第 157 期·中文精讀

娜塔莉亞·貝利:火箭發動機與電動航天器推進

Natalya Bailey: Rocket Engines and Electric Spacecraft Propulsion

航天創業者談火箭發動機設計、電推進技術的工作原理,以及小型衛星發射的商業前景。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

Natalya Bailey 在 MIT 讀本科時上過一門推進課。整整百分之九十的課時講化學發動機,最後百分之十留給電推進。教授講到那一節時的原話大意是:我們只是大致明白它怎麼工作,但它確實能工作。

這句話她記了很久。一門已經在軌執行了幾十年的工程,理論部分還留著大片模糊地帶,這在工科裡不算常見。

她現在做的事就落在那片模糊地帶裡。Bailey 是 Accion Systems 的創始人兼 CEO,公司做的是衛星和航天器用的電推進系統。這些發動機不負責把火箭從地面頂出大氣層,它們管的是出了大氣層之後怎麼在軌道上挪動。

她手上的核心產品是一片一平方釐米的晶片,上面密密麻麻長著五百個發射尖端,每個尖端的曲率半徑在一微米量級,真正噴出離子的地方只有二十奈米。液體推進劑從晶片背面滲上來,在尖端被電場拉成一個錐,然後離子從錐尖飛出去。

先聊外星人:也許訊號就是追問本身

對話從她童年的星空講起。Bailey 說小時候經常仰望天空,夢想著有一天能和地外文明交流。Lex 問她,你覺得有外星生命嗎。

她的回答帶著科學家的分寸感。宇宙已經存在了這麼久,恆星和行星的數量這麼多,自複製生命出現的機率怎麼算都不算低。所以非智慧生命存在的可能性相當高。智慧生命就難說了。她希望能找到,但對至今沒有收到任何確鑿訊息這件事,多少有點沮喪。

Lex 丟擲一個卡爾·薩根式的解釋:也許對方早就試過聯絡我們,只是它們的訊號時標或者傳輸介質跟我們完全不同,我們沒意識到那是通訊。

Bailey 說她從來沒從這個角度想過。

話題往更抽象的方向推了幾步。人類集體湧現出來的智慧本身,會不會就是那種通訊介質。我們追問“外星文明是否存在”這個動作本身,會不會就是它們發出訊號的方式。

“這條思路我從來沒往上走過,但我喜歡。”(Natalya Bailey)

這類一來一回是整期節目反覆出現的模式。Lex 往存在主義那頭推,Bailey 一邊興致很濃地跟著走,一邊用物理常識把自己拽回地面。她說這個設想還隱含了一個前提:有東西能超光速。而她對這一點也很期待。

上火星:卡點不在技術

Lex 問人類怎樣才能到火星。

Bailey 的回答非常篤定。SpaceX 和 Elon Musk 會把人送上火星,時間不會太遠。她說 Musk 的時間表大概會往後拖一點,但她相信他設定的目標。

然後她講了一個自嘲式的段子。要是能造出臺時間機器回到冷戰早期,當時把目的地從月球改成火星,也許現在人類已經在那邊了。

這個段子背後有個判斷:把人送上火星,從技術上說沒有任何不可逾越的障礙。真正的卡點是政治和財務。

理想主義的科學追求夠不夠支撐這件事?她說看看眼下的現實就知道,純粹的科學探索換來的預算非常小。要讓人長期走出去,往往需要一場災難,或者一種迫在眉睫的末日感。她並不希望真有那樣的災難,只是覺得僅靠私營部門的商業邏輯,撐不起殖民火星這種規模的投入。

Lex 追問:火星上的規則誰來定。

Bailey 提到 SpaceX 合同裡一段頗有意味的表述,大意是地球上的政府對火星沒有管轄權,火星人自己定義規則。

“聽起來非常像這個國家開國元勳們的語言。”(Natalya Bailey)

緊接著她給出了一個讓人意外的立場,而且她自己承認,在航天行業裡持這種看法的人不多。

她說,把人類送出這個星球、像細菌一樣散播出去,也許本來就不是我們該做的事。

她反問:我們是不是把一些不必要的障礙,比如非常脆弱的生物體,橫在了更多機器人探索、矽基探索的路上?

這話從一個造火箭發動機的人嘴裡說出來,分量不太一樣。如果目標是生成更多知識、理解更多宇宙,停止送人、改送機器人和 AI,效率會高得多。她甚至設想了一種極端場景:一艘帶著高效推進系統、載著機器人和一小培養皿 DNA 的飛船飛向深空,而人類文明早已消亡。

Lex 說這念頭很傷感,一艘孤獨的飛船飄進宇宙,人類全沒了。

Bailey 換了個角度。那要看你把目標定義成什麼。換個說法,你儲存下來的是一個知識的時間膠囊,一小份 DNA,它會比我們所有人活得更久。

“我就是靠這個睡著的。”(Natalya Bailey)

她本來想去的那個實驗室

Bailey 年輕時想當宇航員。理由聽起來一點都不浪漫:她喜歡在實驗室裡做實驗,而國際空間站是“最酷的那種實驗室”。

她把這話講得很自然。一個在軌執行、有恆溫、有電源、有微重力環境的大型實驗平臺,在她眼裡就是科研工作者的理想工位。

國際空間站預計在 2025 年前後退役。她說這挺讓人難過,不過也提到已經有一些私營公司準備發射自己的空間站。

Lex 問她,如果將來太空旅行對平民開放,你會不會去火星度假。

答案是不會。她提到自己的風險偏好變了,家裡有三個小孩。她不會成為第一批一千個上火星的人。

這句自我修正把前面那段關於人類擴張的宏大討論拽回了具體的人。一個人可以在智識上相信某件事該發生,同時在生活裡選擇不去做那個先行者。

火箭的基本原理:把東西往後扔

話題轉到工程本身。

發動機的核心原理是動量守恆。你把物質從尾部高速甩出去,反作用力就推著飛行器朝反方向走。僅此而已。

推進方式分兩大類。

一類是化學推進。燃料和氧化劑混合、燃燒,儲存的化學能被釋放出來,把生成的氣體加熱,氣體透過噴管向後噴出。這種發動機噪聲很大,有明火,通常用於發射,也是電視上最常見的那種。

另一類是電推進。能量來源變成電池或太陽能板提供的電能,向後噴出的東西變成帶電粒子。用靜電場或者電磁場把這些粒子加速、推出。

用生活化的說法:化學推進是放炮仗,電推進是拿靜電把灰塵吹走。

化學推進:最後一個沒算清的地方

Bailey 說化學推進被理解得非常透。最簡單的形式就是煙花,這種技術公元前四百年左右就有了。哪怕是大推力發動機,工程上也早已成熟。

剩下的一個空白是燃燒產物的成分。那裡高溫、氣體高速流動,模型開始失效,需要同時呼叫好幾個學科的工具才能逼近答案。這是化學推進最後一個沒完全解開的結。

化學推進真正的短板是效率。它能給出很大的瞬時推力,單位燃料換來的推力卻很小。要更省燃料,就得轉向電推進。

離子發動機裡到底發生了什麼

Bailey 提到她大學時那門課留下的印象:一個工程上已經在用的東西,理論上還有大片空白,這在她看來挺新鮮。

她特別點出離子發動機,因為它是電推進裡最直白的一種,純靜電,沒有磁場參與。可它同時牽扯量子力學、材料科學、流體力學和靜電學。

Lex 讓她把電推進再往下拆一層。

Bailey 給出三類主流方案:

離子發動機,結構相對簡單,靠靜電場加速離子,不用磁場產生推力。

霍爾推進器,用磁場約束電子、用電場加速離子,工程上很成熟,是目前在軌數量最多的一類。

其他等離子體發動機,比如 VASIMR,用射頻加熱等離子體再用磁場噴出,功率可以做得很高。

還有第四類,就是她自己做的膠體推進器。它跟離子發動機有很多相似之處,區別在於離子的來源:氣體電離和液體直接抽取。

她把離子發動機的工作過程拆得很細。

先有一個電離室。中性氣體,通常是氙或氬,被注入進去,同時注入一束高能電子。室內一切都在隨機運動。目標是讓某個電子撞上某個中性原子,把它的外層電子撞飛,原子就此變成正離子。等離子體形成。

接下來是個幾何問題。這些離子裡有一部分會飄到下游,那裡有兩片帶孔的柵極,中間加了電壓差,形成電場。離子進了電場就被加速,從孔裡飛出去。

只有一部分離子能走運。同樣數量的離子會撞到腔壁上,失去電荷,退化成中性氣體。效率損失主要出在這裡。

還有一個容易被忽略的細節。飛船向後噴出一束正離子,飛船本身是中性的。不做處理的話,這束正離子遲早會被飛船自己吸回來。所以發動機外面要裝一個陰極,往束流裡注入電子,把整體中和掉。這樣噴出去的東西淨電荷為零,不會回頭找麻煩。

Lex 問:這東西有多熱。

Bailey 說散熱確實重要,尤其是現在流行的小衛星。等離子體本身熱,那些高能電子的能量也高,撞到壁面上就要認真考慮溫度。她記得電子能量大概在一百電子伏的量級,換算成開爾文她得算一下。

Lex 問:能把手伸進去嗎。

不能。

膠體推進器:從液體裡直接拔離子

這部分是整期節目技術密度最高的內容。

上世紀中葉,搞電推進的那批人已經想到:帶電粒子的來源不止氣體。某些液體,特別是離子液體,本身就能提供離子。有離子,放進電場,就有力。

麻煩在尺度。要利用這個效應,你得在奈米到幾微米的尺度上操控液體,那是頭髮絲直徑的量級。五十年代沒有這種加工能力。這些想法被寫進書裡,然後就沉寂了。

轉機來自矽微機電系統。當晶片代工廠變得普遍,Bailey 的導師在 MIT 把這些舊想法重新撿起來:現在有辦法造了。

具體機制是這樣的。把液體放進強電場,電場對液體表面產生拉力,表面張力在抵抗。電場逐漸增強,當電場壓力和表面張力精確平衡時,液體會變成一個錐形。

這個結構叫泰勒錐。

錐尖處的曲率半徑趨近於零。電場強度與半徑成反比,半徑越小場越強。理論上尖端的場強會趨於無窮。現實裡不會真出現無窮大,取而代之的是:一束離子從錐尖噴出來。場強在那裡足夠大,能把離子從液體裡直接拽出。

Lex 問,這個錐有多大。

Bailey 說,如果發射的是純離子,發射區域的尺度大概是二十奈米。

“我以為會大一點。”(Lex Fridman)“所以它非常小。非常小。這就是為什麼直到最近才做得到。”(Natalya Bailey)

怎麼在奈米尺度上穩定造出這種結構?工程上的解法反過來了:先造一個底座,讓錐自己在上面長出來。

她們用微加工工藝在一片晶片上做出幾百上千個尖銳結構,把液體輸送到每個尖端。這解決兩件事。

一是位置可控。離子束從哪兒發出來是確定的,上方柵極在對應位置開孔,離子就能飛出去,不會打在結構上白白浪費。

二是降低電壓。液體已經有了一個尖銳的支撐點,形成泰勒錐所需的場強小得多。這些支撐尖端的曲率半徑在一微米量級,比最終的錐大,已經足夠把電場集中起來。

液體從晶片背面供給,晶片是多孔的,滲透到正面,在尖端形成發射點。

Bailey 說她們管這個叫推進器晶片,一平方釐米大小,目前每片上有大約五百個發射器。接下來幾個月要把密度提升四倍,在同樣面積上塞進更多發射點。

她提到自己手裡拿過的那塊晶片,Lex 說見過照片。晶片只是發動機的一部分,負責電離和產生推力。完整的系統還包括儲液罐,持續給發射點供液,以及一套電源電子裝置,負責和衛星通訊、開關發動機。

嚴格說,她們的技術夾在膠體和離子之間。膠體推進器原本指從射流上甩出液滴,可一旦把錐做得足夠小,出來的就是純離子。她們算是膠體的一個子集,更準確的說法是電噴霧。

哪些懂了,哪些還沒懂

Bailey 把理解程度分了幾層。

最近幾年剛搞清楚的是不穩定性。供多少液體、加多強的電場、為什麼發射會忽明忽暗、為什麼會出現一些奇怪的行為模式。這些在幾年前還很模糊,現在清楚多了。

還沒搞清的有兩處,而且兩處之間隔著一道鴻溝。

一處是分子尺度。她們用的是大分子離子。一個離子在電場裡獲得能量,一部分能量會進入分子內部的化學鍵,讓分子振動,做出各種奇怪的事,有時候直接把分子拆開。

另一處是束流尺度。成千上萬個離子組成的束流,有自己的集體行為。

問題在於這兩層怎麼接上。分子層面發生的事,怎麼決定整束離子的效能。這個連線沒打通,就沒法準確預測發動機的束流表現。

Lex 問這算理論問題還是工程問題。

Bailey 說兩者都有,不過 Accion 是創業公司,主要精力放在建造、測試、觀測和表徵上。理論那塊暫時沒怎麼投入。

她十年前發現的一件事:所有問題最後都通向材料

Lex 問她,這個領域裡什麼想法讓她覺得最美、最著迷。

Bailey 的回答繞到了材料科學。過去十年有個反覆出現的體驗:任何一個她想深挖的問題,挖到足夠深,最後都落在材料上。

拿她們自己的技術舉例。液體要從儲罐運到發射尖端,靠的是毛細作用。這就進入浸潤性和表面能的領域,而表面能往深了說又要碰到量子層面。

她說這讓她興奮,因為在這個尺度上有太多東西沒被理解。

然後她講了另一個更宏觀的例子。

她第一次知道,描述機翼上方氣流的方程,和給期權定價的 Black-Scholes 方程是同一個東西。都是偏微分方程。

“這種宇宙的連線性我覺得非常神奇。”(Natalya Bailey)

