Speaker 0 (0s): All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the TrueLife podcast. We are here with an amazing individual that I am excited to talk to. Who's got a lot of unbelievable knowledge about where he's been, where he's at, and maybe even where we're going. If you consider the final frontier where we're going, Dan Hawk, would you take a few moments to maybe, maybe let, let me tell people that you are the, the principal scientists for the first nations, and maybe you could explain a little bit exactly what that means.

Speaker 1 (37s): Well, I had set a placeholder for inter-tribal space agency for tribal governments, and that had moved to United First Nations Planetary Defense. When I have found out that we do not have an active ability to mitigate asteroids and that's how United First Nations Planetary Defense came about. And it's interesting because we are not a typical company because our United First Nations Planetary Defense is born out of the treaty of 1794, the Jay treaty, 1794, article three.

So our, our company is actually from Canada and the United States combined because the treaty was a commerce treaty between native Americans, between Canada and the United States.

Speaker 0 (1m 34s): W you know, when I think about the term planetary defense, there's so much in there that that could be unpacked. I think, you know, asteroids or climate change, or just, you know, sheer greed and selfishness. What w what exactly are some of the things that when I, when you say planetary Defense, what are some of the things that your company does?

Speaker 1 (1m 58s): Well, the first thing we did was we went out to seek about how we would be able to mitigate an asteroid. And so that led me to, and working with Dr. Philip Lubin at the university of California, Santa Barbara, and he does what we call laser ablation. And that's basically, if you were to put a laser on one side of an astroid and it H X particles, then it would move in 180 degrees and in a way, so if you have to understand that in, in, in earth, in its orbital path around the sun, that if you can slow an asteroid by 10 minutes, the asteroid would miss completely the earth.

So it's important that we have that ability to just slightly move and asteroid. If we have, if we have the ability to know that it's coming at earth and we have the ability to, to mitigate it, that we just need to move it just slightly over a long period of time to, to miss earth in its natural orbital path. So laser ablation is one and the other is impactor. And of course, NASA has the dark mission knowledge, the double asteroid redirect target mission. That is like $300 million mission, which is crazy, but it, but it's basically used there to, to, to slam into, into a smaller asteroid.

That's the orbiting, the larger asteroid to see how it moves after slamming into it and it impactor. So if you can slow that astroid by 10 minutes, it misses the entirety of the earth. And therefore the aspirate goes by and doesn't hit earth. So you can either move the astroid or you can slow it down. So it does not hit earth. And the other thing is what we call, which is really the last line of defense, which I believe is it's called pulverize it.

So we call it the pie. So think about this. If you have an asteroid that we have missed, and you think about Shelly skin in 2013 in, in Russia, I think it was a 20 meter asked right there, but it, it, if you look at it in a way that if we miss an asteroid, there's 200,000 asteroids out there that have not been characterized that are less than 300 meters in diameter. So if you think about an asteroid coming at, or we didn't see it, it's too late, just like Shelly beans, what are we going to do?

So the, the last line of defense is called pal pulverize. It, and that is basically taking, you know, I would say penetrators so penetrators, that would go in. They would penetrate into the asteroid, like, like a missile, right? And, and it would blow it apart in a way that would peel it away, like an onion. And so if you can imagine two things going at each other at, you know, you know, at 15,000 miles an hour, that, that the impact itself have an impact or would be, would be huge and tremendous.

So, but, but you take a, if you take an explosive splices to peel it away. So if you have, if you are able to blow it apart in such a way that you have pieces of debris that are, you know, 10 meters in diameter or less, then they open up an atmosphere and there for you would have less of a, of an impact on earth. So obviously there are litigation issues here, because if you were to move an asteroid in some way that you know is going at New York, now it's going at, it's going at your Moscow.

You have created a liability issue. So, you know, it's really, you know, thinking about this as difficult, because there's no real right answers because you can say, well, what if you would've just let it go? You know, just let it go. And it would hit this side at earth, not the other decided, or, or if you do it in something happens and it mitigates it in the wrong way, then you're liable for that. So, but the point here is that if you have an asteroid is together and it coming at is coming at earth and it's going to hit earth, and it's going to do a lot of damage.

It's going to kill a lot of people. It's going to do a lot of, you know, destruction. You, you have two choices, you can either try to stop it, mitigate it to, you know, to peel it away, to allow it to burn up an atmosphere, or you can just let it go. And so that, you know, we talk about what planetary defense is. That's one thing, but we have set aside, we, we, we bartered, I guess, with rocket lab in New Zealand to set aside a two stage electron rocket and the, it has the capability of having what we would consider a kick stage.

So it can actually take a payload out of orbit. And so right now they are setting aside an electronic rocket for us to be able to do that. So where we are at is that if we do find an asteroid, that we have a couple of capabilities, we can, we can put some type of scalp mission on it, send it out there, and we can see what the asteroid is and what it's doing, and see, could see how it's tumbling, see what it's made out of. And then it can send it back, this, the information back to earth saying, okay, yeah, here earth, you got this asteroid is coming at you.

It's going to hit you unless you do this, do these things, whatever it is that we need to do, whether it's laser ablation or if it's impacting, or, you know, trying to move it in some way, you know, China has long March rockets that they want to try to use to nuts asteroids out of the way. So if we know what it is, do we have a better chance to mitigate it? And so we can do a scalp mission. The other thing is that we can actually take the kick stage and turn it into an impact, or, and, or we can put a laser ablation on it. So, you know, we have those abilities to it, but right now, if we had an asteroid coming at us, we'd be in deep trouble because we have to find a way to, to, you know, to, to get the electron ready to go and to be able to do it, what it needs to do to save us.

Basically, it's not, it's not an easy task.

Speaker 0 (8m 16s): And it seems pretty common to me, to all of a sudden, just see one, like there seems to be a lot that we maybe because of the way they move or how fast they move, or our, perhaps we're not the best at technology. It's very difficult to understand when they're coming. Like I have subscribed to a few channels that you can see the close approaches and all of a sudden, it seems like there's just one coming here. I believe there's also the Torrid field that we cross every October where we see all these meteor showers, it kind of puts us in danger.

What is it? What is the decision process look like? If all of a sudden we are briefed, Hey, there is a large asteroid who makes the decision on which particular system to use, be it laser ablasion or the impact, or how would a world come together and make a decision on what to do?

Speaker 1 (9m 9s): Well, I would be calling up, I've been calling up Phil Lubin and I'd say, Hey, we've got to ask Roy coming. W what do you want to do? And so I, I'm gonna, I'm going to go to the people who know more than I do. You know, I, you know, I only had the ability to set the rocket aside, you know, so to do the actual decision-making valid, most likely come from the, from the white house, I would have to tell you that, you know, that that decision would come from, you know, the Pentagon or some someplace really high up.

And, and, and I also say that, you know, the air force would be involved in, you know, so you're looking at maybe they would have some type of capability of let's let's, let's, let's, let's, let's hit it with some what, some rockets or so forth. So I think there, there would be a combination of things, both military and civilian to, to mitigate and asteroid, but there is no guarantee. We, we seen that, we seen that with Shelly bins in 2013, it's like there, boom. You know, and that's just, it just happens to be that if that happens with, with a, with a much larger asteroid, oh boy, you know, we'd be, we'd be talking some serious problems here.

Yeah.

Speaker 0 (10m 20s): Do you think, I wonder if, if depending on the severity or the size of the, the potential impact, or I'm wondering if the government would even tell us, like, it seems like it would cause such chaos that there would be a discussion about whether you would even tell people, what do you think?

Speaker 1 (10m 39s): No, I think, I think it's going to get out. I, you know, I think there was some movies, like deep impact, a few others, a few other movies that are very similar along those lines that maybe we shouldn't, maybe we should, I, you know, gather up all our stuff and go to a nearest cave or something, you know, we would have to let people know people someone's gonna know, and they're gonna, they're going to let it out. And so they're there. Yeah. The idea of chaos, it could happen. But if we have the ability to say, wait a minute, now don't, don't be, don't panic.

You know, we, we have some things we can try. You know, we have some, we could have some rockets in the site, we can impact it. We only need to really need to slow it down a little bit. We only need to move it a little bit. So if we can do that and we know far enough in advance, you know, that that's okay. But if it's like Shelly bins and it's right on us and we don't have the ability to do anything, that's too late. Anyways, it w w what difference does it make, trying to go to the Cape when you know, the Sri's right above you?

