their thinking. so, thank you, and jen, thank you for a wonderful job of moderating this. [applause]

>> at some point, someone up in the chambers, in the gallery, a member was yelling at the republicans to call trump and have trump call office to mob. and there was some little yelling back and forth among the members in the gallery. >> call trump! time to call off his -- called trump! call your friend! [inaudible] >> this week, you'll also hear from republican riding days from illinois, and madeleine dean from pennsylvania. january 6th, views from the house. sunday at 10 pm eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app.

three more members of congress share stories about what they saw heard and experienced that day, including representative rodney davis of illinois who served as a teller for the electoral vote counted that day. >> there's a lot of freshman there that i've gotten to know during orientation.

this was their first real experience as a member of congress. we were kind of watching them and talking to my fellow colleagues about what we're trying to do to stop this. >> what were those conversations like? tell us. >> i remember a conversation i had with marjorie taylor greene. she was a freshman who was very active during the orientation. she was very upset about what was going on. her and i chatted and, she said what can i do? i said how about you go back and film a video and put it on social media. and if you have any influence over anybody tell them to stop. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with john logsdon who is here to talk with us today about recent flights

into we're back with john logs and its potential on impact on space travel. john good morning. >> good morning. now you are the founder and the long term director jellies space policy institute. george washington's baseball audience. did i ask you this question. what is the significance of jeff bezos and richard branson conducting private flights in the space? >> the reality is and the significance is not that great. these were not journeys into orbit, just up and down, quick some orbital flights. but symbolically, they say we look at all the attention that is being paid to it, these are private citizens going into space on systems developed by

private citizens, and as a business affair, it is announcing the arrival of opening the access to space to fare paying private citizens. >> now, what is the impact of those private flights, not only on tourism but only commercial space flight industry? does this mean that we are now going to see several companies touting themselves as intergalactic companies where they can take people who can afford it away from the planet earth? is that something new we're gonna see now? >> perhaps. put it into the mix a company called space acts, led by elon musk, which has a system that can carry people into orbit. again, it's stressed, nor virgin galactic's spaceship to

can go into orbit. their flights were necessarily very short. spacex intense in september, i have a totally private flight, four people aboard, into orbit for several days. and it on mosques ambition and eventually measles is, not so much branson is to move large numbers of people into space, into deep space. iran's stated goal is to establish 1 million persons city on mars. bezos's stated goal is to move heavy industry into outer space, deep space, and have thousands of people working in space. >> now there have been quite a bit of criticism of both jeff bezos and richard branson with the hold rich guys who can

afford to go to space, or through their large u.s. can bring anyone they want into space, with them owning their own companies and being billionaires. there is no limit to what they can do, but of course not all of us are billionaires. what do you think of the criticism that they are using their money to go into this next frontier, places that other people who can't afford to can't go? >> well, i think the criticism while understandable is a little unfounded. nobody criticizes a billionaire for buying a big yacht. they are allowed to use their money as they see fit as long as they are not injuring anyone. they are not philanthropists particularly, they are people who put their own money into creating the space ability, and it's up to them how they want

to use. it >> have these companies brought anything new to the space flight industry? are they coming up with innovations that can be used by nasa in the future? for, are they only doing what they can do because of innovations that have been brought about by nasa? >> nasa, now 60 years plus old is developed in the united states and has developed numerous technologies in spaceflight. propulsion, energies, control and environmental control, so certainly virgin galactic and others have benefited from what nasa has done over the years. but putting all that together for their use. they are not intending to

distribute to the broader capabilities of spaceflight. these are systems that do what they do. >> i want to remind our colors that they can take part in this conversation about the use of private industry going into space. we are gonna open up regional lines. that means that if you are in the eastern or central time zones, we want to hear from you at 2:02 seven four eight 8000. if you are in the mountain or pacific time zones there are numbers gonna be 2:02 seven four eight 8001. keep in mind, you can always text us at 2:02 seven four eight 8003, and we're always on social media, and facebook.com slash c-span, at twitter c-span double j and, on instagram at c-span w.. now john, is there anything on

governments latency that is in charge of spaceflight, nassau can learn from what is being done by bezos, branson and elon musk? but the government learned off from what is being done by private companies? >> let's take one step back. nasa has nothing to do with these flights. they are regulated by the federal aviation, and a department of transportation, who has to issue a license for the flight. again, they're not making contributions to the nasa program. they hope to make money with these businesses that have regulations associated with him coming out of the department of transportation on. >> but is there anything that is being done by these private companies that nasa may want to emulate in the future? >> no, i don't think so.

