i forget how many tons of it. you can look this up. and with a chemical laboratory, you can convert the carbon dioxide in the martian atmosphere, mixing it with hydrogen to produce methane which could be used as rocket fuel. so basically, you get methane and oxygen rocket fuel. meaning, before human being gets to mars, you send the unmanned ships. and you create your return fuel, sitting on the planet waiting for your before you
even get there. tonight you've really cut down your costs. of going to mars. now, by the way this is a little thing on how you do it that you can go to, the first landing is unmanned and then you have a manned one. you kind of rotate. so you have this sequence. this is another important thing. you're going to stay for a year or more. one of the big expenses and flying to mars using a nasa design. and it depends what design it is. you go to mars and it takes six months at least to get there. maybe more. you stay there for a week or two. you do the flag, footprints. collect samples. then your rust back for another six months or however long it
takes. he said, wait a minute. why not wait for the planets to come back into alignment. if you are going to go all the way there, why not stay for a year and do it that way? that's going to save you a lot of money as well. that was one of the reasons why you want to put unmanned modules and so forth on the planet before humans get there. but you see the point. instead of doing the model of the moon where you put the flag up and take a couple pictures and go back. why don't you do it like this? the final thing, next to final thing. mars is a place that can be cared for. there is water available. there's been a lot of work done by the mars society and buy a couple other organizations.
that not only do the studies, the scientific studies about how to live on mars. what kind of habitats today. all of these kind of things. the mars society sponsors. they have an arctic station which simulates a martian base. they've had, i think it's 212 teams staying for months in that martian, sort of mock martian base in the arctic. one of the excuses for going back to the moon before you go to mars and then doing this orbiting space station for this gateway. it is well, we need to practice going there so we can practice on the moon. but it's being done right now by mars society and other folks where they're doing it in the arctic. when the teams come out of their habitat, they have to put spacesuits on.
they do everything to simulate mars except for the low gravity. and granted, that will be something but even there, the gravity on mars is not as low as the moon. so it's going to be a little bit easier. ... >> or we could engineer human biology to make it suitable for the environment of mars. and what i mean is this. we're doing -- learning a lot about biohacking, a lot of very interesting thing and cutting edge stuff concerns genetic engineering that could make us less susceptible to radiation. there are things you put in your lungs that basically are rebreathers so that when you put these in your lungs, basically
you don't need -- you can run for an hour or two without ever getting winded, and this is real science. this isn't science fiction anymore and i can refer you to studies. and one thing that struck me is, yes, we want to terra form mars over centuries to give it an atmosphere so human beings can breathe on mars, but it's also possible, maybe as biohacking is moving along very quickly, that by that time we'll actually be able to engineer ourselves so that we would be more compatible with the planet mars. anyway, that's my -- i don't have a good he predisk when we might get to mar because -- i showed you the problem with the politics but with what has been going on with the private sector now, with the increased interest
and so forth, i think it is possible in the future, perhaps the next deck decade and a half, we could be seeing real trips to planet mars and these are going to be i hope the first twins on the planet mars. so those are to inspire you. i thank you for your attention and we have time for a few questions. please come up to the microphone here for your questions. >> good preparation, speak of the taxpayers of new mexico i wouldn't include richard branson as your list of billionaires. we have given him 250 million and nothing has happening. >> shouldn't be building government space ports. i said this guy can afford it. we do that stadiums in ball more
city. he can afford it himself. >> not me called him a euro trash huckster and that's a lot of people in new mexico. my concern is with mass spending billions billions of dollars we are seeing more states be in line, georgia, maine, states are starting to launch their own spate programs and i see a danger there a lot of capital flowing to the community, great stuff, investment, small launchers canner, he first truly private space port in new zealand and i watch their blasts. do you see a danger in as as snell we have didn't horribly at the national level. >> i've done work in a lot of regulatory areas and you see the same thing with states competing. you had the whole thing with amazon where the states were tripping -- i love amazon, i use it all the time. when my girls say -- when i say
where do you think it comes from, it comes from amazon. states have done this decades, tripping over each other if you just pay a ton of taxpayer money, if we build it they will come. it might be a good movie with kevin costner but it's notes reality and that's the problem with these kinds of state financing. stadiums are the same thing. you look at the economics afterwards and you find that they're big money losers. >> i did not recenter the books but i heard a great interview of him by michael schirmer. a podcast which you can get on android, playstation and apple. interview with him about his books and he calls himself ang engineer, not a scientist. >> yes. >> so question i have that he didn't touch on a lot is the
radiation problem. you implied it by your talk but specifically said the ultimate goal -- he, by the way, advocates strongly for millingses that are purpose-driven -- missions that-under p. driven and the first purpose he has in mind are couplization of mar for a place for people to go and also as a launch plat platform for mining asteroids and all that. but i think the radiation problem particularly if we don't transform ourselves, have to transform the environment, is a problem for colonization, could you speak to that. >> it's a legitimate question. by the way in his book he looks at, for example -- there's arguments about how much radiation astronauts will absorb going to mars and he does have some good statistics showing that, well, it's not any worse than in many cases less than what you see in astronauts who spend a year on the
international space station and there's good statistics going to mars and remaining on mars for a certain period of time. he argue -- still argues it's not a big problem. i'm not -- i looked at both sides. i'm not technically proficient enough to say that, yes, he is absolutely right, not a problem because mars does not have a magnetic field like the earth and you don't have the shield of a lot of the cosmic rays and that would be very damaging for us, so it is a legitimate problem. he says it's not. it's a long are discussion but you raise an issue if i have seen experiments in last, say, year about tweaking genes in mice or something to make them less susceptible to radiation and you can imagine the next time we produce these little creatures -- they're beautiful. that's sofia and allegra -- when we do that, maybe we can tweak
the genes so they would not be susceptible to radiation. we're look -- remember, talking about terra forming mars and a century or two project, so something like that suddenly tweaking genes isn't so far out. go ahead. >> somebody has work for the evil. he peer, aka nasa, the surest way to make sure we don't get to mar is let nasa be involved. was there during the commercial flourishing of private space flight in the late '90s and internal to mass there were discussed how we are forced to encourage people but make sure they never can fly and denied licenses, they were deliberately trying to kill the investor class to make sure they would never invest in private space flight. musk was a billionaire and didn't care and we can talk about musk and his issues later. so but let's back up a step.