You know? So yeah. That's kinda how I see it. Either we know about it in advance a long ways in advance, or we're going to be in, we're going to be surprised. It's either going to be one of the two. Yeah.

Speaker 0 (11m 54s): You can, Can you, I have a faint idea of what the Shelley Vince is, but can you explain that to me?

Speaker 1 (12m 1s): Well, in 2013 in Russia, they had an asteroid that came in nearly horizontal that I remember, and when it came in, in that direction, that it, it, it, I think it air exploded above Shelly Minsk, and it was 20 meters in diameter. And I think it ended up, most of it ended up in a frozen lake. And what had happened was that it, it, it destroyed a lot of buildings, you know, as far as the, you know, like class and, you know, doors and door frames and those kinds of things, and it damaged people's ears, their eardrums, their eyes, they had, you know, cuts glass.

So it was pretty significant, you know, it was lucky that it was rarely fairly remote. So had it been with, you know, like over New York, we would have been in big problem. We would have big trouble. So it just happens to be that, you know, when we talk about the, the 10 Gasca explosion in the ninth, 19, 19 0 8, I believe it was that you was huge. And I think that was a common impact. That was air explosion.

So the editors took, you know, comment and asteroids, but so, yeah, it, it depends on where, where the astroid ends up. And so in Shelley, Ben Skitch happened to be relatively rural, remote, but still a city. And it caused damage in it or hurt people. And I don't know if anyone, I don't really know offhand if anyone was killed, but I know that there were people hurt. So,

Speaker 0 (13m 42s): Yeah, it seems like had it not been a remote area and even, even a slightly more populated place than the consequences would have been dire for the environment and for the people. And what, what kind of environmental impacts can, something like that have?

Speaker 1 (14m 2s): Well, you know, it depends if it's, if it's, let's say an underwater, right. If it's in the ocean or if it is on land, so if it's on land, you're going to have a lot of debris. That's going to go into the air and it'd be a lot like, you know, a volcanic explosion, I wouldn't say, depending on the size. So then what you could do is I think there was a year, I think you was a 1835 or something like that, that they had a year without a son.

And it was, it was because of, because of the volcanic eruption that, you know, a lot of plants didn't grow, their, their food didn't grow. And, and what had happened was that people starved. And so I can't remember what year that was, but it was with the call of the year without a sun. And that happened to, to be with volcanic activity. And, and basically the son was able to Pierce Pierce through it. So that's one issue. So you have the debris. So now you have the in, in, in w the, the volcanic one also had sulfur.

So people were, you know, ingesting that and, and, and it, and it hurt her lungs and killed them that way. And then also software then got on the, on the, on the, the plants and also killed them that way, too. But from the, from on an asteroid explosion, you would see the debris going into the atmosphere and depending on how, how far in, how widespread and how long that could be of devastation, of course, the physical devastation of the, of the asteroid itself. You know, we're talking a huge explosion, obviously.

So, you know, we're talking, you know, what we would see most likely in, in a nuclear explosion. So we would see that kind of thing. And that then when you have probably would be shock waves, so you'd have a shockwave that would go outward. And before you would even feel the physical effects of the debris. So you, the shockwave would come first and probably heat. And so that's, that's part of it. And then if it was in the ocean, if it landed in the ocean, that's, that's, that's, that's also devastating because if you have it in the Pacific ocean and you have the Pacific limb, and then you, depending on the size, of course, you know, you, you're, obviously you could have huge tidal waves and, and, and, and devastate many island nations.

So it, it just depends. So I, I think that, that we're lands is significant how large it is. And of course the angle that it comes in. So Shelly Vince was REL relatively shallow and was relatively flat. And if it comes in straight at us, we're okay. Be a big hit.

Speaker 0 (16m 48s): Yeah. Sometimes I wonder with the earth shifting magnetic north pole, and just the, the, you know, the, the magnetic field of our planet, does that affect, like, if it's a giant ball of iron, does the Earth's magnetic field have some say on where it hits? Does it like a track, the meaner a certain way? Like if the, the north pole is migrating one way, would that cause the, the asteroid to move that way? Or how does the magnetic field play into that particular type of setup?

Speaker 1 (17m 22s): I, I doubt it has any effect on an asteroid. It's gonna go right through it. The, you know, we're talking significant mass, we're talking, you know, the speed of these of these asteroids are, are tremendous, you know, you know, 17,000 miles an hour or more. So, you know, it, it, the, the magnetic field would be nothing to, to an asteroid, just nothing.

Speaker 0 (17m 46s): So it's, it's just on a, it's on a collision course, wherever it is, it's moving so fast. Like it's like a bullet pretty much just fired out of a huge cannon and getting rid of hit ya.

Speaker 1 (17m 57s): Right. And you know, it again, you know, the sun, the sun is there, you know, you got the earth revolving around the sun and it's, you know, it's, it's stapled our, our, our, our, our earth orbit is stable around the sun. And so when an asteroid hits earth, it has to hit it in its natural orbital path. So it is nothing more than, you know, being able to, you have to realize this step of all the, of all of the environmental disasters that we have, you know, like hurricanes and tornadoes and, you know, those, those kinds of things and tsunamis and an asteroid impact is the only one that we can prevent this, the only preventable natural disaster.

And so it's really significant when you think about it that way.

Speaker 0 (18m 56s): Yeah. And do you think that we, as a planetary entity are doing enough to, to mitigate that?

Speaker 1 (19m 8s): Well, we have, you know, we're putting up more satellites and more capability for a knee, a kneel, a knee. It would be near earth asteroids Neal, near earth objects capability from, for detection. And, and, and I know both from the ground and, and from space. So one of the things I say, well, what we're doing about planetary Defense is that we're we're monitoring, right? So that's, that is so remember I told you before we don't, we don't have a rocket on the launch pad to be able to mitigate an asteroid.

We don't, we don't have one. So what is, what is the defense? What is, what is that America does and why do we create United First Nations? Planetary Defense in the first place is because we don't have something on the, on the launchpad to be able to do that. So what we do is we monitor, we, we, we, we, we try to go out and track and see, and, and, and so we still have 200,000 that have these asteroids that are less than 300 meters diameter that still need to be characterized that we have not yet characterized.

And we know this because of Shelly beans skin in 2013, had we known it was there and we can say, oh, Russia, you know, it's coming, they prepared it, but didn't happen. And the reason why it didn't happen, because we didn't see it, you know, it wasn't characterized that particular asteroid, that 2020 meter asteroid was not characterized. So you can imagine 300 meter asteroid. Wow. You know, that's, you know, that's, that's, that would be really significant if that had been a 300 meter asteroid and said of 20 asteroid, Shelly had been scared.

Cause you'd be, you'd be talking about a lot of, a lot of deaths then. Yeah.

Speaker 0 (20m 53s): Yeah. I mean, it seems if, if people just, I haven't really awesome Matt, back here and it doesn't show all the pockmarks that we've been hit by, but I think most people who are familiar with landmarks, if you just close your eyes and imagine for a little bit, you could probably think of some, some creators around the world, like crater lake or, you know, the, the, so the, the Yucatan peninsula or the ski. How do you pronounce that again? And the one in Russia, the Skanga, or I forgot what that was called again, the north

Speaker 1 (21m 29s): 10 Gasca

Speaker 0 (21m 30s): 10 Guscott. Thank you very much. Like there's so many actual wool landmarks where these things have hit and caused devastation. It's, it's almost a wonder why we haven't been hit recently. Is there like some sort of timeframe, can you look at a scale and be like, it seems like we get hit by one of these giant things every 20,000 years, roughly 7,000 years, is there some kind of scale we can look at like that?

Speaker 1 (21m 57s): Yeah. Actually we get hit every, every 50 years about so, but, you know, Shelly bins, 2013, 20 meter, so it's about size, right? So, so we, we could hit an average about every 50 years and by asteroid strike. So it's a matter of a matter of size and a matter of remoteness. So those are the two things. So as you can imagine, you know, the, you know, the 10 Gasca explosion over New York, what would happen, you know?

So it's a matter of remoteness. And, and, and so again, you know, you got the earth going around the sun in its natural orbital path, but the earth is also turning. And so, you know, and it depends on which direction the asteroid is coming and at what angle. So there's a lot of, a lot of variables there. So yeah, it it's, it's a matter of luck, really? It is.