Lex 順著這個往下推:數學在很多地方迴響,看起來像有人在用同一套基元複製貼上。他的結論是我們大概活在模擬裡,程式設計那位在不同模組之間偷懶複用程式碼。

Bailey 說她當時的反應是去面試了一份金融工作。

為什麼電推不能用來起飛

Lex 問,從地面到軌道,和到了軌道之後在深空裡機動,需要的推進差在哪裡。

Bailey 說她的發動機不能用來起飛,原因很直接:瞬時推力太小。

推力小不代表沒用。時間足夠長,加速度可以累積,最終能達到很高的速度,載人任務也夠用。

真正的瓶頸是電源。

太陽能板效率低、體積大。電池技術她說不知道什麼時候能有大突破,雖然有很多人在做。核電源才是關鍵:有反應堆供電,電推進系統可以做得非常強大,既有極高的燃料效率,又能提供足夠的瞬時推力去執行更有意思的任務。

Lex 問,核動力系統的體積能不能小到可以發射。

Bailey 說,世界上確實有帶核電源的航天器在發射,尺寸是個問題。反應堆和熱源都很笨重,目前只適合大型行星際任務。此外還有一堆政治上的麻煩事。

她提到 2020 年特朗普政府放鬆了一些相關管制,NASA 和其他機構開始重新推動這件事。現在是個值得關注的時點。

Lex 又丟擲一個更激進的想法:將來入軌的火箭本身會不會也變成電動的。

Bailey 說技術上可能,前提是有大得多的電源,那隻能是核的。眼下核電源能上天,靠的是一百倍冗餘的安全模式:發射階段完全關閉,到了遠處才啟動。真要在發射階段使用,很多人會有意見。

Lex 提到切爾諾貝利,說人類對核能風險的估計明顯失準。Bailey 說了一句很有意思的話:所有搞核能的人都在證明它有多安全,公眾的感知完全是另一回事。

衛星在天上到底在忙什麼

Bailey 把電推的實際用途講得很實在。

就算你的衛星只想待在原地不動,也需要推進。地球重力場在軌道上並不均勻,會一點點把你拽出你那個位置。還有其他擾動。沒有推進,衛星會慢慢漂走。

更常見的是主動機動:

避碰,繞開空間碎片。

變軌拍照,降低軌道拍更高解析度的影象,拍完再回去。

退役離軌,任務結束後負責任地處理掉衛星。

低軌衛星通常選擇再入大氣層燒燬。地球同步軌道(約四萬公里高)的衛星不能這麼幹:把衛星推回大氣層需要的推進劑,比它整個壽命期間用掉的還多。所以它們被推到更高的“墓地軌道”,那裡自然衰減需要上百萬年。

Bailey 順帶說了一句:我們也在把更高那片區域弄髒,只是沒有低軌那麼緊迫。

每年三次避碰機動

Lex 問避碰有多難。

Bailey 給出一個數字:一些小衛星每年要做三次左右的避碰機動。這些機動目前基本不自主,依賴地面人員規劃。

另一邊,摩爾定律讓航天器越來越便宜,一批公司正在發射那些根本沒有機動能力的衛星,邏輯是“別撞我就行”。或者換個策略:與其發一顆大的,不如發二十顆小的,掉一顆無所謂。

Bailey 指出這個邏輯的漏洞。一顆中等大小的衛星被擊中,會產生上千塊碎片,這些碎片再去撞別的衛星。這是典型的碎片 cascade。

商業上能承受損失,物理上不能。軌道上的碎片不會因為你買了保險就消失。

衛星的尺寸光譜:校車到壘球

Lex 問行業是在變大還是變小。

Bailey 給了兩個端點。1990 年以前,多數衛星有校車那麼大,造價幾十億美元。而 Accion 最早的一批客戶發射的衛星只有鞋盒大小,是高中生做的。

她說大衛星會長期存在。廣播類業務需要覆蓋儘可能多的人,規模有優勢。光學器件也不服從摩爾定律:望遠鏡口徑需要多大就是多大,除非有新物理出現。

小衛星的崛起靠的是摩爾定律讓電子裝置變小變便宜,同樣的功能可以塞進更小的包。這讓進入太空的門檻下降,更多人能玩。

最小的常見規格是十釐米立方,能塞進一個壘球。還有公司在做更小的,用於物聯網這類極低頻寬的場景,比如追蹤一艘橫跨大洋的貨輪。

什麼尺寸需要裝發動機?Bailey 的經驗法則是:超過二十公斤,或者需要在軌存活超過一年,或者造價超過十萬美元。

衛星會到幾十萬顆嗎

Lex 問,未來軌道上會有幾百萬顆衛星嗎。

Bailey 說幾十萬顆有可能,不過要把應用分成兩類看。

成像是會飽和的。一顆衛星或一個星座拍下的影象,可以賣給無限多的客戶。需求增長不帶來衛星數量的等比例增長。

通訊不一樣。頻寬受轉發器數量限制,要服務更多使用者,就得發更多衛星。以現在資料消費的增長速度,幾十萬顆可以想象。

地平說,和最有力的證據

Lex 說他剛看了 Netflix 關於地平說的紀錄片,問:作為一個造衛星推進系統的人,你會拿什麼當最有說服力的證據。

Bailey 的答案落在照片上,而且是那種從月球軌道回望拍下來的照片。

畫面裡有月面、有著陸器,遠處是地球。第一反應是:那東西好小,我們好不重要,這有點傷感。緊接著你意識到,我們居然真的登陸了另一個天體。

“那是視角的轉變。那就是暗淡藍點。”(Lex Fridman)

她說她很喜歡從軌道拍的地球照片。這種美感和無力感並存的東西,比任何論證都管用。

她說她不想第一批去火星,理由不在技術

Lex 追問她那句“不會成為前一千人”。

Bailey 解釋得很清楚。她真正顧慮的是心理層面,健康風險和長途飛行的技術難度,她都不太擔心。

殖民早期像什麼?一群人被關在密閉空間裡,長時間共處。這是極端高壓的環境。派誰去?怎麼選?人一多就有戲劇衝突,永遠有。

她說她想等到有規矩的時候再去。

Lex 順勢提出一個更有意思的角度:第一批人等於在從零開始定義一個社會。這種機會極其罕見。金融系統可以基於加密貨幣,甚至可以試驗直接民主而非代議制。

Bailey 說她想在《獨立宣言》簽署的時候到場。那時候美國大概有兩百萬人。

前一千不行,前一百萬也不行,兩百萬剛好。她要的是參與,不當那個開路的人。

無工質推進:每隔幾年就有人來一次

Lex 問,有哪些聽起來像科幻、卻可能在幾十年內成真的推進方式。

Bailey 說真正的遊戲規則改變者是無工質推進:不需要向後扔東西就能產生推力。

每過幾年就會出現一個新裝置或一篇論文聲稱做到了這一點。動量守恆擺在那裡,你要麼自己帶著工質,要麼在途中從小行星上開採。

她提到卡西米爾效應。兩塊板靠得非常近,間距接近真空中虛粒子漲落的波長量級,理論上會產生一種淨效應。她承認自己可能把幾種不同的無工質設想混在一起了,這個方向可能是真的。

然後她講了 EmDrive 的故事,細節講得很完整。

有人提出,用電源產生微波,注入一個諧振腔,據說能產生推力。這些人沒有停留在概念上,直接造了裝置測試,說自己測到了推力。其他研究者複製實驗,也測到類似數值。局面一度看起來相當有希望。

問題是誰也解釋不了它為什麼能工作。支持者的說法是:腔內的微波本身沒變,但腔內光速變了,相對於變化後的光速,動量是守恆的。

最後破解它的辦法很樸素。有人(她記得是 NASA 的人)造了同樣的裝置,測到推力,然後把裝置拆下來、掉轉方向、重新裝上、再開機。

推力方向沒變。

結論落到裝置和測試臺架、真空腔之間的相互作用上,跟推力沒關係。

Bailey 說,要是能搞明白怎麼做無工質推進,對所有人都是天大的好事。她不知道怎麼做。

突破攝星:克級晶片,鐳射加速

Lex 提到比鄰星方向曾經有過一個可疑訊號,那顆恆星距我們四點二光年。要是能飛過去看看就好了。他問,什麼樣的推進能讓人在有生之年到達那裡。

Bailey 提到 Breakthrough Starshot。方案是造一批克級的晶片探測器,用鐳射在地球附近把它們加速到極高速度,然後讓它們自己飛過去。

她說這個專案她很喜歡,因為裡面有大量互不相同、各自獨立的技術難題:鐳射陣列、到達之後怎麼用有限的功率把訊號發回來。目前沒有一塊是現成可用的。

至於載人飛船接近光速?她說這就快離開她能可靠描述的範圍了。狹義相對論擺在那裡:有靜止質量的物體被加速到接近光速,相對論質量趨於無窮。要推動它需要難以想象的能源,數學上不太成立。

不過她加了一句:

“在我那個童心裡,我相信我們漏掉了什麼,也許是暗物質,也許是其他維度。”(Natalya Bailey)

Lex 自嘲說,作為猿類的後代,他可以很有把握地宣佈:我們根本不知道自己在幹什麼。物理學家很自信地說大部分圖景已經清楚了,可感覺上有些基礎的東西我們連門都沒摸到。

Bailey 順著講了一個更日常的例子:量子隧穿。電子原本處在這個能量狀態,突然出現在另一個能量狀態,我們管它叫隧穿。這個現象每天都在用,機制談不上真的理解。

從兩個人到一家公司

Lex 轉向創業。

Bailey 說早期階段相對“直接”,她特意宣告在做火箭科學的語境裡不該用“容易”這個詞。如果你做的東西足夠吸引人,比如離子發動機,融資和招人都比較容易,願景本身有號召力。

她強調願景要足夠激動人心,這一點貫穿始終。等一切都糟糕透頂的時候,你需要這個東西把人從床上拽起來。

第二件關鍵是早期員工。這些人得自帶網路,能帶來更多人,讓整體大於早期團隊的簡單加總。

Lex 問怎麼找到這樣的人。

Bailey 說她自己的線索是人脈,而且要雙向。她會主動給別人做連線,即使沒人開口請求,只要她覺得這兩個人湊在一起會有火花。更極端一點,她會在會議上跟陌生人進行“奇怪而不舒服的對話”,跳過寒暄,快速進入真正的內容。

她是內向的人。原話大意是:比起去社交場合寒暄,她寧願把眼睛戳瞎。所以她的做法是縮在角落裡跟一個人深聊,聊外星人那種話題。

結果反而更好。這樣建立起來的關係統得牢,之後真的可以去麻煩對方。

把價格打下來,和不能打下來的東西

Bailey 提到要盯住行業的大趨勢。所有人都在意成本,而且要提前量做得比自己以為的還足。

她給了一個對比:美國航天業從起步到現在,一顆離子發動機的價格長期在兩千萬到兩千五百萬美元之間(按可比價格)。現在客戶想要的是十萬美元、甚至一萬美元級別的東西。

要跟上這個變化,只能靠非常規方法。她們把矽微機電製造引入推進領域,用批次化的方式量產。NASA 造離子發動機的方式,是讓一個人做二十年,一件一件手工打磨,像做珠寶。

Lex 順著這個講了一段對成本競爭的懷疑。他說在汽車行業看到過後果:利潤空間被壓得太薄,以至於沒有餘量去做創新和冒險。除了特斯拉,其他車廠在技術上幾乎沒有真正的創新,改的是造型和內飾。

