Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down.
So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. And then you get 30, 30, then you get 30, then you get 20, 20, then you get 20, 20, then you get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month.
So give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. $45 upfront for three months plus taxes and fees. Promo rate for new customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40 gigabytes per month. Slows.
Full terms at mintmobile.com. Three, two, one. Ignition. And liftoff of Starliner at Atlas V. Carrying two American heroes, drawing a line to the stars for all of us.
All right. 30 seconds into flight. The rumbles are still building here in the Raptor's nest. We're seeing 32 out of 33 engines lit on the super heavy right now. That is key. That is the liftoff of two separate rockets. One by Boeing, the first is second one by SpaceX. That was the super heavy store ship.
It was shot into space and then returned to earth without exploding for the first time. So it shows great progress. What was the objective and how significant was that successful launch, a manned launch for Boeing? Let's bring in Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch.
Keith, what a week for rockets, right? Yeah. Yeah.
That's an understatement. So first off, the significance of what was Boeing trying to do with this manned launch? They had trouble getting it off. They had some technical issues. So first off, let's look at that. What did they accomplish? Well, first of all, the first time you fly a spaceship is often there's a problem.
Once you get it up there, you get the cadence going, it's fine after that. They just took them a little longer, cost a bit more money than SpaceX. SpaceX was sort of the, you know, the first time you fly a spaceship.
They were the rabbit or the road runner and Boeing had to catch up. But Boeing's there and the spacecraft is doing okay. And hopefully now we'll have two American ways to get to the space station. So if one doesn't work, the other does. That's the important part.
We have a redundancy and it's all American. So you had these two pilots in there, so astronauts in there now. So what would they want to do? They're going to the space station? Yeah, they both went up for a week. This is a test point. They're going to the space station.
Yeah, they both went up for a week. This is a test flight. It's like, let's get in it, fly it to the space station, dock it, take things out, put things in, make sure it works, come home. If that's okay, the next time it goes up, we'll have four or five people and it'll become an operational spacecraft as a partner or a backup to SpaceX and vice versa. That's the whole idea of having two. Is the ultimate objective to get back to the moon with this technology or not?
Yes and no. America, it's interesting. We have two commercial ways now to get to the space station. We have a third capsule called Orion, which is designed to go to the moon. And then your next question is going to be about Starship. Starship is bigger than everything together, but Starship will become part of what we land on the moon. So every week we're going to get something new and we're going to have quite a capability very soon to go and just do all kinds of things in space. So yeah, it was Elon Musk's spaceship. Yes, the Starship. Twice it blew up before.
Tell me, what did they decide went wrong and why weren't they seemingly more transparently upset by the two failures? Well, here's the thing. There's two ways to do rockets. You could do it the NASA way with the Space Launch System.
You could take years and years and spend a lot of money and say, oh, we're not ready, we're not ready, we don't want it to blow up. Whereas we have SpaceX, it was like the Barnstormer days. You fly the plane, it crashes.
Okay, I need better canvas next time. And they do this flight, test, flight, test, flight, test. And it's been how Boeing, I mean how SpaceX has done things since day one. And they even had a blooper reel for their Falcon 9 because, you know, you got to accept the risk. But every time you do this, like yesterday when the thing was coming back, the flap was melting and you could hear all the SpaceX people going, ah, but it worked.
But now they know next time they got to fix that flap. Whereas with NASA, they think about it for five years and then launch once and cross their fingers. Two different approaches.
The end result is you have more than one way to do more than one thing. That's always good to have. Elon texting congratulations to Boeing. Are they in competition or does he really mean it?
Does he glad to have company up there? Elon's interesting. He's sort of like Mercedes Benz when they had the airbags.
They said, we're not going to enforce that patent. It's a good thing for everybody. Elon has said that about a lot in his cars and his rockets and so forth. His idea is sort of, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats. You've got Rocket Lab flying out of New Zealand now, and they're sort of copying part of what SpaceX did. But it's, again, it's like any business.
The more people that want to do it, the more ways to do it, the more things there are to do. And again. Well, it's important. So we know the Chinese have now landed on the dark side of the moon again. They laid out their flag. What are the Chinese up to and why is NASA so reluctant to admit that we're in competition with them? I'm always told that they don't want to ever comment about what other people are doing when they can use that to motivate the public to support the program. Well, you know, it's interesting.
I'm 68. So I remember the, you weren't there, but I remember the Apollo day when it was us and the Russians. It was quite obvious. Team A and Team B. And it was it was competition, competition. Now we live in a multipolar world where you can collaborate, you can cooperate and you can compete all on the same day with a whole bunch of different people.
So it's not unipolar, as they would say as it was. That said, China's, you know, they watched how we did it. They watched how other countries did it. And they picked the best way to do it. And they're they're doing it because they want to do it.