why didn't we continue to go to the moon? because the entire thing was a thumb in the eye of the soviet union, and itself was national pride and we did and why do we keep doing it? we need to have a commercially viable reason to go to mars. so i suggest that we film survivor and/or the bachelor on mars -- i'm only partially joking, but you have to find a way to monetize this. >> agreed. >> otherwise your asking the taxpayer to do it for some unspecified whatever and that will not work. nasa will find a way to suck all of the life blood out of it. >> i want to agree with you. i said i thought that maybe one of the things that could come out of it is a joint thing, but my preference is certainly that musk or maybe bezos and musk who are kind of competitors using now, maybe get together and say let's do this ourselves. that would certainly be my preference, and the more it goes in that direction, the more
likely it is that we will be able to go to mars for exactly the ropes you're saying. that's why i presented for example robert bigelow who is right up the road from us here in las vegas for those watching on tv, is looking how you monetize this stuff. wants to do this because he has a passion for it. but for example, part of what he wants to do is to build infrastructure in orbit, in other words, let's say you want to put something up right now. have to have your own batteries and this and that. what if he starts constructing infrastructure up there so that you can just simply mug into the grid as it were. now he is creating something where he monetize and create ago people who make sigh we can't go there because of all these reasons. he has the infrastructure and just put the plug in and we can do our thing. so you're right about that.
survivor on mars, of course, everyone saw the martian, i assume, which is a really cool flick and there it is. go ahead. >> one comment. the mars society has it national conference october 17 to 20 at the university of california in los angeles, if anybody wants to learn more, that's good opportunity. my question, you said quite understandablyow don't want to venture prediction as to time. will you venture prediction who will the first on mass, nasa, elon musk or some other entity and will the plan tear protection regime be changed in time to allow humans to be on mars because under current regulations humans would not be allowed to set foot on mars. >> i would bet on elon hopefully going there and not dying on landing. i'd still bet on him. and frankly i think -- by the
way, we get in my become -- this book is dated. almost two decade old now but we did a lot of stuff. a couple of articles on the outer space treaty and what it means and then implications and there is a big debate whether -- what we have to do to put humans on mars because what if there microbeses there. don't want to disrupt the poor little critterred. some say it's nonsense. if there's anything there it would be way below the ground and i think if we get to that point, who is going to stop elon from doing that? have any of you seen the movie o'destination moon"? robert heinlein did the movie. a libertarian going know move. a first color science fiction movie and one scene is the government regulators are in there cars going out no he launch food try to stop the rocket from going to the moon because they don't have all the
proper licenses and requirements, and they're running to the spaceship to get in their quickly to launch it ahead the the government regulators, you have to see "destination moon." think of the pr if you have this guy, this musk or bezos or whoever, team of them, who really have built a rocket and it's going good to mars and they put a lot of money into this thing and then imagine a bunch of government officials saying you can't do this. that would be very interesting. which administration -- certainly not the trump administration. he wants to good to mars. you think he'll say there's a bunch of lawyer geeks who say we can't set foot on it. what-duimagine his tweet on that? i ask you, folks. this young man right here. can you ask your -- comp to the microphone, please, we need to
get this recorded, sir. >> so you haven't said anything about china or india, and don't they have some plans to do something on the moon? >> okay. well, actually, thank you for the question. actually i had to cut my slides down becauses usual i usually put too much in and i would say something about china and india. china of course lanked on the far side, and by the way, quite a technical feat and jack schmidt who was the apollo 17. he was originally scheduled for apollo 18 and he argued apollo 18 to land on the tar side of the moon. he was argue that in 1969, '70 and the chinese did it. yes, the chinese want to dominate the moon. india is doing some very interesting stuff as well and i would mention the israeli probe
which is fascinating because it was privately funded. the israeli space agency provided tracking but it was funded by entrepreneurs, built by a private company. unfortunately crashed on the moon but got to the moon. what is interesting and this is something i have to talk to you -- if i can get buzz aldrin who has a chapter -- he advocates the used of a cycle ever, -- the idea of a cycler. you have a space ship that goes to me heaven and then gravity swimmings back to the earth and stops and then gravity swings back to the moon, and going like that and he says that would be a cheaper way of setting up a cycler and then all you have to do is meet it and -- and set up one for mars, too much the mars one is a little more difficult to do but a what is interesting is the israeli one sort of used that concept, because it started