Bailey 同意這個觀察也適用於航天。降成本降過頭,就沒有錢去試新東西。

不過她也指出 SpaceX 帶來的正面效應:競爭壓力逼著所有人回答一個問題,這件事能不能更便宜地做。

她明確說不把 SpaceX 當競爭對手,反而希望不久的將來它成為客戶。

Lex 開玩笑說,將來也許有人在 Etsy 上賣離子發動機。Bailey 說她導師會把推進器晶片當胸針戴。

2020 年那兩次發射

Lex 提到 2020 年。疫情、選舉、社會撕裂,全是負面新聞。不過也有 SpaceX 和 NASA 完成首次商業載人飛行,並且成功了兩次。

他問 Bailey 有沒有看直播,什麼感受。

她說看了,公司把畫面投在外面的螢幕上。她注意到一個細節:解說一直說“Bob 和 Doug”,語氣很隨意。宇航員通常會被賦予更多儀式感。

她覺得這可能是好事,說明進入了商業載人時代。調性變了,更像名人,更像 Chris Hadfield 在空間站彈吉他那種味道,而不是“一個人類代表我們進入太空”的莊嚴敘事。

她說這種變化整體上是好的。載人往返空間站變得如此日常,以至於人們都不太意識到宇航員在不斷地上去下來。這

這本身就挺神奇。她說有時候自己都反應不過來,宇航員就這麼來來去去,落海濺落,成了日常。

另一面她也講得很直。私營部門補上了政府退出的位置,在商業領域這個時點可能剛好,在科學和探索領域,美國政府退得太早。她說在探索和基礎科學上投入應該更多而不是更少,別的國家正在加大投入,美國會因此落後。

Lex 追問,是不是覺得 NASA 在純政府主導的年代太官僚、太慢、太貴。

她的回應收了一下。她更關心的是政府願不願意出錢這件事,NASA 未必是快速推進科學的最佳組織形態。但人類在太空探索和科學認知上還站在非常靠前的位置,這時候應該多花錢。她用了“我們才剛剛開始”這個判斷。

給想創業的人:願景、第一性原理、文化

Lex 問她會給想創業的人什麼建議。

第一條還是願景。她見過不少人只是看到一個機會視窗,或者只是“關心”某個方向。創業很難,純粹的機會主義撐不過那些真正糟糕的時刻。願景的作用是心理層面的,讓你和團隊扛過去。

第二條給年輕創業者:儘可能長時間地貼著第一性原理和基本面走。真正理解問題本身、理解客戶在意什麼、理解怎麼把一件事推動起來,比上完本科階段所有創業課都重要。她說這話時特意補了一句,哪怕你做的不是硬體,這套邏輯一樣成立。

第三條關於文化。她說這一條几乎總是被當成事後才想起來的事。她沒見過多少創始人或高管會主動規劃出時間和資源,承認“這會佔掉我大量精力”。

大家通常是在出了問題之後才去修補,比如修那種兄弟會式的文化。她說這個情況在變,但從一開始就意識到很重要。

Lex 補充說,這應該屬於願景的一部分:你想建立什麼樣的地方、聚集什麼樣的人。不能等五到十年再塞一個 HR 進來修。

Bailey 說了一句更狠的。她原以為可以宣佈“這就是我們的文化和價值觀”,然後把它跟自己、跟聯合創始人作為具體的人區分開來。

“事實並不這麼運作。我們的行為會滲出來,公司就圍著它長起來。所以你得做很多內省和自我功課,否則會長出一個糟糕的文化。”(Natalya Bailey)

Lex 順著講了一段自己的觀察。他一般充滿愛,可在工作場景裡看到明明能做得更好的人沒做到,會像 Steve Jobs 那樣失控。他說你得想清楚到底要不要發這頓火,因為這是個巨大的訊號,一旦選擇這麼做,就得接受它的代價。

Bailey 說這是她和領導力教練合作的第一個議題:如何在別人犯蠢的時候不要直接開火。

她的第一步是練道歉,因為改變行為本身需要更長時間。

教練給的方法瑣碎得有點可愛。每次穿過一道門,就提醒自己冷靜、呼吸,再回應。她說都是一點點改習慣,現在好多了。

三本書,和公司名字的來歷

Lex 讓她推薦幾本影響過自己的書。

第一本是菲茨傑拉德的《夜色溫柔》(Tender Is the Night)。她小時候讀過,最近重讀,坦率地說覺得寫得沒那麼好,不明白當年為什麼那麼重要。她喜歡的是菲茨傑拉德這個人,文字華麗,畫面感強,又用很有創造力的方式表達。那本書標記了她成年閱讀的起點,是她進入經典文學的入口。

她後來發現一件讓自己放鬆的事:那些看起來很嚇人的經典,很多本質上都是愛情故事。俄語作家也一樣。人類其實很簡單,沒有那麼多花樣。

Lex 接了一句:所以那些看起來需要正襟危坐的東西,剝開其實是一部小妞電影。她說對,就是鬆下來讀。

第二本是 David Deutsch 的《無窮的開始》(The Beginning of Infinity)。作者是物理學家。她說這本書讓她更正式地接觸到很多之前只在閒聊裡碰到的想法,比如模因、DNA 作為終極模因、無窮的概念、客觀之美。Deutsch 用物理學的嚴謹和術語把這些東西講清楚。

她說這本書對她的影響很具體:一部分原因是她因此認識了現在的丈夫,另外還因為讀這本書和不少人建立了連線。有人跟她搭話,就是因為看到她讀過這本。

第三本是哈利波特。理由很實在。前三本出版的時候她正好十歲,跟著 Harry 一起長大,七本書每本讀了九到十遍。

她說重要的是“任何能讓你持續讀下去的東西”。她也有讀不進去書的低谷期,那時候就重讀哈利波特,或者一本爛俗偵探小說,無所謂,什麼能讓你繼續讀下去都行。

然後她揭了一個彩蛋。Accion 這個名字,官方說法是 accelerate 和 ion 的組合。實際來源是哈利波特里的召喚咒 Accio,加了個 n,正好拼成現在這個詞。Harry 在跟龍搏鬥的時候用過這個咒,把掃帚從宿舍召喚過來。

閱讀這件事:為什麼虛構值得

Lex 承認自己在這兒有個困難。聽有聲書聽多了,很難切回嚴肅閱讀。能坐下來讀書的時間有限,就會想去讀部落格文章或者論文,那裡的資訊密度更高。他自己一直在兩種狀態之間拉扯。

Bailey 認同長閱讀的價值。

她提到丈夫原本不太讀虛構作品,後來聽說讀小說能提升共情能力,才開始讀。

Lex 把虛構看作旅行。去另一個世界,比坐飛機高效得多,還能遇到各種新的人。他說自己跟人講,這就是他偏愛小說的原因。

Bailey 說她跟三歲的孩子解釋過為什麼要多讀書:我們在腦子裡看那些地方。孩子回答說自己更想看《冰雪奇緣》,還要配爆米花。

不過她指出文字和影像不一樣。讀書時,詞句進入腦子,會和你自己的理解、希望、恐懼混在一起,那個世界是你自己造出來的。電影把這些都替你決定好了,所以看改編作品時有時會痛:根本不是我想的那樣。

這大概是整期節目裡最不工程的一段,也最接近她反覆提到的那個“童年好奇心”。

意義:知識、善意、愛

最後一個大問題:人生的意義。

Bailey 說,一個人最後跑去做航天推進,大概不可能沒想過這些。

她的答案分兩層。

第一層是目標。生存和繁殖曾經是主要目標,那時候人類就是一個不斷複製的培養皿。現在情況變了,我們有能力提出這類問題,也許這就是轉折點。她認為真正的目標落在對知識的追求和生成上。如果人類被小行星撞沒了,只要關於宇宙的知識以某種方式被儲存下來,下一個文明不必從零開始,那這段歷程就算有意義。

她說自己一直很喜歡 Google 早期的使命:讓世界的資訊變得可檢索。她也喜歡維基百科,說這是全人類共同的偉大成就之一,而且她說所有人都該給維基百科捐款。

Lex 順著調侃說,人類文明燒成灰燼,一個 U 盤慢慢飄在太空裡,裡面裝著維基百科。Bailey 接得很快:那這個文明就算沒白過。

第二層她還沒想清楚。除了生存,還有情感、合作、愛。她說不清楚這幾件事和知識之間是什麼關係,但覺得自己在日常裡可以把答案簡化成兩件事:追求知識,改善人類的處境,以及保持善意。

“愛和知識。”(Natalya Bailey)