We it's not like we can't do it. It's just that they're being very proactive. They're doing one thing. They're improving it, doing it better. And the funny thing is, if you look at what landed in the far side of the moon, you look at the bottom stage, then you look at the pictures of what China shows and what their moon lander with people looks like.
It's just bigger. They've got this all figured out. We could do it, too. We just got to want to do it.
Yeah. So they want to put somebody on the moon. They want to get some people there.
So why are we having such trouble putting people back there? Is it the way we're looking to do it? I mean, when I was overdoing a couple of features with NASA, they were saying that they want to be able to land people who aren't dependent on Earth to be able to grow their own food, make their own supply, have their own supplies. Do you think that's where we should be heading? And do you agree that that's NASA's focus, which is why it's taking so long?
Yeah, down the road. I mean, you've got to think expeditionary. And I've been on expeditions near the North Pole and the Himalayas. And it's one thing to go there, visit and leave. It's another thing to go there and stay longer and longer and longer, then eventually live there. And that's how the Western world was settled and so forth.
You've got to start somewhere. And we went and did a bunch of trips back in the 60s, half a century ago, and then we didn't go back for half a century. And that's what we did with the North Pole, South Pole. They went there. All right, we did it. And then they didn't go back overland for another 50 years. So we're like that as a species. But now we're going back and we're not the only ones going back.
You know, the Russians are interested, the Japanese are interested, the Indians, UAE, China. So it's a world wanting to go back now, which gives you a whole bunch of different reasons all at the same time. And we got to sort of sort our way through it.
But to your original question, why haven't we gone back? You know, they told me when I was a little kid, we're going to land on the moon by the end of the decade. We did it.
Hooray. We're going to go to Mars by 1981. All right.
Well, I would have been in college. I'll be in my 80s before we go to Mars. Right.
Imagine how frustrated I am. I know. And to get people down there, we got great probes and great studies. But now the skies are all littered now with satellite technology. Who else is competing up in that space? You got Russia, China. India is doing the same thing. North Korea wants to be doing this.
Are we militarizing space? Well, we, you know, I'll tell you a story. I mean, yesterday was D-Day anniversary. My dad was there. And a year later, he was in London and a V2 rocket went through space and came like really close to killing him.
His roommates never came home. So we've been using space, going through space for military purposes for, you know, 80 years. It's just now and we've been doing it ever since. The first rocket John Glenn went on was a modified ICBM. Yuri Gagarin, the same thing.
It's just how much the focus is. Luckily with America, we've been really open and transparent and really big on commercial and science and civilian space in addition to the military. With other countries like Russia and China, good luck figuring it out. Well, it's interesting because we're really concerned that China is practicing knocking and being able to shoot satellites out of the sky. And Russia is beginning to send rockets into the sky to see if they can line us up because they're looking, you know, we're heading towards some type of confrontation and they're looking to blind us by taking out satellites.
Do you agree with that? And do you write if you're in space force and worried about this? Well, we can do it too. This is the thing is it's, we've always, we've had the ability to shoot down satellites for quite some time. We showed that we could do it with like oh, there's an F-15 and a missile. So it's not impossible to do this. It's another to plan methodically to have stuff up there ready to go. And you know, I'm not privy to what the US has done and we may have that capability.
It's not quite frankly, you know, for your readers and your watchers on YouTube. If I had a rock this big, it's in my hand, traveling at orbital speeds, I didn't have to have any brains. I just have to aim it. And if it hits something else, kaboom.
So this isn't really, there's really little rocket science out of rock. You know, it's more about your thinking and strategically and planning for this. So yeah, it's an issue, but I'll tell you the flip side of all this. And that is when you use these weapons, you're going to destroy a lot of your own stuff.
So you got to be willing. It's sort of like mutually assert destruction. You got to be assuming that a lot of your satellites are going to get fried or smashed too.
That's a good point. Keith, Keith, are we still leading in this technology? Do you feel as though America is still leading the space race?
Yeah, it may not look like it. Cause when you say, yeah, when China's landing on the moon, but you know, I, I I've said this on TV. Yeah, we did it 50 years ago. We haven't done it since, which is frustrating, but we did do it. We can do it better now. And this isn't an issue of they're smarter than us.
It's like, they're, they're saying, well, Hey, they figured out how to do it. We're going to do it. We just in the country here, we just have to decide to make the decision to do things, either private sector, public sector, cooperation, work with friendly nations and just go do it. And it's that expensive.
I mean, we spend more money on bubble gum and pizza and dog grooming parlors than we do in outer space. Kudlow on Fox business is now on the go for podcast fans, get key interviews with the biggest business newsmakers of the day. The Kudlow podcast will be available on the go after the show every weekday at foxbusinesspodcasts.com or wherever you download your favorite podcasts. Out of the gates and ready to go.