Speaker 0 (23m 0s): Yeah. I was listening to a couple of guys like Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson, and they were talking about the different cycles that we go through and they spoke about similar how our planet spins around its axis. And then our planet spins around the sun. And then our solar system spins around the galaxy and our galaxy spins around the universe. They had made the claim that through certain parts of our travel, through the great year, we find ourselves on what's analogous to like a crowded freeway.

And there's all these, you know, in these certain times of the great year, we go through spots that are crowded by asteroids. And I'm wondering if there's some sort of research where we could use the stars or the constellations to know where we are like in the great year to know when we're more susceptible to getting hit. Have you ever heard of anything like that?

Speaker 1 (23m 60s): No, but what I can say is space is big.

Speaker 0 (24m 3s): Yeah.

Speaker 1 (24m 4s): So if you look at the distance, you know, like from here to Mars or do you know, to, to Pluto is an example, space is big. So even a, right now we are feeling effects of their drama in a galaxy approaching our own Milky way. Galaxy. We feel the effects of that, but it's so minute that we don't, we don't really feel it, but we know what's there. We can measure it. And so we know that we know that there are drama and a galaxy is affecting us, but space is so big.

So you could imagine another galaxy intermixing with Milkyway as an example, but space is so big that, you know, you know, that th these planets would, would, would plan it's Clyde w it's possible, but because space is so big that the chance of even planets quieting are remote. They're very small. It's just because of the fact that universe is so huge, you know, it's endless. And it's only that reason that, you know, you know, we don't, we don't feel the effects of, of other things that are happening with, let's say right now, you know, a black hole as an example, or, you know, how, you know, some type of supernova exploding somewhere else.

You know, we, we don't feel the it because space is so huge. It's so big, you know, we're just really, really, really tiny spot would just suspect a sand, you know, earth. That's all it is in the scheme of what universe is

Speaker 0 (25m 41s): That's. So that's so amazing to think about how a different galaxy or approaching galaxy. You can begin to change everything on earth. When we first began talking this morning, you were talking about space as an ecosystem. And I'm wondering if, how, how can you explain that a little bit to people, how the space space as an ecosystem?

Speaker 1 (26m 4s): Well, as I'm native American, I'm a nighter. So from an indigenous point of view and everything is connected. And, and it is. So when we talk about maybe perhaps a lifeboat, which we are all in that lifeboat is called earth, and that we have a biosphere biosphere doesn't end or begin with the biosphere itself, it, it extends in the space. We have the space ecosystem, which is now what we consider, let's say as an example, our, our orbital space in our orbital space debris that we have there that's one ecosystem, the other ecosystems, which we now call XJO, which is beyond our, our, our geo capability, which is, or our geostationary orbit or, or, or gestational earth orbits.

So something beyond that, which should be then move, go to our next ecosystem will be our system or ecosystem. And then beyond that, then, you know, our, our solar system and then, and then our universal system or Milky way, and then to, to, into our, what we would consider then interplanetary, you know, space, and then beyond that to other galaxies and address the universe. So we, we have to step it out in ways that we consider it to be ecosystem, because right now we're, we're, we're, we're in a way we're polluting our, our ecosystem of the moon, right?

We have, we have devastated our earth, orbital capabilities, you know, because of our earth orbital debris. Because when we say, when we say space debris, there's two different kinds. There's the orbital space debris that we see. And then of course, debris that is outside of that, which could be like the debris on the moon or orbital debris of the lunar, the lunar, the moon itself. And so w you know, we don't, we don't see it that way. We see that, you know, Hey, we have lunar orbiters, but if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing Denis debris.

So we have to look at things differently because we it's, it's so easy to take our orbital debris mindset of our herbal orf debris and, and move it to our lunar orbital debris. And so like, oh, well, we, we polluted earth. Let's go ahead and moon. And so that, that's not, that's not how we should be doing things. And from a native American point of view, we have to be mindful of those kinds of things. And we have to have to understand that of all the things that are happening on earth and all the most important things that are here on earth, that we do.

One of the most important things is to maintain our, our, our, our sustainability in space. And partly because of things like weather satellites, right? So you can imagine that if we didn't have weather satellites and, and, and we, we had such a orbital space debris problem that we, you know, we had an ORC, we just put up a new weather satellite, and it just got slammed by a space debris now that you know, that 1 billion to satellite is no longer available to us. So the idea there is that if you have, let's say like, like weather satellites, you can, you can, you can, you can warn people about hurricanes and disasters like that.

And so they have the ability to mitigate their property and to save faith themselves from, let's say, you know, from the, from the hurricane or, you know, to tsunami or whatever. So the point being is that our space is, is viable. Our space assets are viable for not just weather, but also for financial transactions, for communications, you know, for, you know, for national security. So without having a viable space, orbital space in earth orbit, then we, we, we put ourselves in jeopardy.

And so we have to be very mindful about what we do. So we have a lot of space debris. First, we have, you know, we had four nations, including United States blow up our own, our own satellites in space, in our own rural space, which is insane, which is insane, absolutely insane. And then of course, beyond that, we, we have an increased launch cadence. So we're that what that means is that we are putting more rockets on the launchpad with more satellites on them, and we're sending them into our orbital space.

And you were talking about things like, you know, one web and Starlink and those kinds of things we're going to be putting in thousands, tens of thousands of more satellites are going to be going into our orbital space, probably another 10,000 above the space station and another 30,000 below the space station. So you can imagine we have space debris. And now we're talking about adding more satellites to our, our orbital space highways that we have because different altitudes have different congestion problems regarding our satellites.

So, you know, so some orbital space are more crowded, as you would imagine, going down a highway that needs, some highways are more crowded than others. And you'll see that with orbital space too, because some were more needed than others, and some have more capabilities than others. And so it's all a matter of that, but yeah, it's not good.

Speaker 0 (31m 39s): Wow. I've never thought about it like that. There would be different levels and different frequencies and different Heights for things to orbit depending on what it is they want to do. That's incredible to think about. And on top of that, it seems to me that now more than ever the ability of a private company to launch whatever satellite they want, it seems to be only a matter of money, not so much a matter of law.

Speaker 1 (32m 5s): Well, okay. So, you know, there's not much law in space. I have to tell you,

Speaker 0 (32m 10s): Oh, I had no idea.

Speaker 1 (32m 11s): Yeah. So, you know, in outer space treaty that that's basically it, right? So, you know, if we have, we have a conjunction problem, we have two satellites going to fly. We know they're going to collide, but one belongs to Russia. You just can't just go and grab Russian satellite and move it out of the way you can't do it. You can't do it because you'll cause a war. And so even though it's dead, you know, it's, it's, it's a piece of junk, you know, and there's a lot of junk up there, but the point is is that you just can't just go do that.

You know? So we have, we, we have technical problems and, and what we call ADR, which is active debris removal. Right. So it's very difficult. Cause you imagine, imagine it take, imagine taking a four ton satellite that's spinning and tumbling in space that is frictionless. So imagine four tons. Wow. And you have to go and try to move it. And you, so how do you do that? How do you de tumble of Orrcon satellite?

That's in honey? How do you do that? Okay. So these are technical questions. And then of course you have policy questions, you know, about, you know, who pays for that. So if you have, if you have two satellites that are going to collide, and let's say one is an operating satellite, but doesn't have the ability to move. So there's no autumn, no capability of renewed maneuvering, no auto capability of maneuvering as an example, or, or, or from the ground by command that you cannot move it.

But, but the dead satellite is, is there too. And then they're going to collide. So who makes the decision then of paying for moving the dead satellite all the way, you know, whose responsibility is it? Let's say it's a different country, you know, to say, Hey, different country, your, your, your satellite's dead. And it's going to collide with this, this one that's operating. And then when that's operating as a billion dollar satellite, would we do? You know? So then you have, so you have, you know, technical problems, you have policy questions, and then you have probably international issues too.

Like, like I mentioned, you like who who's, you know, cause the owner of the, of the satellite is, is the one that is the country that operates this, the operation state that owns that satellite. And they're responsible for that. So, and of course, if you move it out of the way and it hits another satellite, then they're responsible. So there's a lot of problems. And so what's happening now you'll see in the space industry is that you're creating something called space, traffic management, STM. And so that is basically if you consider the idea of space, air traffic management, as an example, but you're doing it in a way of space, but also understanding that there are those debris up there where you can't, you can't move it, you can't command it to move and you have debris that's under 10 centimeters and then you have debris that's over 10 centimeter or something.