Lex 用 Carl Sagan 的一句話收了尾:所有文明要麼走向星際,要麼走向滅絕。

這期訪談裡可以真正拿走的東西

  • 如果你在做硬體創業,把成本曲線當作設計約束,別留到後期最佳化。Bailey 的做法是把晶片代工的批次化製造搬進發動機生產,從工藝層面改掉成本結構。一件件手工打磨二十年的東西沒法降價,能降價的只有能被量產的東西。
  • 願景在創業裡的作用是抗壓機制,融資話術只是順帶的。評估方向時問自己一個問題:接下來兩年全是壞訊息,我還願意為它起床嗎。答案是否定的,就重想。
  • 公司文化長在創始人身上,不長在價值觀文件裡。與其寫一份宣言,不如先列出你不希望被團隊模仿的三個行為,逐個改。Bailey 的具體做法是把“別在別人犯蠢時開火”拆成可執行的小動作,比如每次過門先深呼吸。
  • 內向的人不必強迫自己變成社交動物。把深度對話變成穩定的關係獲取方式,少而深,主動替別人做連線,不求回報地做。
  • 選推進方案時先算電源預算。太陽能、電池、核電源三條邊界決定了你能執行什麼級別的機動,發動機只是被約束的那一頭。
  • 任何涉及大量衛星的規劃都要把碎片級聯算進去。發二十顆小的代替一顆大的,在商業上分攤了風險,在物理上沒有。一顆中等衛星被撞碎會產生上千塊碎片,而這些碎片會繼續去撞別人。
  • 看到“測到了推力”這類實驗結論,先問有沒有做過反向測試。EmDrive 的破解方式不靠理論論證,靠把裝置掉轉一百八十度再測一次,看推力方向變不變。
  • 如果你在一件事上遇到理論上說不清、工程上卻已經能用的東西,那是好事。離子發動機就是這樣被用了六十年的,Bailey 把它當成了自己的創業入口。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Natalia Bailey, a rocket scientist and spacecraft propulsion engineer, previously MIT and now the founder and CEO of Acción Systems, specializing in efficient space propulsion engines for satellites and spacecraft. So these are not the engines that get us from the ground on Earth outer space, but rather the engines that move us around in space once we get out there. Quick mention of our sponsors. Monck Park, low carb snacks for stigmatic mushroom coffee Blankest and APTA summarizes books and sun basket meal delivery service. [00:00:38] So the choices, snacks, caffeine knowledge or delicious meal choose wisely, my friends, and if you wish, click the sponsored links below to get a discount and to support this podcast. As a side note, let me say something about Natalie, a story she has talked about how when she was young, she would often look up at the stars and dream of alien intelligences, that one day we could communicate with this moment of childlike cosmic curiosity. This is the core of my own interest in space and extraterrestrial life and in general in artificial intelligence, science and engineering. [00:01:15] Amid the meetings and the papers and the career rat race and all the awards, let's not let ourselves lose that childlike wonder, sadly, where on earth for only a very short time. So let's have fun solving some of the biggest puzzles in the universe while we're here. If you enjoy this thing, subscribe on YouTube, review an Apple podcast, follow on Spotify, supporta on Pichon, or connect with me on Twitter. Allex Friedemann, as usual. [00:01:42] I'll do a few minutes of ads now and no ads in the middle. I tried to make this interesting, but I do give you time stamps, so go ahead and skip if you must. But please do check out the sponsors by clicking on links in the description. It is honestly the best way to support this podcast. This episode is brought to you by Monk Pack, granola bars that contain just one gram of sugar, two grams of net carbs, and there are only one hundred and forty calories that are great for anyone following keto lifestyle, but also the perfect snack for anyone who's trying to cut back on sugar and carbs without sacrificing taste. [00:02:20] I'm not sure if everyone who tries to kill will feel like I do, but at least for me, low carb has been a huge boost to mental focus and overall energy levels. If you like, you should check out the AMA I did last week where I talk about the benefits of Kitto had on my life. Try it for yourself and you'll see. And we have a special deal for our listeners. Get twenty percent off your first purchase of any product by visiting Myung Bak Dotcom and entering code LAX at checkout. [00:02:51] If you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your money guaranteed to get started. Just go to Monck Pack Dotcom. That's Ammu one k pack dot com and select any product, then enter the code. Alexa, check, checkout, say twenty percent of your purchase. This show is also brought to you by four sematic, the maker of delicious mushroom coffee and plant based protein. I enjoy both the coffee as lions, main mushroom for productivity and chaga mushroom for immune support. [00:03:23] The the plant based protein has immune support as well and taste delicious. Supporting your immune system is one of the best things you can do right now for your health. A this pandemic not only does for stigmatic always have one hundred percent money back guarantee, but they're right now offering big discounts for our listeners. If you go to forcing Madagascar, Lex, that's for stigmatic dot com slash Lex and get yourself thoroughly over caffeinated just like me if you have to have one additional coffee is one of the better ones. [00:03:55] This episode is also supported by Blankest, my favorite ad for Learning New Things. Blankies takes the key ideas from thousands of nonfiction books and condense them down to just fifteen minutes. You can read or listen to. [00:04:07] I'm a big believer in reading at least an hour a day. As part of that I use Blankest almost every day to try out a book I may otherwise never have a chance to read. And in general, it's a great way to broaden your view of the ideal landscape out there and find books that you may want to read more deeply with blinkers. You get unlimited access to read or listen to a massive library of condensed nonfiction books. I also use blankest forecast to quickly catch up on podcasts, episodes I've missed. [00:04:38] There are so many podcasts out there and they're so amazing. I love it right now. Blankest has a special offer just for the listeners of this one particular podcast, Go to Blankest that Comcast likes to start your free seven day trial, get twenty five percent off of a blankest premium membership that's blankest spelled. Blink and then dot dotcom slash leks to get twenty five percent off and a seven day free trial blankies dotcom slash Lex Lex is spelled Élysées. [00:05:14] The show is also sponsored by Sun Baskett. Some Baska delivers fresh, healthy, delicious meals straight to your door. As you may know, my dad is pretty minimalistic or minimalist, is both minimalistic and minimalist as fun to say. So it's nice to get some healthy variety into the mix. They make it easy and convenient. With everything proportioned and ready to prep and cook. You can enjoy delicious, healthy dinner and as little as 15 minutes. I've enjoyed a lot of meals from the menu that fit my what they call carb conscious ways. [00:05:50] Some items on the menu that I have written down are Black Angus ribeye steak with broccoli and radishes, Italian sausages and vegetable skewers with two Romasco Mediterranean lemon chicken with baby broccoli, artichokes and olives. And there's many more delicious ones, even in just the carb conscious category. [00:06:09] Right now, Sun Basket is offering thirty five dollars off your order. When you go to Sun Basket that cost less and enter promo collects at checkout again. Visit some basket that cost LAX and use Scolex to get thirty five bucks off your order. And now finally, here's my conversation with Natalia Baley. You said that you spent your whole life dreaming about space and also pondering the big existential question of whether there is or isn't intelligent life, intelligent alien civilizations out there. [00:07:03] So what do you think? Do you think there's a life out there? Intelligent life, intelligent life, that's trickier. I think looking at, you know, the the likelihood of a self replicating organism, given how much time the universe has existed and how many stars with planets, I think it's likely that there's other life, intelligent life. I'm hopeful. You know, I'm a little discouraged that we haven't yet been in touch, allegedly. [00:07:40] I mean, in our dimensions, Tanya, it's also possible that they have been in touch and we just haven't we're too dumb to realize they're communicating with us in whichever is it's this Carl Sagan idea that they may be communicating at a time scale that's totally different, like their signals are in a totally different timescale or in a like a totally different kind of medium of communication. [00:08:06] It could be it could be our own. It could be the birth of like human beings like that. The whatever the magic that makes us who we are, the collective intelligence thing that could be aliens themselves, that could be the medium of communication, like the nature of our consciousness and intelligence itself as the medium of communication and like being able to ask the questions themselves. [00:08:33] I've never thought of it that way. [00:08:35] Like actually asking the question whether aliens exist might be the very medium by which they communicate. It's like they send questions. [00:08:43] So some, like collective emergent behavior is if the signal is the signal. [00:08:50] Yeah. So interesting. Yeah. [00:08:53] Because maybe that's how we would communicate. If you think about if four way, way, way smarter, like a thousand years from now, we somehow survive, like how do we actually communicate in a way that's like if we broadcast the signal. You know, and then it could somehow, like, percolate throughout the universe like that signal having an impact, diverse multiverse, of course, that would have a signal, an effect on the most, possibly the most, the highest number of possible civilizations. [00:09:26] What would that signal be? It might not be like sending a few, like stupid little hollow world messages. It might be something more impactful, what it's almost like. Impactful in a way where they don't have to have the capability to hear it, it's like forces the message to have an impact, right? [00:09:48] My train of thought has never gone gone there, but I like it. And also somewhere in there, I think it's implied that something travels faster than the speed of light, which I'm also really hopeful for. You're hopeful. [00:10:04] Are you excited by the possibility that there's intelligent life out there? Sort of you work on on the engineering side of things? It's this very kind of focused pursuit of moving things through space efficiently. Hmm. [00:10:20] But, you know, if you zoom out, one of the cool things that this enables us to do is find a good, even intelligent life, just life on Mars, on Europa or something like that that excite you. That scare you. Oh, it's very exciting. [00:10:37] I mean, it's the whole reason I went into the field I'm in is to contribute to building the body of knowledge that we have as a species. So very exciting. [00:10:52] Do you think there's life on Mars? Like, no longer. Well, already living, but currently living, but also no longer living like that, we might be able to find life as some people suspect, basic microbial life. [00:11:08] I'm not so sure about in our own solar system. And and I do think it might be hard to untangle if we somehow contaminated other things as well. So I'm not sure about this close to home. [00:11:23] That would be really exciting. Yes, I think. Do you think about the Drake equation? Much of that was what. [00:11:29] Yeah. What got me into all of this. Yeah. Yeah. [00:11:33] Because one of the questions is how hard is it for life to start on a habitable planet if you have a lot of the basic conditions, not exactly like Earth, but basic earth like conditions, how hard is it for life to start and if you find life on Mars or find life on Europa? That means it's way easier. That's a good thing to confirm that if you have a habitable planet. And there's going to be life and that like immediately that's that will be super exciting because that means there's like trillions of planets. [00:12:07] Basic life out there, though of all the planets in our solar system, Earth is clearly the most habitable. So I would not be discouraged if we didn't find it on another planet. And our solar system and again, that life could look very different, it's habitable for earth like light, but it could be totally different. [00:12:28] I still think that trees are quite possibly more intelligent than humans, but their intelligence is carried out over a timescale that we're just not able to appreciate, like they might be running the entirety of human civilization. And we're just, like, too dumb to realize that they're the smart ones. [00:12:45] Maybe that's the alien message than the trees. [00:12:50] The trees. Uh, yeah. It's not in the monolith. In the Utah desert. In the trees, right. [00:12:56] Yeah. So let's go to space exploration. How do you think we get humans to Mars? [00:13:01] I think space back then and Elon Musk will be the ones that get the first human setting foot on Mars and probably not that long from now from us having this conversation, you know, maybe will inflate his timeline a little bit. But I tend to believe the goals he sets. [00:13:23] So I think that will happen relatively soon as far as, you know, when and what it will take to get humans living there in a more permanent way. You know, I have a glib answer, which is, you know, when we can invent a time machine to go back to the early Cold War and instead of uniting around sending people to the moon, we pick Mars as the destination. [00:13:50] So really, you know, I say that because there's nothing. Truly, scientifically or technologically impossible about doing that soon it's more politically and financially and and the obstacles, I think, to that. [00:14:09] Well, I wonder of when you colonised with, you know, more than I say, five people on Mars, you have to start thinking about the kind of like rules you have on Mars. [00:14:21] And speaking of the Cold War, who gets to own the land? You know, you start planting flags, you start to make decisions. And like SpaceX says, this is probably a little bit trolly, but they have this nice paragraph in their contracts where it's like it talks about that, like human governments on Earth or Earth, governments have no jurisdiction on Mars, like the rules, the Martians get to define their own rules. [00:14:54] And it sounds very much like like the founding fathers for this country. [00:14:59] That's the kind of language it's interesting that that's that that's in there and it makes you think. [00:15:09] Perhaps that needs to be leverage, that you have to be very clever about leveraging that to create a little bit of a Cold War feeling, it seems like we're we humans need a little bit of a competition. Do you think that's necessary to succeed in. To get the necessary investment or can the pure pursuit of science be enough? [00:15:33] No, I think we're seeing right now the pure pursuit of science. I mean, that results in pretty tiny budgets for exploration. There has to be some disaster, impending doom to get us onto another planet in a permanent way. I don't know. Financially, I just don't know if the private sector can support that. And but I don't you know, I don't wish that there is some catastrophe coming our way that that spurs us to do that. [00:16:08] Yes. I'm not sure what the business model is for colonizing Mars. Yeah, exactly. [00:16:13] Yeah. Like there is for we'll talk about satellites. There's probably a lot of business models around satellites, but there's not enough short term business. I guess that's how business works. [00:16:24] Like you should have you should have a path to making money in the next 10 years. [00:16:29] Well, and maybe even more broadly and looping back to something we said earlier, I don't know that getting humans off this planet and, you know, spreading like bacteria is what we're supposed to be doing in the first place. So maybe we can go, but should we? [00:16:53] And I'm probably not an unusual person for thinking that in my industry because humans want to explore. But I almost wonder, you know, are we putting unnecessary obstacles like we're very finicky biological things in the way of some more robotic or, you know, more silicon based exploration? And, yeah, do we need to colonize and spread? I'm not sure. [00:17:25] What do you think is the role of A.I. in space? Do you in your work? [00:17:29] Again, we'll talk about it, but do you see more and more of the space vehicles, spacecraft being run by artificial intelligence systems, more than just like the flight control, but like the management? [00:17:45] Yeah, I don't have a lot of color to the dreams I have about way in the future. And and I but I do think that removing you know, it's hard for humans to even make a trip to Mars, much less go anywhere farther than that. And I think we'll have more of this. Again, I'm probably unusual in having these thoughts, but perhaps be able to to generate more knowledge and understand more if we stop trying to send humans. [00:18:17] And instead, you know, I don't know if we're talking about A.I. in a truly artificial intelligence way or A.I. as we kind of use it today, but maybe sending a petri dish or two of like stem cells and some robotic handlers instead, if we still need to send our DNA because we're really stuck on that. But if not, you know, maybe not even that Petri dish. So I see I think what I'm saying is I see a much bigger role in the future of A.I. for space exploration. [00:18:51] It's kind of sad to think that. [00:18:54] I mean, I'm sure we'll eventually send a spacecraft with efficient propulsion like some of the stuff you work on out. That travel is just really far with some robots on it and with some with some DNA in a petri dish. And then a human civilization destroys itself and then they'll just be this floating spacecraft that eventually get somewhere