nasa has the capability putting people in orbit since john glenn's flight in 1962, and in fact, the first two flights, with alan shepard of may of 1961, and august of 61, were like these flights, just quick up and down. >> so, what is your comfort level of letting private industry similarly take the lead in the space industry that's going on right now? >> well, this is one segment of the space industry. there is a 300 billion dollar space in history mainly private but also government in things like communications satellites. so there is a thriving private

business in space already. i don't want to trivialize it but it's a bit of a sideshow. >> let's let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. let's start with steve, who is calling from montgomery, illinois. steve, good morning. >> good morning sean, i just like to do a shout out on your book after apollo for all the viewers out there. it's a great book about how the space industry changed after apollo. i have a two part question. the first part for john is, how much of more of the commercial market can spacex acquire towards aryan space. my second question is the nasa administrator has said that china is our main competitor to

get to mars or deep space. how much more can the government stay out of the way for a company like spacex to leave a path for america to get to mars or the moon before china? i will hang up and listen here response. thank you. >> well, thanks for the common on the after apollo book. it's part of a series of books i have written an spaces of john kennedy, richard nixon and ronald reagan. i enjoy doing that work. china is the country together with the united states that is developing capabilities for journey into deep space. there's clearly a rivalry, or competition, i don't think it's a race, because there are so many finish lines to develop

capabilities to return to the moon and essentially journey to mars. the united states is ahead in the competition with their new program, but it depends on whether we maintain that current lead competitive league. it takes many times to sustain support from the u.s. republican government to do these type of undertakings. that having said, elon musk and spacex are developing a new space ship called starliner which is supposedly going to fly soon in the next few months and eventually be able to carry a large number of people like maybe 100 people to the moon and eventually to mars.

and the united states it is not competing with the governments, not competing with spacex. it's elon using his profits from the business you mentioned. you mentioned spacex competing with ariana's witches european company, and they sink contracts to launch communication satellites. spacex has been extremely disruptive in this space launch market by having a good product, a reusable booster and a price point undercuts its competitors. again, galactic and blue origin have nothing to do that competition. >> john, you just brought up the elon musk starliner, which brings up this question. you say the government is not competing with these private companies. do you think that however the

push for private companies to give up into space in any way diminishes nasa's plans for a manned spaceflight? >> that's a good question. let's divide it into two parts. one is human access to lower armored, the orbit 250 miles upwards where the space station is currently operating. nasa has said he would like to get out of the business working low earth orbit for humans in particular and turn that over to the private sector, because it's in a sense almost a commodity, a risky commodity, but we have had lots of flights to lower orbit with astronauts on board. nasa says we would like to stop doing that and concentrate our efforts in going places, not just in circles around the

earth. going back to the moon and beyond eventually. it depends on how much you believe the space acts claim that it's going to develop that capability. if the star ship proves that it works better than a nasa developed system, i think they would go in a partnership with spacex in exploration. the exploration is not going to turn a profit, it's going to experiencing places and see what's there. i think it's going to be government lead for a long time, but if the private sector can contribute, then why not? >> speaking of nasa, and a recent presentation, nasa administration veteran bill nelson laid out his agency space flights efforts, including like you said john

going to the moon. want to listen to what bill nelson had to say, and john elected react to it after against an. here's nasa administrator bill nelson del some. >> we are assembling the rocket at the very moment town at the kennedy base space center. he'll pave the way for american astronauts to the surface of the moon. that rocket is the space launch sense system. it'll launch our orion spacecraft on missions to lunar orbit and beyond. and soon, i mean like days, we are starting to stack that massive core stage between its two boosters and the vehicle assembly building it kfc. the s alas will be the most powerful rocket in the world, 8.8 million pounds of thrust at lunch. all this means we are on our

way to land the next americans on the moon, and this time we are going to learn how to live and work in another world. america's long term presence at the moon, both robotic and human, we'll help develop the experience and capabilities we need to eventually send the first astronauts to mars. >> well first, john i want you to react bill nelson's comments there. >> well, he describes accurately whatnot acid is currently doing. the s l s is now stocked in the vehicle assembling at kennedy space center. its first flight is scheduled for early this year or early 2022. it will be a flight without humans aboard, this ascending