We can track something we can track. So you've got millions of pieces that we can track and tens of thousands of pieces that we can track. So it's, it's really a really significant problem, but you can imagine two space traffic management, where you have, you have launch operators that you, so you have, you have Japan, you have, you know, you have France, you have Italy, Russia, China, America. I just talked about New Zealand a little while ago. So we have a lot of launch operators that are launching satellites.

And, and, and of course we talked about, you know, maybe Elon Musk is an example of private, private operators. So you're having a lot of things going into space now. And if you're you imagine you're an air traffic controller trying to control that. And now you're a space controller trying to control that. Okay. You know, now you're trying to manage different launch operators under different launch conditions, launching multiple satellites in different, in different altitudes. And so you're, you're talking significant problem in a course, again, you know, we have some satellites that can move on their own.

We have auto maneuverability, we have some satellites that can be commanded to move provided all that. They have the fuel to do it, right. They have to have, they have to have the fuel to be able to do it if they can. Right. And so let's make us make assumption that they don't run out of food out of fuel, which of course they will. So the point is that, you know, space traffic management is way different than air traffic control. And, and so we have a very significant space, horrible space debris problem.

Speaker 0 (36m 57s): I could imagine to something small, moving at such a rapid pace could put a hole through almost anything it's like a little bullet up there. Like if we were trying to a spacecraft, a space suit, you know, another satellite, something move, something even minuscule could probably puncture a functioning satellite if it was moving fast enough.

Speaker 1 (37m 21s): Yeah. Well, it's, it's common in the space industry to talk about paint chips. So yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 0 (37m 27s): What's that, what's a paint chip.

Speaker 1 (37m 28s): Well, yeah, you, you have a rocket that's painted and the chips, paint chips like,

Speaker 0 (37m 35s): Wow.

Speaker 1 (37m 36s): Yeah.

Speaker 0 (37m 37s): Wow. That is, that's amazing to think of it's.

Speaker 1 (37m 40s): Well, think of it as a 22, if you are a fighter, a 22 bullet, that's exactly what you would you'd have. If you had a pain show, something similar to that. Wow.

Speaker 0 (37m 50s): It's it's it kinda makes me sad a little bit like a, if you think of like the great Northwestern garbage patch in the ocean, it seems like we have a great garbage patch above us. Now

Speaker 1 (38m 3s): We do. We, we, we, we do, we do. Okay. But you know, there's this, so here's the button because, because there's, you know, I, I talked to a guy, a gentleman, you know, and he, he always tells me sedan, you know what, we will not know a collision until after it happens. And partly because space is so big. So if you have a conjunction warning, right. And saying, you have two pieces that are about to collide.

And so space is really, really big. What is the probability of those two pieces actually colliding? It's really, really, really small. Okay. So you have a lot of debris and you have what we would consider then, you know, what is a conjunction risk? What is a probability? And so there's a lot of warnings that go out to space operators and they don't do anything because they, you know, because, because of the fact that space is so big and it, and the idea then is that the chances are they will not collide.

And so we won't know a collision until after it happens. So, but then again, you know, I was talking to you earlier about, you know, what is the liability issue? So let's say, let's say you are operating a, you are operating a, a satellite and you need, and you have a conjunction warning and you move it and you move it into wrong way. And you, you, you, you then cause another, another conjunction of a different, a different kind, you know, but you, you move it into wrong way.

So there's a lot to be taken into consideration when, when moving a piece of it is not taken lightly, there really has to be a very significant, a lot of consensus from many different people, multiple sources in multiple data is like, is this, are they really going to collide? Are they really, really, you know, so, and of course it comes down to who's data you're using. So whose data are you using to determine whether you are going to have a conjunction or not?

You know, so we even have we have today, we have several different models that for that, and they may not all be accurate or are right. So, so we, we have a problem today determining which models to use, to determine conjunction risk. And, and so then once let's say we got space, traffic management was also that has norms as we create norms that says that for a space operator, if you have a conjunction risk with this probability that you have to move in, something like that.

And so now the question as well, which way do we move it? You know, how do we move it? And so, you know, it's really significant because, you know, if you were under a norm of having to move to prevent a collision, then the norm also has to state, you know, which way to move it. And if it did cause another, another collision of some sort to cause another liability issue who would then be responsible for that, there's a lot that there's a lot that goes on with space, traffic management.

But the point being is that we, we ought to do what we can for active debris removal. We, we ought to do what we need to do for active debris mitigation. In other words, to when, you know, when we put up a winter, we would put a bison site, as an example is at 400, about 450 kilometers. So it was a, an educational satellite, but after its mission, of course, it's its primary mission. It has failed. We were supposed to take a, a wide camera view of Flathead lake.

So we weren't able to do that, but it was still putting out data, but its primary mission fails. But the reality of that is that even though it's putting out data, it's not a valuable data, it's not data that is a required data. So w what should have happened is that for our mission, we should have launched law. We should launch less than 300 kilometers at 160 kilometers. You're at the, what we call rapid descent. And then you, you, your, your, your satellite then just basically what I'm going to on and burn up over, hopefully, you know, Pacific ocean.

But the idea there is if you are launching glow, if as soon as your mission is done and over with whatever it is, whether it's qualifying hardware, or if it's to redo a certain test and your mission is over it, if you're, if you fit your mission is over and you're still flying and you're still up in the air and you're still, you're still in space that's degree. And so what we need to do is we need to figure out a way to get those spacecraft out of space. And, and, and so that they are not in the, not in our orbital paths.

So that is debris mitigation and debris removal. And so we're working through a lot of companies now are working on, you know, things like, sort of like, like parachutes as an example that would drag the cause or orbital space drag, and then be able to drag it and, and be able to put it into, into deposition and done over the, over the Pacific ocean. Burn it up.

Speaker 0 (43m 42s): Yeah. That's fascinating to think about it makes me want, like, it makes my mind race a little bit. I, I love talking about it. I wonder if there's a, some sort of chemical reaction that you could put in like a satellite that would make it become more dense and heavier once it reached a certain amount of time, you know, if there's some sort of chemical reaction, but before I go way out in the woods with something like that, what let's talk about, the different kinds of satellites that go up by the bison satellite that you put up that was a, was that a cube satellite, or what are the different kinds of satellites and what are the most common ones we put up there?

Speaker 1 (44m 21s): Well, cube sets are basically, well, we call 'em a form factor. So it's a form factor, send centimeters on a side of one Q one kilogram. So it's basically, you know, one 10 centimeters on a side, one kilogram. So you can have a six year as an example, or a three-year to you. We have 12 you. And, and so there's a point in time where that is basically where we are at with, with QP sets up to a 12 year.

So basically, you know, 12 kilogram satellite, anything above that right now, we do not have a form factor that's in cute size. So then you're going to things that are, you know, like a blue origin size, are you talking maybe a hundred kilograms? So you're going basically from a 12 kilogram satellite to basically the a hundred kilogram satellite form factor. And so basically we, we looking at a certain kind of bus and th th the electrical bus would then be able to perform different things.

So, you know, for as far as like solar panels and, you know, your, your, your main, your main mission, which might be, you know, earth observation, or it might be some other type of, of issue could be, you know, communications, that kind of thing. So, but a lot of these other form factors too, that I, that I missed that are in between that are the ones that are like the one web and to startling since things like that, that they are are, are maybe a little bit more like more of a, an enhanced cube set, if you want to call them that, but they have their own form factor, which is not typical.

So they would have their own kind of launch system for those cube sets. And many of those launches that do launch that they have many of those launching at the same time. So you could have like 40 50 satellites on one rocket. And so, or more, it depends on the primary and secondary payload. And then of course the smaller payloads. So you always have like more or less a primary mission, unless you're like, like a private operator that carries your own missions. So like bison set, for example, we launched in 2015, the primary mission was for the national reconnaissance office.

That was a spy satellite that we didn't know anything about. Right. So, so we, our satellite was like nothing, right? Everything else goes first, all the primary secondary missions go first there, they, they launched, they get there, they get it out into orbit. They do whatever they need to do. And then they come back down to the, to the tertiary satellites that are like, okay, you guys are extra. And so now we can go ahead and launch you because every, everything else is all secured and safe and all our main panel main payloads are gone.