or not. That's a sad thought like this lonely spacecraft just kind of traveling into space and humans are all dead. [00:19:25] Well, it depends on what the what the goal is. Right. [00:19:31] And another way to look at it is you've preserved it like a little time capsule of knowledge DNA. You know, that we've that will outlive us all. Yeah. [00:19:44] How I sleep at night. [00:19:46] So you also mentioned that you wanted to be an astronaut. Yes. So even though you said you're unusual and thinking like it's nice here on Earth. And then we might want to be sending robots up there. You wanted to be a human that goes out there. Would you like to one day travel to Mars? [00:20:06] You know, if that's if it becomes sort of more open to civilian travel and that kind of thing, like, ah, you like vacation wise, like if you talk if we're talking vacations, would you like to vacation on Earth to vacation on Mars? [00:20:20] I wish that I had a better answer, but no, I wanted to be an astronaut because I. [00:20:29] First of all, I like working in labs and doing experiments, and I wanted to go to like the coolest lab, the ISIS, and do some experiments there that's being decommissioned, which is sad. But, you know, there will be others, I'm sure that ISIS is being decommissioned. Yes, I think by a 20 25, it's not going to be in use anymore. But I think there are other there are private companies that are going to be putting up stations and things. [00:21:00] So it's primarily like a research lab, essentially. Yes. Research lab in space. That's a cool way to say. It's like the coolest possible research lab. [00:21:07] That's where I wanted to go. And now, though, my, you know, risk profile has changed a little bit of three little ones, and I won't. I won't be in the first thousand people to go to Mars, let's put it that way. Yeah, Earth is kind of nice. We have our troubles, but overall, it's pretty nice. Again, it's the Netflix. OK, let's talk rockets. How does a rocket engine work or any kind of engine that can get us to space or float around in space? [00:21:41] The basic principle is conservation of momentum. [00:21:45] So you throw stuff out the back of the engine and and that pushes the rocket and the spacecraft in the other direction. So there are two main types of of rocket propulsion. The one people are more familiar with is chemical because it's loud and there's fire and that's what's used for launch and is more televised. So in those types of systems, you usually have a fuel on an oxidizer and they react and combust and release stored chemical energy and and that energy heats, heats the resultant gas and that's funneled out the back through a nozzle, directed out the back. [00:22:32] And then that momentum exchange pushes the spacecraft forward. [00:22:37] So an interesting difference in liquid and solid fuel in this context, they're both lumped in the same. [00:22:43] So chemical just means that the release of energy from from those bonds, essentially. So a solid fuel works the same way. [00:22:54] And the other main category is electric propulsion. So instead of chemical energy or using electrical energy, usually from, you know, batteries or solar panels, and in this case, the stuff you're pushing out the back would be charged particles. So instead of combustion and heat, you you end up with charged particles and you force them out the back of the spacecraft using either an electrostatic field or electromagnetic. And but it's the same momentum exchange and same idea stuff out the back and everything else goes forward. [00:23:32] So those are the big two categories. What? [00:23:36] What's the difference maybe in like the challenges of each they use cases of each and how they're used today, the physics of each week and where they're used or that kind of stuff? Anything interesting about the two categories that distinguishes them besides the chemical one being the big sexy flames and. Yeah, fire. Fire. [00:24:03] Yeah, chemical is very well understood. You know, in its simplest form, it's like a firework. So it's been around since four hundred B.C. or something like that, so that even the big engines are quite well understood. I think, you know, one of the. One of the last gaps there is probably what exactly are the products of combustion, our modeling abilities kind of fall apart there because it's hot and gases are moving and you end up kind of, you know, having to venture into. [00:24:48] Lots of different interdisciplinary fields of science to try to solve that, and that's quite complex, but we have pretty good models for some of the more like emergent behaviors of that system anyways. But that's, I think, one of the last. Unsolved pieces and really the then kind of what people care about there is is making it more fuel efficient. So the chemical stuff, you can get a lot of instantaneous thrust, but it's not very fuel efficient. It's much more fuel efficient to go with the electric type of propulsion. [00:25:24] So that's where people spend a lot of their time, is trying to make that more efficient in terms of thrust per unit of fuel. And then there's always considerations like heating and cooling. It's very hot, which is good if it heats the gases, but, you know, bad if it melts the rocket and and things like that. [00:25:45] So there's always a lot of work on heating and cooling and the engine cycles and things like that. [00:25:51] And then on electric propulsion, I find it like much more refreshingly poorly understood. [00:26:00] Well, that's more mysteries. Yeah, I think so. One of the classes I took in college spent we spent 90 percent of the class on chemical propulsion and then the last 10 percent on electric. And the professor said, like, we only sort of understand how it works, but it works kind of. [00:26:18] And like, that's that's interesting. Yeah. [00:26:22] And, you know, even an iron engine, which is probably one of the most straightforward because it's it has just and it's just an electrostatic engine, but it has this really awesome combination of like quantum mechanics and material science and fluid dynamics and electrostatic then and it's just very intriguing to me. [00:26:47] First of all, can you actually zoom out even more like because you mentioned. Yes. And engine is a subset of electric. So like maybe is there a categories of electric engines and then we can zoom in on ion propulsion. Yes. [00:27:00] So sure, there's the two most kind of conventional type that have been around since the 60s are ion engines and thrusters and ion engines are a little bit simpler because they don't use a magnetic field for generating thrust. And then there are also. Some other types of plasma engines, but that don't fit into those two categories, so just kind of other plasma, like a Vandermeer engine, which we could get into, and then those are probably the main three categories that would be fun to talk about. [00:27:38] And then, of course, the category of engine that I work on, which is has a lot of similarities to an iron engine, but could be considered its own class called a colloid thruster. Keloid cool. [00:27:50] OK, so what is the propulsion, I imagine. [00:27:53] OK, so in an iron engine you have an ionization chamber and you inject the propellant into that chamber and this is usually a neutral gas like xenon or argon. So you inject that into the chamber and you also inject a stream of really hot high energy electrons and everything's just moving around very randomly in there. And the whole goal is to have one of those electrons collide with one of those neutral atoms and turn it into an iron. So kick off a secondary electron and now you have plasma. [00:28:34] Yes. [00:28:35] OK, and now you have and now you have a charged xenon or argon ion and more electrons and so on. [00:28:47] And then some fraction of those ions will happen to make it to this downstream electric field that we set up between two grids with holes in them. [00:28:58] And in terms of area, the same amount of those ions also makes runs into the walls and lose their charge. And that's where some of the inefficiencies come in. [00:29:09] But the very lucky few make it to those holes in that grid. [00:29:13] And there are two grids, actually, and you apply a voltage differential between them and that sets up an electric field and a charged particle in an electric field create the force. And so those ions are accelerated out the back of the engine. And the reaction force is is what pushes the spacecraft forward. [00:29:35] If you're, you know, following along and tallying these charges. Now, we've just sent a positive beam of ions out the back of the spacecraft. And and for our purposes here, the spacecraft is neutral. So eventually those ions will come back and hit the spacecraft because it's a positive beam. [00:29:56] So you also have to have an external cathode producer of electrons outside the engine that pumps electrons into that beam and neutralizes that. So now it's net neutral everywhere and it won't come back to the spacecraft. So that's that's an iron engine. [00:30:12] What temperature are we talking about here? So in terms of like the chemical based engines, those are super hot. You mentioned plasma here. [00:30:21] How hot is this thing get? I mean, is that an interesting thing to talk about? [00:30:26] In a sense that is that an interesting distinction or is the heat? I mean, it's all going to be hot now. [00:30:33] So it's important, especially for some of these smaller satellites people are into launching these days. [00:30:40] So the it's important because you have the plasma, but also those high energy electrons are hot. And if you have a lot of those that are going into the walls, you do have to care about the temperature. [00:30:53] So I am having trouble remembering off the top of my head, I think they're at like one hundred electron volts in terms of the electron energy. And then I'd have to remember how to convert that into Kelvin. [00:31:05] Can you stick your hand in it? No, no, you're not recommended. OK, so what's colloid engine. [00:31:12] So the same rocket people that came up with with these ideas for electric propulsion probably in the middle of of last century, also realized that there's one more place to get charged particles from if you're going to be using electric propulsion so you can take a gas and you can ionize it. But there are also some liquids, particularly ionic liquids, which is what we use that you also can use as a source of ions. And if you have ions and you put them in a field, you generate a force. [00:31:50] So they recognize that. But part of being able to leverage that technique is being able to kind of manipulate those liquids on a scale of nanometres or or, you know, very few microns. So, you know, the diameter of a human hair or something like that. And in the 50s, there was no way to do that. So they wrote about it in some books and then it kind of died for a little bit. And then with silicon meme's. [00:32:21] Processors and and when foundries started becoming more ubiquitous and my advisor started it, MIT kind of put those ideas back together and was like, hey, actually there's now a way to build this and bring this other technique to life. And so the way that the way that you actually get the the ions out of those liquids is you put the liquid in a and again, a strong electric field and the electric field stresses the liquid and you keep increasing the field and eventually the liquid will assume a conical shape. [00:33:01] It's the it's when the electric field pressure that's pulling on it. Exactly balances the liquid on restoring force, which is its surface tension. [00:33:11] So you have this balance and the liquid assumes a cone when it's perfectly balanced like that. And at the tip of a cone, the radius of curvature goes to zero right at the tip and the radius sorry, the electric field right at the tip of a sharp object would go to infinity because it goes as one over the radius and one over the radius squared. [00:33:37] And instead of the electric field going to infinity and maybe like generating a wormhole or something, a jet of ions instead starts issuing from the tip of of that liquid. So the field becomes strong enough there that you can pull ions out of the liquid was the liquid we talk about. [00:33:56] So there's a bunch of different ones you can do it with with different types of liquids. It depends on, you know, how easily you can free ions from their neighbors. And if it has enough surface tension so that you can build up a high enough electric field. But what we use are called ionic liquids, and they're really just positive. They're they're very similar to salts, but they happen to be liquid over a really wide range of temperatures. [00:34:24] This sounds like really cool. OK, so how big is the biggest economy? What what's the size of this colony? [00:34:32] If you have a cone that's emitting pure ions, the. I can't remember the radius or diameter, but that admission is happening from of that cone is something like 20 nanometers. [00:34:46] Oh, I imagine something slightly bigger puzzle like this is. So this is tiny. Tiny. Yes. Hence the only being able to do it recently. Yeah, that's right. [00:34:57] So this is all controlled by a computer, I guess like or like how do you control how do you create a cone that generates on the scale of nanometres. Exactly. [00:35:08] So the kind of main trick to making this work is that physically we manufacture hundreds or thousands of sharp structures and then supply the liquid to the tip. So that does a few things. It makes sure that we know where the ion beams are forming so we can put holes in the grid above them to let them actually leave instead of hitting us. [00:35:34] But it also reduces the actual field. We have the voltage we have to apply to create that field because the field will be much stronger if we can already give the liquid a tip to form on. [00:35:46] And those tips we form have radii of curvature on the order of probably like single microns. So we are working out a little bit larger scale. But once we create that support and the electric field can be focused at that tip, then the tiny little cone can form. [00:36:04] So there's something there's an already like a hard material that like gives you the base for the cone and the pouring like liquid over it from the bottom. [00:36:14] Yeah, it's porous. So we actually supply it from the back of the chip and then the liquid forms on top. Yeah. On that structure. Yeah. And then you somehow make it like super sharp liquid so the ions can move. [00:36:29] And then we've applied that field to get those ions in that same field then accelerates them. [00:36:36] That's awesome. And there's like a bunch of these. Yeah. [00:36:39] I should have, I should have brought something so we could just pretend to have some nanometre cones and actually, you know, kind of about the scale we build. We call them thruster chips and it's just a convenient form factor and it's a square centimeter and on each square centimeter today we have about five hundred of the actual physical. [00:37:01] We call them Omidyar's those physical cones. [00:37:05] And we're working on increasing that by a factor of four in the coming months, in size or in number and the density, the number of emitters within the same square centimeter chip. [00:37:17] So that thing, because I think I've seen pictures of you with like a tiny thing. Yeah. And that must be. OK, so that's an engine. [00:37:24] So that is. Kind of the ionization chamber and thrusts producing part of it, what's not shown, you know, in that picture is the propellant tank. So we can keep supplying more and more of the liquid to those emission sites. And then we also provide a power electronics system that talks to the spacecraft and turns our device on and off. So that's the cool engine. [00:37:50] That's the core of the code. [00:37:51] And it's the way I've been talking about it. It's more of eye on electro spray. [00:37:58] Colloid tends to mean like liquid droplets coming off of the jet. But if you make smaller and smaller cones, you get pure ions. So we're kind of like a subset of keloid. [00:38:11] Yes. What aspects of this? You said that it's been full of mysteries from the physics perspective. What aspects of this are understood and what are still full of mystery? [00:38:24] Yeah, recently we've been understanding the kind of instabilities and unstable regimes of, you know, how much liquid do you supply and and what field do you apply and why is it flickering on and off or why does it have these weird behaviors? So that's in the past, just a couple of years that's become much more understood. I think the two areas that come to mind as far as not as well understood are the boundary between, you know, you have we actually use kind of big molecular ions. [00:39:07] And if you're looking at the molecular scale, you have some ions that you've extracted and they're in this electric field, one iron, you know, it's a big molecule. It's getting energy from the electric field. And some of that energy is going into the bonds and making it vibrate and doing weird things to it. Sometimes it breaks them apart and then zooming out to the whole beam. The beam has some behaviors as this