off in earth orbit and then kind of went out like this, and out like this, and finally slowed down when it got to the moon and went into lunar orbit. so a lot of innovative stuff that israel did. it's going become an international thing and we'll have competitors. i don't know if the threat of china is big enough push the government but we don't efficiently h necessarily want the government to be going back to moon and mars. bezos is more likely to go to the moon and set. this base at the south pole and use the water. that's what he will. do i hope he does. >> okay. mentioned water. one thing about life on earth is, earth is three-quarters water. there is enough water on mars to stay -- sustain a population there. >> very good question. and all of the studies continue to show that there is water, not only at one of the poles and of course it evaporates during the change of the seasons, but in
the -- you might have seen some of the great photos that were taken from different times apart where you're looking at crater and seeing a stream of -- probably mud and slush, but kind of going down the crater, that's clearly a liquid of some sort, and the only liquid could be is water. it's not carbon dioxide cannot exist at a liquid and water can, at least with -- if a its mixed 'with the rocks. looks as if that's going to be upon. just don't now how much of it is there. and i'd also add that one over the cool things about technology is that you figure out ways to use scarce resources better, and so i suspect you'd see a lot of -- a lot of the recycling stuff in this country is a boondoggle and a waste but i suspect you probably would find really good ways to recycle
water on the planet mars if in fact it's not that scarce. by the way initially you won't have billions of people on mars so going to have enough anyway. >> mars is farther away from the sun. enough eat even with terra forming. >> if there's an atmosphere, the answer is yes, not going to be tropical but most of the studies i've seen -- this is the nice thing but the mars society and other groups. mars direct, and so forth. they actually have every year at their conferences -- actually have real scientists doing studies and ones if have seen it's going to be a cooler climate in a couple hundred years if they do it the way they're planning to, but survivable. the pressure, the pressure on mars is -- can't live there, and of course you have to built up enough oxygen in the atmosphere so you can breath. but a transition, too, by the
way. let's go to -- a transition where people can probably good out because the pressure is okay, maybe have to have a mask but they can go out with -- without the full spacesuit and a transition over time for that. good question. are we out of time or can we have one more quick question since we don't have a panel? you have to go to the mic. sorry. people want to hear you. >> so now i'm going to ask two questions the picture of your daughters was one holding the size of -- a scale model of mars and the other earth. >> these are not scale models. these are -- hold on. where are my daughters? come on. these are not to scale. they injures the size of -- just the size of the globe. that's moon and mars. >> the gravity on the moon is one-sixth of the earth.
what is mars. >> i'm trying to remember. >> 38%. >> a third. >> so anyway. so wouldn't be as hopping as a round -- you saw buzz aldrin doing and neil armstrong doing it i want to end with this. this its in fact the 50th 50th anniversary of the first moon landing, and i've argued for some years that we have an earth day, days celebrating everything. we should have a human achievement day -- aver quick question. >> i'm sure use you the united states haven't gone -- visited moon for 50 years, even though -- >> because that's part of my talk, they haven't visited the moon because of politics and because of the cost, but anyway, let me finish real quick. i think we should have other human achievement day, july
july 20th we be good day because it celebrates one thereof greatest achievements in human history, going the moon. i'd love to see students -- maybe do it in october -- i'd love to see every student trying to understand everything that went into going to the moon. by the way, those who are interested, the best book on it is charles murray and katherine cox, apollo, the race to the moon, and i encourage if you're interested in the individuals who put us there, what it took and so forth, read the book. it would be great to have a human achievement day where we celebrate this sort of thing and not just celebrate it but ask, hough did we do it? for those watching on tv, perhaps, we're in las vegas right now. it's 110 degrees outside. i'm very comfortable here because of air conditioning. where did that come from and a guy named carrier over 100 years ago, he invented it.
how? why? there's a whole fascinating story about that. how did air conditioning go from being something that was used for a particular industrial use, to everyone has it now. i'd love to see a holiday in this country celebrating human achievement like the moon landing so we can all appreciate it and we can have our own moon landings and our own great achievements in the future. thank you all for coming. i appreciate your attention. [applause] are are's blog are are [inaudible conversations]
tonight we're so pleased to welcome sarah rose for her new book "d-day girls", helps win world war ii. she draws on recently declassified files, diaries and oral histories to tell the thrilling mostly unknown story of three remarkable women who destroyed train lines, ambushed nazis, plotted prison breaks and gathered crucial intelligence, laying the groundwork for the d-day invasion