And so now we can worry about you little guys. And so that's kind of how that works with the launch operators. You got your primary missions second and so forth, and it's based on value most likely into the, you know, probably into the billions of dollars. So it goes down from, you know, from real high end to, to the lower end of satellites. But that doesn't mean that, that, that cube SATs or smaller satellites are not effective because with today's technology, you have satellites that are very small, but extremely effective and doing what they do.

And that's exactly the case, which you see as the Ukraine, Russian war, let's say with, you know, with max are, and then some of the other satellites that are capability of, of creating high resolution photographs and very, very small satellites to be able to watch troop movements as an example. So small satellites doesn't mean that they are not good satellites they're there. They can be very, very effective satellites and, and very useful as we find out that, you know, like for, you know, wifi and streaming and all those other kinds of things that we're doing with communication systems around the world.

And so that, that is kind of where we're at.

Speaker 0 (48m 26s): It's so fascinating. What, let me ask you this, if let's say that George and Dan wanted to launch a Q set to look over Antarctica, like what, like, could we do that? And like how much would something like that cost?

Speaker 1 (48m 42s): Yes, we can do that. As a matter of fact, we have grade schoolers that are doing cubes

Speaker 0 (48m 46s): No way. That's awesome.

Speaker 1 (48m 48s): Yes, it's true. So, you know, we have, we have, you know, grade school kids that are doing cube sets. So the, when you, when you're talking about a real satellite that wants to do real work right. And do real, real science, we could do that. Let's say we launched over the, we launched launch over the pool. So we're gonna, we're in a polar orbit, right? So let's say we're in a polar orbit and acute set, one U cube sat over the polar orbit.

Probably, you know, I would say, you know, you could probably do it for, you know, $50,000. Right. And if you're, if you're on with a lot of other satellites launching, you could probably, you know, I think all total, maybe a hundred thousand dollars, you could put up a satellite to be able to do what you wanted to do. So, wow. It is really, really cheap for, for, for, for a cube set to do that.

And you don't even propulsion on, on a, on a, an acute set. So bison sat was, was a pyramid mag paramagnetic. So it flipped over the poles. So it was Nader pointing in the north pole. And it was basically the pointing in the space in the Southern pole, because it was basically an Alliance of magnetic flux and on which way that the, the, the satellite was pointing. So

Speaker 0 (50m 18s): It's amazing to me, I, what a, what a fascinating time to be alive. And I can only imagine being a grade school kid and beginning to learn about something like this, and then seeing a project happen from imagine being as a grade school kid, and you start talking about space and you have a teacher, and then Maybe you came in, or someone that came in to talk about space. And then in a matter of years, you go from third grade to fourth grade, and all of a sudden, you, as a kid, got to see the satellite in space. I think that that it's those kinds of programs that would really spark the imagination of the next generation.

That could probably be the ones that are going to help get rid of some of this junk.

Speaker 1 (50m 56s): Well, exactly. And so a lot of these cube sets are actually used by big companies because they want to demonstrate a piece of hardware or demonstrate a capability. So to do it, they do a cheap. And so, and that's, that's one of the ways they do it, but also keep in mind that the cube sets 10 centimeters on a side, just if you using a one U cube that is trackable, but not easy. Right? So, so we have a lot of, lot of cube sets now going into space, which is a part of our orbital space debris problem.

Right. And bison set is one of those that is an orbital debris problem because it's at 450 kilometers or so it'll take a long time for it to come down. So part of the law issue, right? A lot issues I talked about earlier is that it's okay to put up a satellite. And even if it dies that you can stay up there for 25 years, it's okay. You know, and, and, and that that's not okay. It's not okay to say somebody came up with, and the reason why they came up with a 25 years was they said, well, after 25 years, it's not going to be our problem going to be somebody else's problems.

And so, so let's, let's go ahead and make 25 years an okay thing for satellites to be up there and not have to worry about what we're going to do with it. And, and it's wrong because the idea that it's, you know, since Sputnik in 57, there should have been all along some way to mitigate debris. But, you know, in the time that they were doing the space race, they did not care about the directory of their upper stage rockets. And so we, we had all kinds of debris up there and no one cared about how to mitigate it or how to deal with it.

And it wasn't too long ago. I think it was where, you know, we had a piece of debris, actually, an upper stage rocket, I believe when, on the moon that actually wasn't unintended consequence that we had the Bree from orbital space land on the moon as debris as junk. And so, and I think that, and of course, I think there was China and, and, and Elon Musk were fighting about whose debris that was, of course, but, but, you know, the point is, is that it exists.

And so all along, we should have been taken care of our orbital space saying, you know, if we put it up, we have to do something with, we have to have an end of life. Procedure are, we're done with our mission. We, we, we, we, we fire our, we have a, we have a procedure. We, we, we fire our, and do you orbit engines and we take it out of space and we deposit it over the ocean and we burn it up. That again is also a problem, right? So you, you can imagine that you're having a lot, most of these spacecrafts are made out of aluminum.

So now you have aluminum, that's being burned up in our, in our orbital space that that enters the atmosphere of our earth. So those, those are problematic issues too. So, you know, and as a native American, our satellites will, we're going to be using industrial hemp frames and braids, and we'll be using industrial hemp, rocket fuel, and industrial, you know, a printed circuit board. So we're, we're looking at a way of being more mindful when we go into space about how we are going to deal with these problems.

And, and of course, we'll have an orbital end of life procedures about EOL end of life procedure, to be able to deposit them over the, the Pacific ocean, but burn up in a way that it's more sustainable than burning up aluminum.

Speaker 0 (54m 37s): That's a, that's a great point. I'm glad you brought that up. Like, you know, there's a saying that says as above so below, and when I think about how a lot of us, I know I'm guilty of it too, but a lot of mankind has kind of been guilty of being a pretty big polluter because, you know, if you look at some of the rivers or if you look at say nuclear waste in some areas seeps into the river, or we have landfills that seep into the environment, it seems to me, if, if we know that's happening here on the ground, in this ecosystem, and we know that there's weapons in space, and we know some of these satellites are there weapons, like, isn't it possible that Lord knows if there's some sort of chemical agent in these satellites or there's even of aluminum or sometimes a metal.

It seems to me that those particular forms of pollution could leak into the atmosphere the same way the pollution in our ground can leak into our aquifers. And it's just so it's sad, but it's also fascinating to think about the patterns that we have as humans. Like, why don't we do this? Like, we, we, the same pollutions got to work, but if there's, if there is weapons in space and there's bio agents or aluminum, or just even metal, that's got to pollute the atmosphere as well to a degree that we don't even understand yet.

Speaker 1 (55m 58s): Yeah. Oh, it's going to be a lot worse than that. So, yeah. So my biggest issue right now is the fact that we have large Landers going to be landing on the moon and they're going to be each acting, you know, our lunar regolith into space. Right.

Speaker 0 (56m 17s): So I don't know what that means, lunar regular. What does that mean? But,

Speaker 1 (56m 20s): Okay. So lunar regolith is, you know, if you go to the moon and you step on the moon, you know, like, you know, Armstrong did, you know, you're, you're going to step on lunar regolith, which is basically you can call it earth soil, but on the moon, but it's not really soil. There's no soil on the moon. It's just regular. That's so different. But the point being is that it's extremely fine. And you know, we're talking down nanometers size, right? So that's where to get to the idea of nano phase iron on the moon.

So, but we, you can imagine that the limb, right? So the Apollo missions, they're, they're, they're their lunar excursion modules where 3,500 pounds of thrust. Some of these engines that we're talking about are Landers. Now going to the moon for the argument's program are going to be into the millions of pounds of thrust. And so what's going to happen is if you take an understanding that the moon is at one six gravity, right. That, and you're in an environment where it's not wet, it's dry, right. And you have the ability to move things relatively quick, because you got one six gravity that if you have a rocket engine that's coming in, and it has millions of pounds of frost that the lunar Regulus is going to go off the surface of the moon and into space.