beam of ions and there's a big gap between what are those? [00:39:42] What how do you connect those and how do we understand that better so that we can understand the beam performance of of the engine. [00:39:50] Is there a theory question as an engineering question theory? Definitely. We're Acción is a startup and we're more in the business of building and testing and observing and characterizing. [00:40:04] And we're not really diving much into that theory right now because zooming out a little bit on the physics, apologize for the way too big of a question. But to you from either us, you mentioned Acción, as you know, more sort of an engineering endeavor. Right. But from a perspective of physics in general, science in general or the side of engineering, what do you think is the most to you, like beautiful and captivating and inspiring idea in the space? [00:40:35] In this space, and then I'm going to zoom out a little bit more, but in this space, I keep putting up against material science questions. So I over the past 10 years, I feel like every problem or interesting. Thing I want to work on, if you dig deep enough, you end up in material science land, which I find kind of exciting, and it makes me want to dig in more there. And I was just, you know, even for our technology, when we have to move the propellant from the tank to the tip of the emitters, we rely a lot on capillary action. [00:41:17] And you're getting into wetting and surface energy at a scale of like, you know. [00:41:22] Yeah, I mean, it's if you look further, it's quantum to. But it all is. Capillary action at the quantum level. Yeah, so I would I guess so comes back to me, you know, material science, there's so much we don't understand at these sizes and I, I find that inspiring and exciting. And then more broadly, you know, I remember when I learned that the same equation that describes flow over an airfoil is used to price options, the Black-Scholes equation. [00:42:02] And and it's, you know, just a partial differential equation. But that kind of connectedness of the universe, you know, oh, I don't want to use options, pricing in the universe and the same, but you know what I mean. [00:42:16] This connectedness I find really magical. Yeah. [00:42:20] The patterns that mathematics seems to echo in a bunch of different places. Yes. Yeah. There's just weirdness. It's like it really makes you think I think we're definitely living a simulation. Like whoever programmed their conclusion is using a is using like shortcuts to program it like they did. And this is copying basis in both the different parts. [00:42:42] Yeah. Think of something new or just paste from over there. They won't notice. [00:42:47] My conclusion from that was I'm going to go interview for finance job. So I had like a little detour. [00:42:54] That's the that's the backup option. So in terms of using colet engines, what's what's an interesting difference between propulsion of a rocket from Earth when you're standing in the ground to orbit and then the kind of propulsion necessary for once you get out the orbiter to like deep space to to move around? [00:43:18] Yes. The reason you can't use an engine like mine to get off the ground is, you know, the thrust it generates is instantaneous. Thrust is very small. But if you if you have the time and can accumulate that acceleration, you can still reach speeds that are very interesting for exploration and even for missions with humans on them. Um, an interesting. Direction, I think we need to go as far as humans exploring space is the power supplies for electric propulsion are are limiting us in that, you know, solar panels are really inefficient and bulky and batteries. [00:44:05] I don't know when anybody's ever going to improve battery technology. You know, a lot of people that work on that. [00:44:13] And nuclear power, we could have a lot more powerful electric propulsion system, so they would be extremely fuel efficient, but more instantaneous threats to do more interesting missions if we could start launching more nuclear systems. [00:44:29] But it's like this is something that's powered, nuclear powered the right way to say, yeah, but is it a small enough container that could be launched? [00:44:41] Yeah. So, um, I mean, as a world, we do launch spacecraft with nuclear power systems on board. But size is is one consideration. It hasn't been a big focus. So the reactors and the heaters and everything are bulky. And so they're really only suitable for some of the much bigger interplanetary stuff. So that's one issue. But then it's a whole, like rat's nest of political stuff as well. [00:45:11] I heard I think you can describe for somebody, but I think I think it was you described the IV tall, like electrical vertical takeoff and landing vehicles, basically saying Rocket's obviously you guys interested in electric vehicles. [00:45:26] Right. But he said that rockets can't in the near term, it doesn't make sense for them to be electrical. [00:45:36] Uh, what do you see? A world with the rockets that we use to get into orbit are also electric bass. [00:45:45] It's possible you can produce the thrust levels you need, but you need this a much bigger power supply. And I think that would be nuclear. And the only way people have been able to launch them at all is that they're in a, you know, one hundred times redundancy safe mode while they're being launched and they're not turned on until they're farther off. So if you were to actually try to use it on launch, I think a lot of people would still have an issue with that. [00:46:11] But someday, it's an interesting concept. Nuclear. It seems like people, like everybody that works on nuclear power has shown how safe it is as a source. That's right. [00:46:23] And and yet we seem to be mean based on the history. It's an excellent HBO series, Russian with Chernobyl. It seems like we have our risk estimation about this particular power source is drastically inaccurate. But that's that's a fascinating idea, that we would use nuclear as a source for our vehicles and not just in outer space. [00:46:48] That's cool. I'm going to look into that. That's interesting. [00:46:51] Well, just last year, Trump eased up a little bit on the regulations and NASA and hopefully others are starting to pick up on the development. So now is a good time to look into it because there's actually some movement. [00:47:07] Is that a hope for you to to explore different energy sources that the entirety of the vehicle uses something like, uh, like the entirety of the propulsion systems for all aspects of the vehicle's life? [00:47:20] Travel is the same or electric. [00:47:23] Is it possible for it to be the same, like the quality engine being used for everything you could and you would have to do it in the same way we do different stages of rockets now where once you've used up and an engine or a stage, you let it go because there's really no point in holding onto it. So I wouldn't necessarily want to use the the same engine for the whole thing, but the same technology I think would be interesting. OK, so it's possible. [00:47:50] All right. But yeah, in terms of the power source, the power source, that's really interesting. But for the current power sources and its current use cases, what's the use case for electric like the, uh, the colloid engine? Can you talk about where they're used today? [00:48:06] Sure. So chemical engines are still used quite a bit once you're in orbit. But that's also where you might choose instead to use an electric system and what people do with them. And and this includes, you know, the ion engines and how thrusters and our engine is basically any maneuvering you need to do once you're dropped off. [00:48:29] There's even if your only goal was to just stay in your orbit and not move for the life of your mission, you need propulsion to accomplish that because the Earth's gravity field changes as you go around in orbit and pulls you out of your little box. There are other perturbations that that can throw you off a bit. And then, you know, most people want to do things a little bit more interesting, like maneuver to avoid being hit by space debris or perhaps lower their orbit to take a higher resolution image of something and then return at the end of your mission. [00:49:10] You're supposed to responsibly get. [00:49:13] Right of your satellite weather that's burning it up, but if you're in Geo, you want to push it higher into a graveyard orbit, what's your what's what's so low Earth orbit and then geosynchronous orbit or geostationary orbit? [00:49:28] And there's a graveyard. Yeah. So those satellites are at like 40 thousand kilometers. So if they were to try to push their satellites back down, to burn up in the atmosphere, they would need, you know, even more propulsion than they've had for the whole lifetime of their mission. So instead, they push them higher where it'll take, you know, a million years for it to naturally deorbit. So we're also cluttering that higher bit up as well. [00:49:55] But it's not as pressing as as Leo, which is low Earth orbit, where more of these commercial missions are going now. [00:50:01] Well, so how hard is the collision avoidance problem there? [00:50:04] He says some debris and stuff like how much propulsion is needed and how much is the life of a satellite is just like, oh, crap, try trying to avoid like I think one of the recent, you know, rules of thumb I heard was per year, some of these small satellites are doing like three collision avoidance maneuvers. [00:50:26] So that's. That's right. Yeah. Zero. And it yeah, it takes a lot of planning and people on the ground and you know, none of that really I don't think right now is autonomous. Oh that's not good. [00:50:42] Yeah. And then we have a lot of folks taking advantage of, you know, Moore's Law on cheaper spacecraft. So they're launching them up without the ability to maneuver themselves. Well, I don't know. Just don't hit me. [00:50:53] And three times a year that could be become affordable if it's like. If it gets hit, maybe it won't be damaged kind of thing, that kind of logic affordable in that instead of launching one satellite, they'll launch 20 small ones. Yeah. So if one gets taken out, that's OK. But the problem is that, you know, one good sized satellite getting hit, that's like a ballistic event that turns into ten thousand pieces of debris. That then are the things that go and hit the other satellites. [00:51:22] Yeah. [00:51:23] You see a world where, like in your son's in your own work and just in the space industry in general, do you see that people are moving towards bigger satellites or smaller satellites? Is there going to be a mix like what's and what are we talk? What does it mean for satellite to be big and small? What's so big? [00:51:42] The space industry prior to, I don't know, nineteen ninety. You know, I guess the bulk of the majority of satellites were the size of a school bus and it cost a couple billion dollars. [00:51:57] And now, you know, our first launches were on satellite the size of shoeboxes that were built by high school students. So that's a very different, you know, to give you the two ends of the spectrum, big satellites will I think they're here to stay, at least as far as I can see, into the future for things like broadcasting. You want to be able to, you know, broadcast to as many people as possible there. You also can't just go to small satellites and say Moore's Law for things like optics. [00:52:36] So if you have an an aperture on your satellite, you know that just that doesn't follow Moore's Law. That's that's different. So it's always going to be the size that it will be, you know, unless there's some new physics that comes out that I'm not aware of. [00:52:49] But if you need a resolution and you're at an altitude that kind of sets you're the size of your telescope, but because of Moore's Law, we are able to do a lot more with smaller packages. And and with that comes more affordability and opening up access to space to more and more people. [00:53:08] Well, what's the smallest satellite you've seen go up there like? Well, what are the smallest that shoeboxes? [00:53:14] Yeah. So I think, you know, the smallest the smallest common form factor can fit a softball inside. Wow. That's 10 centimeters on each side. But then there are some companies working on, you know, fractions of that even, and they're doing things like Iot type applications. So it's very low bandwidth type things. But they're finding some niches for those. [00:53:42] Do you mean like there's a business, there's a thing to do with them? Yes. What do you do with a small satellite like that? [00:53:48] You can, you know, track a ship going across the ocean is like if you need it, if you just pinging something, you know, you can handle that that amount of data and latencies. [00:54:00] And so you have to have propulsion on that. You have to have a little engine. [00:54:03] No, those are just, you know, letting fall out of the sky. [00:54:08] OK, yeah, but what so what kind of satellites would you equip it engine on anything that's bigger than probably about 20 kilograms. [00:54:17] Anything that needs to stay up for more than a year or anything. Somebody spent more than like 100K to build our kind of the ways I would think about it. [00:54:26] That's a lot of use cases where it was a small set like was actually very big. [00:54:33] I think it's like 700 kilograms or maybe a thousand kilograms down to 200 kilograms, or people have their own definitions of how they break them up. But small SAT is still quite large. And then it's kind of also applied as a blanket term for anything that's not a school bus sized satellite. We need to get our jargon straight industry. [00:55:01] So what do you see? Do you see a possible future where, you know, there's a few thousand satellites up there now, a couple thousand of them functioning? Do you see a future where there's like millions of satellites up in orbit or forget millions, tens of thousands, which it seems like were the natural trajectory of the way things are going now is going tens of thousands? [00:55:25] Yes. The two, you know, buckets of applications. One is imaging and the other is communication. So imaging, I think that will plateau because one satellite or one constellation can take an image or a video and sell it to, you know, infinity customers. But if you're providing communications like broadband Internet or satellite cell or something like that. Satellite phone, you know, you're you're limited by your transponders and and so on, so to serve more people, you actually need more satellites and and perhaps at the rate, you know, our data consumption and things are going these days. [00:56:13] Yeah, I can see tens of thousands of satellites. [00:56:17] You a ridiculous question. Yes. [00:56:20] So I've recently watched this documentary on Netflix about flat Earth is that, you know, that people that believe in a flat earth as something and as somebody who develops propulsion systems for satellites and for spacecraft, what's to use the most convincing evidence that the Earth is round? Probably some of the. Photos taken from the moon, photos on the moon. OK, so it's not from the sun, from the satellite space. [00:56:57] Yeah, I think seeing though that perspective. I maybe I'm just I'm answering to personally, because I really love those photos. They're beautiful. [00:57:08] Yeah, I really like the ones that show the moon and the lunar lander and they're taken a little bit farther back. So you see Earth. And first you're like, wow, that's tiny and we're insignificant. And that's kind of sad. But then you see this really cool thing that we landed on another, you know, planetary body. And you're like, oh, OK. [00:57:29] You actually see. I don't know. Yeah. I'll send you any of that picture cause I love the pictures or videos of just Earth from more from orbit and so on. Right. Those that's really that's like a perspective shifter. That's the pale blue dot. Right. Is probably the tiny. [00:57:46] Yeah. And does that, you know, juxtaposition of the insignificance. But you're in this really cool thing. [00:57:54] Yeah. That be cool. I can't I personally love the idea of humans stepping on Mars. I'm such a sucker for the romantic notion of that and being able to take pictures from Mars. [00:58:06] So you would go. I have uh. [00:58:10] I uh. Yeah, I would be. What did you say? [00:58:12] You said you wouldn't be in the first thousand four thousand. [00:58:16] Which is funny because to me that's that's brave to be in the first million. I think when a Declaration of Independence was signed in the United States, that was like two million people. So I would like to show up when they're signing those documents. OK, so maybe the two million. [00:58:35] That's interesting way to think about it, because, like, then we're like participating a citizenry in defining the direction. [00:58:42] So it's not the technical risk. You just don't want to show up somewhere that like America before. [00:58:51] Yeah, because it's OK. I, from a psychological perspective, is just going to be a stressful mess. And as people have studied. Right, it's like it's people most likely the process of colonization like