Hey, it's Hutton and Withrow. Hot Mike is here on the Outkick Network. We've got your afternoon covered with the latest sports discussion, and it's available wherever you find your audio.
Daily analysis and news. He is hot. I am Mike. Actually, my name is Chad.
His name is Jonathan, but you get the picture. We're going to bring it every single day. Whatever you want to call us, we'll respond to. We just want you to respond to what we're dishing out every day.
And while you're here, we hope you'll subscribe to the podcast, like, subscribe and share. So, so, Keith, we got SpaceX. Now you got Boeing's in there. We've got NASA still doing stuff overall. So we're putting more emphasis into this private to the private sector, the private sector, work with NASA publicly. But in the big picture, do you think NASA should do a better job selling itself?
Talk about the excitement and the opportunity. Yeah. Oh, boy.
Just singing to my heart here. I've been doing NASA Watch for nearly 30 years, and it started with, you know, this isn't a NASA website. Be careful.
You might learn something. I mean, NASA, some of the stuff that NASA does is such incredibly powerful. It's soft power.
It should be in the dictionary as soft power. And you see kids in little countries, you know, where they're just getting satellite communications for the first time. No, but NASA logo t shirt. It's the emblem of how you do the impossible. And it's NASA and it's America.
So, you know, like you see the bags that show up for food and say, you know, thanks from the people of America. Well, the NASA logo does that, too. But NASA can also make space boring, which is just baffling.
You know, they'll sit there like yesterday. They were like, hey, we're going with the space station. Meanwhile, this monstrous American made rocket is taking off and they put one tweet out. Hey, good job, Elon.
And yet, you know, it's just like who's in charge of the strategic here in terms of why we should do things? And also, you know, everybody in America is paying for this. And why aren't we focusing on the little agricultural towns in the middle of nowhere where we've got our star link now? They're just excited about space. They have nice skies to look up at.
You know, they use GPS and NASA sort of just sort of they just go with the usual. And it's unfortunate because we have three hundred some hundred, three hundred million potential space fans out there. NASA's reaching one percent of them.
Just kind of rapid fire. First off, we know the Chinese are taking this the moon Earth. They're taking that down. They're mining like crazy. Do you think that that could be another area in which we could commercialize? Should we? And what about space tourism?
Do you think that's a good thing or does it look like billionaires who are bored looking just to challenge themselves? Well, I'll do the space mining thing first. The moon is pretty big. We could be water there.
Water you can use for rocket fuel, for breathing, for so forth. I don't agree that, you know, some people say that China is going to claim the bottom of the moon. If they're going to, what are they going to send soldiers there?
If they want to stop us, they should have aircraft carriers off the coast of Florida to shoot our rockets down before they leave Earth. So I think there's a lot there. You know, second, the space tourism.
I'll go tomorrow. I've had some friends take things up. It's expensive. Maybe you should talk to your producers about your travel budget. Maybe you could, you know, you should try that.
I should try that because there is no column for space, but maybe miscellaneous. Yeah. But yeah, should rich people, it's always like this. I mean, you know, you watch the Indiana Jones movie, he's drinking the champagne, flying the plane, and that's how it started.
Rich people did this thing and eventually somebody says, hey, I could do it cheaper. When that'll happen, I don't know. I can't wait. I may be too old, but you know, it's got to start somewhere. Someone's got to hit fun first. Lastly, the asteroid mining. Why do we do it? What do we get from it? Well, if we do it, and it's funny because you hear this thing about we're going to go visit this hundred trillion dollar asteroid.
Okay. It's based on current market, but aluminum used to be, I mean, at the top of the Washington mining, you said it's a little piece of aluminum because it was so rare. Now you just, you know, is, are these asteroids going to be worth trillions of dollars? No, because if you brought it back to earth, the price would crash. But if you want to build stuff in space, get the raw materials in space instead of launching them from earth, then you're going to make some money.
Understood. Keith, lastly, is Space Force working out? Yeah, I think, I always wonder why they have camouflage uniforms.
They're going to outer space. Shouldn't it be like James Bond? A unitard. We could get a unitard. If any, if any branch needs a unitard, I think it's that, right?
And no more camouflage. We pretty much know you're in a rocket. Thanks so much, Keith.
Great point. Editor of NASA Watch. My pleasure. Pull up a chair and join me, Rachel Campos Duffy, and me, former US Congressman Sean Duffy, as we share our perspective on the discussions happening at kitchen tables across America. Download From the Kitchen Table, the Duffy's at FoxNewsPodcast.com or wherever you download podcasts. Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcast, Amazon Music with your Prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