And so that to me would cause an environmental disaster. And that's my position as far as I, I know because there is no, there's no credible plan right now that I see for lunar landing pads, they just don't exist. And so it's going to be very difficult to, to, to mitigate any large Landers. So my position is that we need to, to use a precautionary principle and then use smaller Landers and being able to do things like create, put monitors, using cube sets, actually put monitors on, on, on the surface of the moon to be able to monitor the lunar dust as we have, you know, and our Landers landing in, in a sent vehicles ascending.

So to be able to do that and also have a lunar orbiter that is able to monitor the lunar dust as it goes into the into space, because I think that's going to be a significant problem and where, you know, the, the dust will, will eventually find its way around the sun. And that's not good from my point of view. And so I think we have a lot of debris issues that we're going to have to worry about some environmental problems that we're going to have to worry about when the Artemis program, of course we have.

And I mentioned before, you know, our, our lunar orbital debris that we should be concerned about and, and debris on the moon itself from, you know, from the RMS program, but then also take care of our orbital space debris. So we, we need to, we need to look at things in the long run to be able to look at debris as a, as a, a big picture as compared to the smaller picture. And then of course we have things like we had the idea of outer space, cultural heritage, which is, you know, how do we protect, let's say the Apollo 11 landing site as an example.

So I can see as an example, we're having so much dust being blown around and moon that, you know, these, the blueprints are no longer exist. I mean, it's just, it's really significant problem. The lunar dust, I mean, of all the things that going back to the moon is the most important thing to worry about is Nuno dust. And you would think so, but it is, it's probably one of the most important things that the Artemis program has to deal with.

And, and, and, and, and just, and just saying that, oh, well, we're just going to land and then had this dust going all over the place that that's not a, that's not a good thing we'd have to, we have to do better on the lunar dust problem.

Speaker 0 (1h 0m 19s): Yeah, I remember it seems like a few years ago, they, they crashed a satellite into the moon. They crashed something into the moon. And I'm wondering if you remember that there had to have been some sort of test to see the debris come from that impact or the, there has to be, has there been monitoring of impacts of the moon to see the debris field after that?

Speaker 1 (1h 0m 42s): Yes. I think that was a prospect or mission in, yeah, there was an impact or, and I think, I think there was actually some human human remains on that then impact or two, I think goes to Schumacher Schumacher hadn't re remains in on that, that, that impact. But then, and of course, native Americans, weren't notified of that either. But so I've had recently, he knows, I, I, as I mentor some students from MIT and their space enabled group, one of their, one of our, one of our meetings, I had a person come on.

She said, Hey, you know, we're having this lunar orbiter. And I just happened to say, you know, w what are you doing at end of life at the loop with this lunar orbiter? So, well, we're going to impact it on the moon. So their, their, their, their, their end of life procedure was after we're done with our mission. We're just gonna, we're just going to slam it into the moon. So, well, I mean, I mean, okay, so then the other alternative would be just to put it in a trajectory that would take it out of, out of our, our solar system and not impacted on the moon.

So it's a matter of what we can do to mitigate the things that we, what we want to do. So to them, maybe it was normal to, to impacted on the moon, but I don't feel that that is the right thing to do.

Speaker 0 (1h 2m 11s): Maybe you put it into the sun.

Speaker 1 (1h 2m 14s): Yeah. You, I mean, you, you can

Speaker 0 (1h 2m 16s): Write one, that'd be

Speaker 1 (1h 2m 16s): Better. Yeah. You could burn it up in the sun, but, but, but, but that would have been an, that alter alternative choice instead of impacting and on the moon. So I wouldn't have, that would not have been my choice to impact it, but also the companies that we deal with in space, we have to, we have to work through, you know, these kinds of questions because, you know, the way that I think is not the way that, that people think.

Speaker 0 (1h 2m 42s): Yeah. That's a great point in that. I think that that is something that can be applied no matter what field you work in is it's so many different people, you know, they kind of brings me to the idea of worldview, I think, as a native American, the worldview, which you operate under seems to be much more harmonious than the worldview in which the Western religions work underneath. And I think that that impacts almost everything we do that that does impact.

Like, let's just smash this thing in over here. Let's just put this over here. I'm thankful that you are doing what you're doing. I think it seems to be the voice of reason. Sometimes I have you ever thought about maybe the way in which you were brought up, your worldview affects the reality in which you live and the way you interact with people that you're working with now?

Speaker 1 (1h 3m 35s): Absolutely. You know, is that I'm the only native American workers with the lunar surface innovation consortium. They, they come take, they, you know, I have to say that when they first started the, what we call a value chain on, on the, on the moon. So, so first of all, lunar surface innovation consortium is run by John Hopkins university. And that we have several different focus groups and I'm almost on all of them. So one, one is called value chain and, and Hartley too, when you go to the moon, as you, as you have either a product or a service, right?

And so one of the two things that he did, two things that they came out of the value chain, like and input and an output. And so you have something going into your product or service and you have an output or your product and services. So the first thing I said, well, where's your, where's your waste? And so that's because there's the product, the output was not the same as waste. And so we have to do is we have to understand that when we're on the surface of the moon, if we are, if we have a product or we have a service, we have some type of waste.

But to use that waste in such a way that another company that has a product or service to use the waste of someone else's product or service, to be an input to the other product or service, so that we don't go to the moon and waste things, because it's very expensive. First of all, are you going to the moon? It's cost a lot of money to do that. It costs a lot of money to get there. And so you just don't want to go there and waste stuff. You don't want you don't. You want to make sure that if you have something, that's, let's say if you're, if you have an output of some type of chemical that, that maybe some other company that may need that chemical, they mean they may need that.

And so the idea is that to create that value chain. So we have our, our inputs and outputs, and then our waste streams that they're all coordinated in a way that it, Hey, you need, I need this, you have that let's work together. And let's, and let's see how we can benefit each other mutually. So we don't have waste on the lunar surface. So from a, from a worldview point of view, right? Native American world view, you have to look at, first of all, in the Iroquois from being Oneidas that we, we, we, we originate our, or our creation stories are from sky world.

So we look at it a different way, then some other tribes that maybe originate from, from the earth. And so I always go about the idea of what, how things are connected, right? And so when we go back to the ecosystem, ecosystems are connected. And, and so what we do, we do to one strand of the web, we do to all of the web, what we do, the ones, when we do the one, one strand, we do it all.

So we must pay attention so that when we, we, we, we, we, we break one strand as an example where we harm it. It hurts the rest of the entire tire T of the web. So we cannot go, let's say, we go to follow Artemis. We go to the moon, we go to the Mar, we go to Mars and we go there to live in a permanent way, you know, go there to stay, which is the whole purpose of doing what we're doing.

That we go there and we do it in a way that we are community. We are not, we're not colonizers. We don't go there militarily. Right? We go, there we go there as a community of people, and we are respectful of each other. And, you know, the native American astronaut is just as good as the military astronaut, right? So we have to understand that we go there as a community of people. And that, that we, we, we are, we are caretakers. So native Americans are caretakers of the land, but we are caretakers are airspace, but we also be, we also need to be caretakers of space.

So being caretakers of spaces to, to help and support space, traffic management, being able to mitigate those things in orbital space, to be able to go to the moon and being able to watch after, and look after those people who want to impact or their end of life, you know, missions on the, on the surface of the moon, or, you know, to go oversee over outer space, cultural heritage, as an example, to be able to, to maintain those things that are important to America. Like, you know, the, you know, the Apollo 11 landing site is an example of some day that may be our own museum, but we need to take care of it.

And so same thing with, you know, our waste streams. We, we, we go to the moon saying, oh, okay, well, it's okay to put a garbage dump on the moon. No, it's not okay to put a garbage dump on the moon. You know? So I had, you know, the ability to somebody saying, well, you know, w w we have this, we have these tailings. And we're just going to say that it's, you know, it's of use somebody else will use it somewhere along the lines. So it's really a value, but it really is garbage, really junk. It's, it's really, it's, it's really, it's really pollution, but we don't call it that week.

We call it something else and we'll, we'll, we'll call it, we'll call it something else. So that it's a value. And it could very well be because in the moon everything's expensive. So it could very well be of value, but we need to understand that, you know, that is that's important. So here's the other part of it, you know, so I we're native American I'm, so let's, let's say we create our own Lander. We put our Lander on, and now, Hey, that's the first native American Lander, right there. That's culture, heritage. You can't, you can't just, can't just dismantle and take it apart and use the, you know, the pieces has been reused a woman.