looks like basically a present, like you're in a very tight, enclosed space with people. And it's just a really stressful environment. You know, how do you select the kind of people that will go and then there will be drama? There's always drama in. [00:59:22] And I just want to show up and there's some rules. But I mean, you know, it depends. [00:59:27] So I'm not worried about the health and the technical difficulty. [00:59:30] Yeah, I'm more worried about the psychological difficulties and also just not being able to tweet like, where are you going? How are you? There's no Netflix. So, yeah, maybe than the first million, but the first hundred thousand. It's exciting to define the direction of a new like how often do we not just have a revolution to redefine our government? As you know, smaller countries are still doing to this day. People literally start of scratch. [00:59:58] There's just our financial system. It could be like based on cryptocurrency. You could think about like, how do you know we have we have now the technology that can enable pure democracy, for example, if we choose to do that. Yeah. As opposed to representative democracy, all those kinds of things. [01:00:17] So we talked about two different forms of propulsion, which are super exciting. So the chemical based, that's doing pretty well. And then the electric bass is are there types of propulsion that might sound like science fiction right now, but are actually within the reach of science in the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years that you kind of think about or maybe even within the space of even just like like even ion engines? [01:00:48] Is there like breakthroughs that might 10x the thing like really improve it? [01:00:53] So, you know, the real game changer would be propellant, less propulsion. And so every couple of years you see a new now a startup or a researcher comes up with some contraption for producing thrust that didn't require. You know, we've been talking about conservation of momentum, mass times, velocity out the back. [01:01:19] Yes, that's what exactly. [01:01:20] And you have to, you know, carry that up with you or find it on an asteroid or harvest it from somewhere if you didn't bring it with you. So not having to do that would be, you know, one of the ultimate game changers. And and I you know, unless there are new types of physics, I don't know how we do it, but it comes up often. So it's something I do think about. And, you know, the one I think it's called the Kazmir Effect. [01:01:50] If you can if you have two plates and the space between them is on the order of these, like the wavelength of these ephemeral vacuum particles that pop into and out of existence or. Something I may be confusing multiple types of propellent forces, but that that could be real and could be something that that we use eventually will be the power source. Yeah, the most recent engine like this that has was just debunked this year, I think in in March or something was called the M Drive. [01:02:28] And supposedly you used a power source so, you know, batteries or solar panels to generate microwaves into this resonant cavity. And people claimed it produced a threat. So they they went straight from this really loose concept to building a device and testing it. And they said, we've measured thrust. And sure, on their thrust balance, they saw thrust and different researchers built it and tested it and got the same measurements. And so it was looking actually pretty good. [01:02:57] No one could explain how it worked. But what they said was that this inside the cavity, the microwaves themselves didn't change, but the speed of light changed inside the cavity. [01:03:09] So relative to that, you know, their momentum was conserved and. [01:03:16] I don't, you know, whatever, but finally, someone I think at NASA built the device, tested it, got the same thrust, then unhooked it, flipped it backwards and turned it on, but got the same thrust in the same direction again. And so they're like, this is just an interaction with the test set up or the chamber or something like that. So forded again. But, you know, it would be so wonderful for everybody if we could figure out how to do it. [01:03:43] But I don't know. [01:03:44] That's an interesting twist on it, because that's more about efficient travel, long distance travel. Right. That's not necessarily about speed. That's more about enabling. [01:03:56] Like, yeah. [01:03:57] So hook that up to the nuclear power supply. There you go. OK, yeah. But still, in terms of speed, in terms of trying to so there's recently as already I think, been debunked or close to being debunked. But the signal, a weird signal from our nearby friends, nearby exoplanets from Proxima Centauri, uh, a signal that's four point two light years away. So, you know, the the thought is can be kind of cool if there's life out there early in life, but it'd be really cool if we could fly out there and check. [01:04:39] And so what kind of propulsion and did you think about what kind of propulsion allowed us to travel close to the speed of light or, you know, half the speed of light, all those kinds of things that would allow us to get to Proxima Centauri in a reasonable in a lifetime? You know, there's the project break through star shot. Yeah, that's looking at sending those tiny little chipsets celebrating really fast. [01:05:06] Yeah, using a laser, so launching them and then while they're still relatively close to the earth, you know, blasting them with them, I forget what even what power level you needed to to accelerate them fast enough to get there in crazy sounding. [01:05:21] But a lot of people say that's a legitimate like it's crazy sounding, but they can actually pull it off. [01:05:27] Yeah, I love that project because there are a lot of different aspects. [01:05:30] You know, there's the laser, there's how do you then get enough power when you're there to send a signal back? [01:05:37] No part of that project is possible right now, but I think it's really exciting. [01:05:43] But do you see like a human like a spacecraft with a human on it? So it's like a heavy one being like us inventing new propulsion systems entirely, like, do you ever see that in there on the radar of propulsion systems like that? Or are they completely out there in the impossible? [01:06:02] Well, we're going to quickly leave the realm of what I can describe with any credibility. But I think I think because of special relativity, if we try to accelerate the mass to close to the speed of light, it becomes infinitely heavy. And then we just don't we'd have to, like, harness a lot of sun to do that. [01:06:25] Or, you know, it's just that that math doesn't quite work out. But, you know, in in my child's childlike heart, I believe that, you know, we're missing something, whether it's dark matter or other dimensions. [01:06:43] And if you can just have them and matter in a black hole and then ride that around and somehow, you know, turn that into some mess with gravity somehow. [01:06:55] Yeah, I feel like we're missing lots of things in this puzzle and that, you know, I want to hear something. [01:07:06] Yeah, right. Well, I can speak with confidence as a descendant of apes that we don't know what the hell we're doing. [01:07:14] And so there is we're like really confident, like physicists are really confident that we've got most of the picture down. [01:07:22] But it feels like, oh, boy, it feels like that that we might not even be getting started on some of the essential things that that would allow us to engineer systems that would allow us to travel to space much, much faster. [01:07:41] Yeah. And there's even things that are much more commonplace that we can't explain. But we've started to take for granted, like quantum tunneling, you know, things like, oh, the electron was here with this energy and now it's here with this energy and it's just tunneling. But so, you know, we're missing a lot of the picture. So, yeah, I don't know. And to, you know, use your same question from earlier, I don't know if you and I will see it, but yeah, someday you. [01:08:13] You're the co-founder of just like we've been talking about, actually, on systems. Yeah. This is, would you say Space Propulsion Company? Yes. Broadly speaking. So how do you big question. How do you build a rocket company from like a propulsion company from one person, from two people to 10 people plus and actually, you know, take it to a successful product? Yeah, well, I think the early stage is quite. I'm not supposed to use the word easy when you work in rocket science, but straightforward when you're working on something you know, sexy like an iron engine, it's more straightforward to raise money and and get people to come work for you because the vision's really exciting. [01:09:07] And actually, that's something I would say is very important throughout is a really exciting vision, because when everything, you know, goes to crap, you need that to get people getting themselves out of bed in the morning and thinking of the the higher purpose there. [01:09:26] And, you know, another thing along the way that I think is key and in building any company is the right early employees that also have their own networks and can bring in a lot of people that, you know, really make the. [01:09:46] This the whole greater than than just the some of the early team, and how do you build that? Like, how do you find people? It's like asking like how do you make friends? But is there is it is it luck? Is there a system like how in terms of the people you've connected with, the people you built the company with? Is there some thread, some commonality, some pattern that you find it to be to hold for what makes a great team? [01:10:22] I think, you know, personally, a thread for me has been my network and. Being able to draw on that a lot, but also giving back to it as much as possible and like an unsolicited sort of way, like making connections between people that, you know, maybe didn't ask, but that I think could be really fruitful and even, you know, weirder than that is just really getting, you know, having weird, uncomfortable conversations with people like at a conference and getting over the small talk quickly and getting to know them quickly and having a relationship that stands out and then being able to call on them later because of that. [01:11:09] And I think that's it. That's been because I'm introverted and I, you know, want to poke my eyes out instead of go and do small talk. And so I huddle in a corner with one person and, you know, we talk about aliens or things like that. [01:11:24] And so, you know, that's all to say that, you know, having a strong network I think is really important, but a genuine one and lets the other ways to build a rocket company, kind of making sure you're paying attention to the sweeping trends of the industry. So everybody just cares about cost and being able to get out ahead of that and even more than we ever thought we'd need to as far as what we needed to price our systems at. [01:11:51] You know, people for since the start of the the U.S. space industry, they've been paying 20, 25 million in adjusted dollars for an iron engine. And seeing that now people are going to want to pay 10K for an eye on engine and just staying out ahead of that and those kinds of things. So, you know, being out in the industry and talking to as many people as possible. [01:12:19] So there's a drive. I mean, know SpaceX really push that frustrating for me. So SpaceX really pushed this. Mm hmm. Uh, yeah. [01:12:29] The application of, I guess, capitalism, of driving the price down, of basically forcing people to ask the question, can this can this be done cheaper? This can lead to. [01:12:44] Like big problems, I would say, in the following sense, I see this in the car industry, for example, that people have it's such a small margin for profit, like they've driven the cost of everything down so much that there's literally no room for innovation taking risks. So like cars, which is funny because not until Tesla really, which is one of the in a long, long time one of the first successful new car companies that's constantly innovating. [01:13:21] Every other car company is really pouring in terms of their technological innovation. They innovate and design and style and so on. The that people fall in love with the look and so on. But it's not really innovation, the terms of the technology. And it's really boringly the same thing. And they are really afraid of taking risks. And that's a big problem for rocket space, too, is like if you're cutting down costs, you can't afford to innovate, to try out new things. [01:13:48] And then, yeah, that's definitely true with ion engines. Right. But what? So how do you compete in this in the space do, by the way, see SpaceX as a competitor? And what do you say in general about the competition in the space? Is it really difficult as a as a business to compete here? [01:14:10] No, I I don't see SpaceX as a competitor and I see them as one day, not too long from now, a customer hopefully. Um, I mean, to compete against that, I think you just have to do things in an unconventional way. So bringing silicon MEMS manufacturing to propulsion, you know, NASA doesn't make ion engines using a batch mass producible technique. They have, you know, one guy that's been making their eye on engines for 20 years, like bespoke pieces of jewelry. [01:14:46] So bringing things to what you're trying to innovate to to make them, you know, in our case, more cost effective was was really key. [01:14:58] I like the idea of somebody putting out ion engines on like Etsy. Yeah. My advisor at MIT would, you know, the thruster chip I was holding up, he would wear one as a lapel pin. [01:15:10] But in general, just on the topic of Space X, you know, 20/20 has seen some difficult things for human civilization. And there's been a lot of first of all, it's an election year. There's been a lot of drama and division about that. There's been riots of all different. Um. Reasons, racial division, there's been obviously a virus that's testing the very fabric of our society, but there's been really I for of these super positive things, which inspiring things, which is SpaceX and NASA doing the first commercial. [01:15:47] Yeah. [01:15:48] Human flight, launching humans to space and did it twice successfully. What is that? [01:15:57] Did you get to watch that launch? Did you what does it make you feel? How do you think this is the first days for a new era of space exploration? Yeah, I did watch it, we played it outside on a big screen space, and I was a little you know, they kept saying Bob and Doug, Bob and Doug and, you know, astronauts usually are treated with a little bit more fanfare. [01:16:25] So it felt very casual. But maybe that was a good a good thing like this is the era of commercial crewed missions. [01:16:34] And it was a little bit more, um, what is it what's his name? Chris Hadfield. Like playing guitar? [01:16:42] Yeah, it's more it's a different flavor to it of. Yeah, exactly. More like fun, playful celebrity type. Yes, exactly. [01:16:51] Astronaut versus the other R of the magical sort of habré elements of the single human representing us in space. Yes. Yeah. [01:17:02] I think that's all for the better though. It's so cool that it's such a commonplace thing now that we said, you know, I can't believe that sometimes I'll have to. [01:17:12] You know, you don't even realize that astronauts are coming and going all the time, you know, splashing back down and it's just so common now, but that's quite magical. I think so. Yes, we did watch that. I love, love, love that. [01:17:28] We finally have that capability again to send people to the space station. And it's just really exciting to see the private sector stepping up to fill in where the government has pulled back in the US and I think pulled back way too soon as far as exploration and science goes, probably pulled back at the right time for commercial things. [01:17:51] And I'm getting that started. But I'm really happy that it's even possible to do that with private money. [01:17:59] And and companies do like the kind of the model of competition of NASA funding. I guess that's how it works, is like they're providing quite a bit of money from the government. [01:18:10] And then then private companies compete to be to be the delivery vehicles for whichever the the government missions like NASA missions. [01:18:22] Yes, I think for this type of mission is a little bit kind of straddles commercial and and science. So I think it's good. But I do in general feel like we've pulled back too much on, you know, NASA's role in the science and exploration part. And I think our pace is too slow there, you know, for my liking, I suppose. [01:18:47] What do you mean on the science? OK, so did you have I mean, on the cost thing, do you feel like NASA was a little too bureaucratic in a sense, like too slow, too heavy cost wise in their effort, like when they were running things purely without any commercial involvement? [01:19:08] So I suppose it's more that I just want the government to fund. I say, and and maybe NASA's not the best organization to to do it rapidly. But I think that. You know, again, depending on the goals were just kind of at the very starting point of space exploration and science and and understanding, so we should be spending more money there and and not less. And other countries are starting to spend more and more and I think will fall will fall behind because of that. [01:19:42] So you have quite a bit of experience. First of all, starting compare yourself. [01:19:46] But also I saw maybe you can correct me, but you have a quite, quite a bit of knowledge of just in general the startup experience of building companies that you've interacted with people. [01:19:59] Is there is there advice that you can give to somebody to find a co-founder who wants to launch and grow a new company and do something big and impactful in this world? [01:20:14] Yes, I would say. You know, like I mentioned earlier, but make sure. The vision is something that, you know, will get you out of bed in the morning and and will get and that you can rally other people around you to to achieve, because I see a lot of folks that sort of cared about something or saw a window of opportunity to do something. And, you know, startups are hard and more often than not, just being opportunistic isn't going to be enough to make it through all the really crappy things that are going to happen. [01:20:53] But the vision just helps you psychologically to carry through the hardships that you and the team. [01:20:58] Yeah, you and the team. Yeah, exactly. To kind of younger people interested in getting into entrepreneurship, I would say, you know, stay as close to like first principles and fundamentals as you can for as long as you can, because really understanding the problems, you know, if it's something scientific or hardware related or even if it's not, but having a deep understanding of of the problem and the customers and what people care about and how to move something forward is more important than taking all of the entrepreneurship classes in undergrad. [01:21:36] So being able to think deeply. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [01:21:40] Well, have you been surprised about how much like pivoting is involved, like basically rethinking what you thought initially would be the right direction to go, or is there something deeply enough that you can stick in the same direction for long enough so our, you know, our guiding star hasn't changed at all. [01:22:01] So that's been pretty consistent. But we within that, we flip flop on so many things all the time. And, you know, to give you an example, it's do you stop and build the first product that's well suited to maybe a smaller, less exciting segment of the market? Or do you stay head down and focus on, you know, the big swing and trying to hit it out of the park right away? And we've flip flopped between that. [01:22:32] And there's not a blanket answer and there are a lot of factors, but that's a hard one. And I think one one other piece for the aspiring founder, um, spending a lot of time and effort on the culture and people piece is so important and is always an afterthought and something that. I haven't really seen, like the founders or executives that companies purposefully carve out time and and acknowledge that, yes, this is going to take a lot of my time and resources. [01:23:11] And then but you see them after the fact trying to repair the, you know, bro culture or whatever else is broken at the company. And I think that is starting to change. But just to be aware of it from the beginning is important. Right? [01:23:24] I guess it should be part of the vision of what kind of place you want to create or what kind of. Like human beings. Yeah, exactly like you can't wait five, 10 years and then just slap an H.R. person on to trying to fix it, like it has to be thoughtful from the beginning. [01:23:42] Yeah. [01:23:43] And don't get me started on HRR. People don't leave HRR to HRR people, but I'll just leave it at that. You didn't say I said OK. Yeah. [01:23:55] Acorah's actual HRR is really important because it is so, so, so culture. Yeah. [01:24:03] And then I also was surprised, like I thought you could say here will be our culture and our values and that it was kind of distinct from who I and my co-founder were as people. [01:24:15] And I think, no, that's not how that works. [01:24:17] We just kind of like ooze out our behaviors and then the company grows around that. So you have to do a lot of, like, introspection and self work to not end up with a shitty culture. [01:24:29] It's kind of a it's a it's a relationship, but it's supposed to relationship to people's relationship with many people. [01:24:36] Yeah. And you you communicate so much indirectly by who you are. You have to be. Yes. You have to live it. Yeah. Uh, as somebody I think about this a lot because. Generally, I'm full of love and all those kinds of things, but like I also get, like, really passionate. And when I see somebody in the context of work, especially when I see somebody who I know can do a much better job and they don't do a great job, I can lose my shit in a way that's like Steve Jobs in. [01:25:11] And you have to think about exactly the right way to lose your shirt if you're going to or if at all, you have to really think through that because it sends a big signal. You know, sometimes it's OK if you do deliberately, if you're going to do it deliberately, if you're going to say, like, I'm going to be the kind of person that allows this and pays the cost of it, but you can't just think it's not going to have a cost. [01:25:35] Yes, this is like the first thing I worked on with my leadership coach was to how not to just snap people when they were being an idiot. [01:25:46] And first, I got really good at apologizing. [01:25:51] That was the first step because it was going to take longer because brilliant behavior. [01:25:56] And she I've got I'm actually a lot better at it now. [01:25:59] And it started with things she's like every time you walk through a doorway, I think, you know, calm and take breaths before responding. [01:26:08] And there are all sorts of these little things I did. And it was mostly just changing the habit. [01:26:13] Yeah, yeah. Boy, it's a long road, so people love it. When we talk about books, it's their books, maybe three or so technical fiction, philosophical that had an impact on your life. And you might recommend and for each is an idea or so that you take away from it. Yes, so I've been a voracious reader all my life, and I'm always reading like three or four or five books at a time, and now I use audible a lot to and, you know, podcasts and things like that. [01:26:55] So I think the first one that stands out to me is 10. It's a novel tender is the Night by Fitzgerald and I. I read it when I was much younger, but I went back and read it recently and it's not that good. So I'm not sure why it was like such an important place in my literary history. [01:27:16] But I love Fitzgerald as an author because he's very he's very like flowery prose that I can just picture what he's saying, but he does it in such a creative way. I remember that one in particular because, you know, I read a ton as a kid, too, but it kind of set me is like the beginning of my adult reading life and getting into classics. And I kind of I do feel like they seem intimidating, maybe. [01:27:50] And then I realized that they're all just like love stories. [01:27:55] So, yeah, isn't everything you know. Yeah. [01:27:58] It's really about even you know, I don't know, I, I was surprised that even like a lot of the Russian authors, you know, they're all just love stories, which humans are pretty simple. There's not much there's not much to work with. [01:28:12] And so so I think maybe that was it. It made like that whole world less intimidating to me and and cemented my love for reading. [01:28:21] People sort of just approach the classics like there's probably a little chick flick. Yeah. So it somehow boils down to so just relax and enjoy the ride. [01:28:32] And then what else. Changing gears quite a bit. The beginning of infinity, you know, by David Deutsch. So he's a physicist at Cambridge or Oxford. And so I was introduced like more formally to a lot of the ideas, like a lot of the things we've talked about. [01:28:53] He has a lot more like formalism and physics rigor around. And so I got introduced to, you know, more like jargon of how to think about some of these ideas, you know, like Meems and, you know, DNA is the ultimate meme, the concept of infinity and objective beauty. But he has a really strong grounding and in physics and then is a rigorous way of talking about this like big. [01:29:27] Yeah. [01:29:28] So that was very mind opening to me to read that. But it also, I think is probably part of why I ended up marrying my husband is related to that book. And then I've had some other really great connections with people because I had read it. [01:29:43] And so had they said, oh, you turn that that even that book into a long story, I didn't know. So it's good. It's good. It's good with a heart. Yeah, exactly. [01:29:55] And OK, the third series is it's just it's Harry Potter, of course, which somehow connects to I haven't read Harry Potter. [01:30:06] I'm really sorry. No, I forgive me. [01:30:08] Forgive me, but I've read Tolkien. But just Harry Potter just haven't gotten to it. But you're a company name. Izumo, I think. Connected. All right. [01:30:18] So I heard this my I always feel like I have to justify my fandom. The first three books came out when I was ten. So I went along this journey with Harry age wise, and I read them all like nine or ten times, all seven books. And I think anything that just keeps you reading is is what's important. And, you know, there I have lulls where I don't feel like reading anything. [01:30:49] So I'll reread a Harry Potter or a, you know, trashy detective novel or something. And and I don't really care. And that's why I mentioned Harry Potter, because it you know, whatever just keeps me reading, I think is important. And it was a big part of my life growing up. And then. [01:31:07] Yes, Acción, the official. Story of the naming of the company is that Acción is like a concatenation of accelerate and eion, but it actually came from Akiyo, the summoning charm. And then we just added an end and it was perfect. What's the sign that says one of the spells? Yeah, it, um, probably most notably, Harry uses it to summon his broom stick out of his dorm room when he's battling a dragon somewhere else. [01:31:42] So he says the spell on the broomstick comes to the summoning in that way. OK, there we go. [01:31:49] This is brilliant. So the big thing is that it's something that you carry with. It's like your safe place. [01:31:57] You return to the Harry Potter that, you know, I reread them. Still, whatever keeps me reading, I think is is the most important thing. I got it. [01:32:08] So, yeah, I'm actually the same way in terms of the habit of it. It's important. It's important. Just keep. Yeah, keep reading. [01:32:17] But I have found myself struggling a little bit to because I listen to a lot of audio books now I've struggled to then switch back to reading seriously. Uh, it's just every so many papers read, so many of the things it feels like if I'm going to sit down and have the time to actually focus on the reading I should be reading, like blog posts or papers are more condensed kind of things. Yeah, but there's huge value to just reading long form. [01:32:46] So, yeah. And you know, my husband was never that into fiction, but then someone told him or he heard, you know, you learn a lot of empathy through reading fiction. So you could think of it that way. [01:33:01] Oh yeah. That's kind of. Yeah, yeah. That and it's also fiction is a nice I'm like not less so with non-fiction. It's a chance to travel. I see it as traveling. Yeah, as you go to this other world and it's it's nice because it's much more efficient, you have to get on the plane, you know, the and you get to meet all kinds of new people. I think people say they love traveling and myself traveling to I just read fiction. [01:33:27] I told my three year old that that was why we read so much, because we, you know, see the places in our mind. [01:33:37] And I'm like, it's basically like we're watching a movie, you know, that's how it feels. And like, I prefer watching Frozen with popcorn with our response. [01:33:46] Well, the very good point. Yeah. But yeah, there is some power to the imagination. Right. That's not just like watching a movie because some something about my imagination, because it's it's the words in the world that's painted somehow mixing in with their own understanding, your own hopes and dreams, our fears. It like mixes up in there and the way we build up that world from just the page. Yeah. [01:34:12] You're you're really creating the world just with the prompts from that book, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's different than watching a movie. Yeah. [01:34:20] Which is why it hurts sometimes to watch the movie version and then you're like, that's not at all how I imagined it. [01:34:28] Well we kind of brought this up in terms of. The depending on what the goals are. Let me ask the big you're friends with Manlius, he's obsessed with this question. So let me ask the big ridiculous question about the meaning of life. Do you have you ever think about this one? Ever ponder the the reason we're here is the sons of apes and this spinning ball in the middle of nowhere. [01:34:58] Yeah, I don't I don't think one ends up in the field of space propulsion without thinking of these existential questions. Yeah. All the time. [01:35:10] Or Bill is a business. Yeah, I know. [01:35:14] Yeah. We've touched on a lot of the different pieces of this. I think so. I I have a bunch of thoughts. I do think that, you know, the goal isn't the meaning. Isn't any more just to be like a petri dish of bacteria that reproduces and, you know, where survival and reproduction are the main objectives, and maybe it's because now we're able to answer these ask those questions. That's maybe the turning point. And instead, I think it's really the the pursuit and generation of knowledge. [01:35:57] And and so if if we're taken out by an asteroid or something. I think that it will have been a meaningful endeavor if somehow our knowledge about the universe is preserved somehow and the next. Civilization isn't starting over again. So that's that's I always. And, yeah, I resonate with that. I always loved the mission of Google from the early days of making the world's sort of information knowledge searchable. [01:36:35] That was a love that idea. I was loved. I was donated, as people should to Wikipedia. Yeah. I just love Wikipedia. I feel like it's the, um, that's one of the greatest accomplishments of just humanity, all of us together, especially Wikipedia. And this opens like an open community way, putting together a different knowledge, just like and everything we've talked about today. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia page about ion engines, and I'm sure it's pretty good. [01:37:04] Yeah. Like, it's I don't know. That's that's incredible. And obviously that can be preserved pretty efficiently, at least Wikipedia. [01:37:11] And you'll be like human civilization is all like burning up in flames as there's this one USB drive slowly traveling Wikipedia on it. [01:37:21] Yeah, that's on from the beginning of our chat. [01:37:25] That one lonely spacecraft just means Wikipedia and then it will have been a civilization well spent. [01:37:33] And so pushing that knowledge along. Yeah. Through like one little discovery at a time is one of the core aspects of the meaning of it all. Yes. [01:37:44] And I also I haven't yet figured out what the. Connection, you know, an explanation I'm happy with yet for how it's connected, but. Evolving beyond just the survival piece to I think, like we touched on the the emotional aspect, something in there about cooperation and love. And so I in my day to day, that just boils down to, you know, the pursuit of knowledge or improving the human condition and being kind love and knowledge. [01:38:22] Yeah, exactly. [01:38:24] So I'm pretty at peace with that as the meaning right now makes it while you work on. Yeah, exactly. Scrap propulsion. Yes, exactly. Like literal rocket science. That's this is amazing conversation. You work on such an exciting engineering field and I think this is like what 20th 21st century will be remembered for is space exploration. So this is an exciting space that you're working on. So and thank you so much for spending your time with me today. [01:38:55] Thanks for having me. This is fun. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Natalia Bailey and thank you to our sponsors, Monk, PIAC, low carb snacks for Stigmatic Mushroom Coffee Blankest, an app that summarizes books and sun basket meal delivery service. So the choices, snacks, caffeine knowledge or delicious meal. Choose wisely, my friends, and if you wish, click the sponsored links below to get a discount to support this podcast. And now let me leave you with some words from Carl Sagan. [01:39:29] All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處