I mean, that, that's, that's cultural heritage. And, but what about the second Lander? What about the third land? You know, so that is the first one is cultural heritage is the second one. Debris is a third wind debris. So we have to understand and think because the idea of, of businesses and companies going to the moon and putting different types of Landers and, and, and, and, and say experiments, and those kinds of things on the moon and say, okay, well, that's culture, heritage. And when it's really debris, that really is not, that's really not a good way of thinking about things.

So we have to, we have to go about our way of saying, we have to have some type of procedures, some type of, some type of framework to go by to say, this is debris. This is, this is something that's important for the, for all of the world to know in the future, this is cultural heritage. This is debris. And so we need to make that separation between the two, because we're talking about a lot of money or talking about a lot of value here. And so you should, we should be able to go to the moon and say, okay, this is your, your, your third land or the other ones, or, you know, the cultural heritage.

You pull a pin and it comes apart. And now you're able to reuse the aluminum. You're able to reuse things. We're able to recycle things on the moon. We're able to do those things, but it's no longer culture heritage. Actually, we use it as a value change for something value chain for something else, but that's how we have to think. And it's difficult to get people to think that way.

Speaker 0 (1h 10m 51s): Yeah, I can. I can imagine how even here on earth, it's difficult to get people to think that way and to see, to see the world is I, I think it comes back to worldview to it. I, my personal idea is that you don't come into this world. You come out of it, like you're part of the earth. And I think that w a lot of people, and I don't, I'm not saying one way is right, or one way is wrong. And I've thought both of I've thought from both of these point of views. However, when I believe, when I go down, the, the idea of being someone who comes into this world, I feel that there's a separation between myself and everything else.

But when I look at myself as coming out of this world, I feel as if I'm part of this world, and I feel like that, then we get back to Indra's web in, in, in the idea that you and I are connected. And then me and my daughter and me and my neighbor and me and my banana tree, and me and my cat, like when I, when I have that aspect of I come out of this world, it fundamentally changes the way I interact in this world. And that's why I had asked you the question about, about worldview and narrative.

I, it seems to me that different cultures have different views. And so when we get to the idea of space and the first land or being cultural heritage, and the second one being debris, you know, different cultures see the world differently. So they would see the, the travel through space different. And it, it just makes me wonder if, if when we, the idea of space travel and all this exploration should be something that unites us, however, it's, it scares me that it could be something that continues to divide us.

What, what is your aspect on, on space and exploration as a uniting force?

Speaker 1 (1h 12m 40s): Yeah, it has to space. Space is supposed to unite us. So the reality there is that, you know, when we go to the moon, let go, is telling you that we go there as a community of people, not, not, you know, not, not a military post and, you know, not, you know, not some type of outpost, you know, those are, those are colonizing words that hurt native American. And so, you know, this is not a fork on the moon. We're talking about a community of people working together to do certain things, to do experiments and science, and, you know, an exploration.

And as, as all people are explorers, including native American people, we go there as a, as a community, people as explorers, and it has to unite us. And in our failure to allow that to happen would be, would be, would be a tragedy for, for, for us as people. So the international space station showed us that we can work in space together. We can do things in space together. You know, I unfortunately native American people were left out, you know, it was on, and it was unfortunate.

We replaced an ITR list too, but, you know, we've got us off. I got us off that list. So we're no longer on that list. So we, we can go into space, we can do things. And so it's important for, for tribal people, especially, you know, to, to be able to monitor our own resources from space, to monitor our own habitat, change our own climate change from space. And that, that follows on the, the tourist straight eight lawsuit against Australia and the United nations, where they are, their island nation was, is being, you know, inundated by, by, by sea level rise.

And they claimed that Australia says, Hey, you know, you're not doing enough for climate change and look at what's happening to our island nation. So you need to do better to, to, to help support us indigenous people. So we, we need to have the ability to monitor our own resources from space in our own, you know, capabilities for, for remote communications, as an example, you know, the idea of climate change based on the Torres Strait lawsuit in Australia.

And, and I think, I think it goes more than that to, you know, because as the federal tribal trust responsibility between native Americans in our, in our, in our federal government, we also have some responsibility for, let's say, national security watching our borders. We have, we also have a problem with murdered missing indigenous women, which I'm now raising to the level of the sustainable development goal, 8.7, the United nations from slavery from space.

So we have that ability when we, when we take our satellites in this space to be able to monitor slavery from space and as a supportive, murdered, missing indigenous women. And so, you know, we have a lot that we can accomplish in spaces, native people, but at the same time, we go there as a way for space development and space exploration. And that, that is to, to work together as, as, as human beings, as a community, as, rather as oppressors and, and those that are the in to move away from the colonizing ways of thinking into decolonized, the institutionalized and demilitarized.

And that's why I'm so against the idea of militarizing system in our space. We just, I just don't, I just disagree with militarizing, our system and our space. It's just not, it's not right. It's wrong.

Speaker 0 (1h 16m 24s): I'm so happy to hear you say that in a and let's are you doing okay on time?

Speaker 1 (1h 16m 30s): Well, I, I say go, well, we, we have a lot more to it, the way I talked to you for a very, very long time and over many, many podcasts that you want many of the things that I know. Yeah. This is just one thing.

Speaker 0 (1h 16m 45s): Okay, awesome. I I'm so thankful to talk to you. It's a real pleasure. And I feel like I'm learning a lot and I've got other questions I read down if for people listening or watching Dan and I are going to be meeting the first and third, Tuesday of every month. And I've got some links below Dan, where can people find you, if they want to hear more and get ahold of you, what can they find you?

Speaker 1 (1h 17m 7s): Well, you at the NPD United First Nations, Planetary Defense, you haven't been PD. So that would be, let me see. I WordPress wordpress.com. So you have MPD, wordpress.com. So that would be, you'd be able to find me there a lot of things happening.

Speaker 0 (1h 17m 30s): Fantastic. And, and is there anything else you want to leave people with before we in today and, and set up for next one?

Speaker 1 (1h 17m 38s): No, I I'm. I'm, I'm actually looking forward to the next one is there's, there's a lot going on. You know, we just, we're just, we're recognized by the world, mining Congress for 2023, as we, we start to look for industrial hemp to mitigate mines all around the world to turn it into rocket fuel, industrial hemp, rocket fuel. So we're, we're, we're, we're, you know, there's mining is a big deal, you know, it's a necessary, but yet it's an evil.

And so we're, we're looking at ways to, you know, use industrial hemp to mitigate mines and to create rocket fuel as a way of, of, of supporting the space industry actually to go towards more neutrality, carbon neutrality. So you'll find a lot more of that, where we're, we're heading in those directions to be able to do those things.

Speaker 0 (1h 18m 36s): Yeah. It seems like such an exciting, I think it there's a real opportunity. And I think times ahead, if we choose to make them and focus on them can be a lot more sustainable and a lot more rewarding for all of us, if we work together

Speaker 1 (1h 18m 55s): Well, we have to, you know, and you know, we, we see this in Ukraine, Russian war right now is that we, we have to work together a lot of problems. You know, we, you know, I look at the website once in a while and I, I see, you know, you know, things going on, like, you know, our, our farmers are protesting against nitrogen. And I keep saying, you know, the idea that it's not, we're really don't have a nitrogen problem. Well, we have, as a carbon problem, we have, you know, our, our, our climate change is, is carbon based.

And so to suggest that nitrogen is the problem, is this wrong thinking, we need to be able to use, you know, and like the Amazon black earth, Amazon brown earth kind of sustainable agriculture to be able to, to, to sink more carbon, you know? So every one ton of carbon we sink, we sink 3.6 tons of carbon dioxide. So it's important that we do the carbon sinking. And as you sync carbon and create the sustainable agriculture, then what you do is you reduce the reactive nitrogen, which is really the necessary pork that we need part that we need to do.

So we're not thinking correctly when we're talking about the way we see farmers protesting against the reactive nitrogen. So we talk about policies. We need to, we need to get the idea of our, of our leadership, understanding that, that they need to make better decisions regarding the, the lens of, of climate change. Because the lens of climate change needs to be through the cart through carbon lens and not the nitrogen lens.

So I'm hoping that somebody hears this and says, wait a minute, now that's, that's that's we need to rethink this. And so, yeah, we do. We definitely need to rethink this because we, when you look at the idea of climate change and the protesting this going on, and the problems that are happening, we are at the beginning of climate change, it's going to get worse. So what you see, it's going to get worse. And so when I'm saying to the world, if you're listening, is that, that we need to start looking at things a little differently.

And, and then, so, but I can talk more about that. Maybe the next one is on climate change, but yeah, it's really serious stuff and it, it it's, it's not right. So we have to, we have to work in a different way, and I really don't know how to convey that, not the policy, but, you know, but maybe we could, we could, we could pull those pieces out and then try to look at them one at a time, because I'm really concerned about the way that, you know, the what's happening in the Netherlands and, and Sarah Lanka's in his example.

Yeah, it's happening. So we, we, we need to, we need to come together and do things differently because the reason why we need to is because if we're having these problems now, when we talk about climate change in a little way, little way, little clue, climate change issues that when we start to really start feeling the impact of climate change, we are really going to be hurting. So we really need to start to layer two, to create the foundation of how we set about policy now, because as we go through the years coming that are coming quickly, that we're going to find us in a, in a, in a much worse position.

And, and so it's, it's that important and I'll leave it there.

Speaker 0 (1h 22m 23s): Yeah. I, I think that I'm looking forward to that conversation. I, I, I'm one of the biggest problems I see with climate change is that when people talk about it, it's such a polarizing topic, but people don't define what they mean when they say climate change, because climate change can mean something to this person, but something totally different to this person. And they're just talking past each other. And I wanted to bring, I have a really good question. And I want to ask you, I, I was reading this book called black elk speaks, and it's a phenomenal story about an indigenous native American in the traditions that he lived through.

And some of the horrific things that lived it with some of the cultural aspects of his life. And one of the stories he tells in that book is he says, you know, when the white man came to us and said he wanted to buy our land, we laughed at him because we said, you can't buy the land. The land belongs to everybody, but they did buy it. And they did horrific things. And so I take that story and I recently talked to an economist and I asked him, you know, if we take this idea that these people came and they call Annise, and they told the native American, we're going to buy your land.

And if you can't buy the land, it belongs to everybody. I'm worried. Now that what's happening is that people are trying to buy the air. You know, when you look at some taxes that people are trying to put an order, it's not a whole lot different than if a group of people said, we're going to buy your land. And we say, that's silly. You can't buy the lint. Sometimes people are coming to us now and say, we're going to buy this air. And we're like, you can't buy the air. But it seems to me, people are trying to buy the air from all of us and force us to pay for that the same way they took the land and bound it up in chains.

They're trying to take the air. We breathe and bind it up and change and make it a commodity. I think that's a dangerous situation. What do you think about that?

Speaker 1 (1h 24m 18s): It is, it is dangerous. And so you, so first of all, carbon is ubiquitous. It's everywhere. It's in the deepest depths of the ocean to the deepest parts of any ice core that you can drill out. And so carbon is everywhere. Carbon is, is the issue of climate change. And we've seen that in the dust bowl and the dust bowl was actually a carbon climate change problem because the farmers had plowed so much that they only had 10% of the soil, organic carbon left in the soil.

They pleaded 90% of it. And that's the reason why that's the reason why he had the dust bowl. Right? I can go on all the kinds of things that happened with that. And before that, and that that's, that's a, that's a, that's an hour right there.

Speaker 0 (1h 25m 6s): Awesome.

Speaker 1 (1h 25m 8s): But the point is, is that, that the air that we breathe right, is, is, is it's. If you look at Boyle's law, it takes the shape of the, of our biosphere, everyone breeze, everybody else's air. We, that is the way it is. But when it comes to the greenhouse gases, we need to talk about this, this green dis warming effect, this blanketing, in fact, it is, it is, it is what happens because, because of science, it is, is when you put a blanket on at night and you get warm.

It's that, it's the way it is. You can't change it, but it's, so what we can do is we can mitigate some of it, right? So how do we do, how do we do that? So you, you take carbon is, let's say as an example, we have 10 million trees in black Hills right now we're trying to get, right? So then they're just rotting. They're riding their CO2, emitting, CO2, emitting, methane. And so if you were to take the tree and you were to carbonize it, in other words, you burn it and you're going to get a certain amount of carbon either.

Let's say it's 10%. You take the 10% of that, that carved Ash will carbon the physical carbon, and you put it in the ground. And you, now you say you sink that carbon and you've saved you sink it in a way that the Amazons did hundreds of years ago. And that carbon will remain in the ground for hundreds of years, hundreds of years. And so, and that's what creates the sustainability of the Amazon black earth. Amazon Broner is basically, this was the click slash and burn, but as a technology of just putting it into the ground and then making the land fertile, because if you take water and carbon, you have sugar.

It's you got, you got C six H H 1206, right? You got sugar, rich sugar is what plants need to grow. Plants are cellulosic there's there's cellulose. So you need, do you need the carbon in order for the plants grow? And so when a plant grows into the uptakes CO2 from the atmosphere, but it also takes carbon from the nutrients in the ground, as well as NPK, which is nitrogen, which is, which is the problem that they're having in the Netherlands and Sarah link. So, but the reality though, is that the Amazon black earth brown earth is a sustainable agriculture.

And so, as you, as you increase the carbon in the ground, you increase the carbon sink. You're not only supporting the climate change, but you're also supporting the yield of the plant itself because now you can double and triple the yield. But in addition to that, you've sunk the carbon and, and, and you've reduced the ability to use reactive nitrogen. So you reducing the nitrogen as you're increasing the carbon. And so that's really the solution to the problem. It's not the fact that you create like certainly cadet and ban nitrogen, because that's not the way to do things.

You, you, you, you, you you'd have to do it in a way that it makes sense. So you make sense by saying, let's increase our carbon lists, let's create a sustainable carbon count. And now let's start to reduce our nitrogen. And because you'll be able to do that and being able to do that and, and being able to also at the same time, increasing your yields. So it's important that we look at it in a different way, but if the policy makers don't know what I just said, they're not going to do it because they just don't know. Right.

Speaker 0 (1h 28m 20s): Dan, I had an absolute blast talking to you, and I'm really looking forward to our further conversations.

Speaker 1 (1h 28m 26s): Yeah, I appreciate it. So, yeah, it's been awesome. I could talk for a long time and a lot of different subjects, so,

Speaker 0 (1h 28m 33s): Okay, great. We're going to get into it. We're going to, we've got a new series coming up and I'm like, everybody go and check out Dan, and I'll put all his links below in the show notes and prepare for some awesome conversations coming our way, Dan, I really appreciate the, your outlook on life and your ability to listen in. I am thankful for your time. So let's do it again in a week from next Tuesday.

Speaker 1 (1h 28m 56s): Yes. George looking forward to it. Okay. We have a baby. People will call it and give you a question. Listen.

Speaker 0 (1h 29m 2s): Yeah, I got us live right now. And I, I think that we're going to get a lot of questions coming up soon. I've been really fortunate, Dan, like I've, can I share a quick story with you? I, I, I've been working really hard and, and trying to read a lot and learn a lot. And there's this saying that I, I used to hear all the time. It says slow at first and then all at once. And when you think about that particular statement, it can mean a lot of things.

But for me it means that exact thing I've, I've been working on the podcast and my channel for about three and a half years. And it was just, I was just ticking along like a graph like this, and I'd get like a couple people here subscribing and a couple here. And over the last seven days, I've got 400 subscribers. I've got 120,000 views. And it's just this, it's just this pattern of life that like, you start off just doing, doing, doing, and you ask yourself, like, what am I, am I even doing anything what's going on here?

And then all of a sudden, you work hard. You work through your comfort zone and you keep getting up every day and pounding and pounding and working and working and in networking and talking and learning. And then all of a sudden, it's like a plant. Like you put a seed in the ground, you go out the next day. There's not going to be any plant there, but if you water it, you take care of it and you go out and you talk to it and you give it all the nutrients. One bay, a green shoot comes up. And so I've been noticing these green shoots and I'm super excited about it. And thank you for letting me share that story. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (1h 30m 34s): That's a great story. So yeah, George is great.

Speaker 0 (1h 30m 37s): So

Speaker 1 (1h 30m 38s): We'll have to sign up.

Speaker 0 (1h 30m 40s): Yeah, we got to go. Okay. Thank you so much. Have a great afternoon. And I'll talk to you again shortly. Thanks, right? Yep. Okay. Aloha.