the awry and capsule round the moon. second flight scheduled for 2023 will carry crew but not the landing, and then the hope is that the third flight will carry a crew with a landing system to get it done to return to the moon by 2024. i think that's a very optimistic statement, but yes, this is the program the nasa's carrying out. public money let's start with sharon calling from han ov>> let's start with sharon, calling from pennsylvania. sharon, good morning. >> yes, thank you. many others view this entire thing has extreme human hubris. ego, this project certainly

requires resources, fuel -- they pollute. the so-called emissions may involve things like mining at the moon. and idea brought out by newt gingrich of all people long ago. it also serves to distract the population from urgent problems and certainly talk among them is climate crisis. this is all immature, egocentric wasteful polluting. and i know frankness, i'm not a religious fanatic, but all of this is godless. thank. you >> what is your response there, john? >> well, clearly this is an act

of hubris. human ambition. pride, to go and explore other worlds. whether it's a good thing or bad thing i think is the wrong thing to be doing, sharon. and cta certainly, we divert an opinion on that. others see it mining and the moon, yes. the resources from the moon will help undertake this project in the long term. is the moon pristine wilderness? or a resource for humans to use? there truly is human ego involved. nasa does not cost much money. it is less than one have 1% of

the federal budget. so, there's a lot -- lots of money left over for things like climate change, which nasa very much is involved in with conservation satellites. so, to me human exploration of the solar system is the kind of activity that we should be doing as a window to the future. while we address problems here on earth. >> john, can we judge yet what the biden administration's commitment to space travel and nasa's? i know that there were still in the first year of the biden administration, but can we judge on how they feel about space travel? >> well, every indication is that it's very positive about it. i mean, the first indication from mr. biden was taking a piece for the moon, and placed it in the oval office. as part of his redecoration as he assumed the presidency.

he's requested a budget for nasa with a significant angry's. basically, he said we will continue plans that were set out during the trump administration, of a sustained program of space exploration. so, every indication is a very supportive of the program. >> let's go to michelle calling from arcade new york. michelle, good morning. hello. i just have one question. what about that than allen radiation? thank you very much. >> okay, for people who may not know what that is, it's a belt of captured radiation that surrounds the earth.

as discovered by a scientist in the late 19 fifties named van allen. you not want to put an orbiting satellite in the van allen belt, that will be beyond healthy for anybody. and we do not do that. but transiting the van allen belt on the way outward from the earth, the exposure is not long enough for you to have any negative effects. negative effects from space radiation is much more from cosmic rays, that can act like radiation bullets on astronauts. which is a very serious worry for a long journey, a tense long journey out to mars. not so much for three day journeys to the moon. >> john, we have a question from one of our social media followers for you. and they want to know, what is

the extent of the carbon footprint from these additional space launches? are they significant contributors to global warming? >> that has been questioned, it is a good question. at this point, we are only talking about and he launches a year. i think that oregon said that they were planning to launch is this year, on the virgin galactic schedule. i don't think it's been made public. at that level, the carbon emissions are in significant. there's got to be a point of a launch a day, or a very high frequency of launches, i believe that there might be -- not an issue, but an issue in -- carbon emissions. but compared to air traffic, and automobiles, and other

carbon emitters, i do think it will not be a significant amount. >> let's go to frazier, calling from houston, texas. frasier, good morning. >> hello. i am asking about space x star ship. it has no launch abort system. is this safe and responsible? >> well, you know more than i do about the technical design of the star ship. i would suspect that there is some form of abort system. some form of safety for people aboard. it is a system that can land the -- i mean, there are two parts which are super heavy boosters to get the spacecraft off of the earth. that has yet to be tested, and

has only been static lee fired once. then there is a space rail which is an away vehicle. which hopefully will be able to land. so, i think it would be irresponsible. and i suspect it would not get a governmental license to launch without some sort of safety system for the people aboard. >> since you brought it up i will ask you this question. what type of regulated -- regulatory parts does nasa play, or the government play, when it comes to these private space ventures? are they regulated by the government? do they have to follow government safety protocols, or are these companies just making it up as they go along? >> first of all, nasa is not a regulatory agency. and it has nothing to do with these flights. the regulatory authorities is the office of commercial space transportation in the federal

aviation administration, and the department of transportation. that's kind of a mouthful. and these launches are licensed by the faa. and they have to meet a whole set of criteria to gain that launch license. including not posing a danger to third parties. there are some very specific regulations. the hope is that these regulations are not so strict. from private sectors for china's sort of deal. there is protection -- in terms of government regulation. >> let's go back to our phone lines and call to julius who is calling from chicago heights illinois. julius, good morning. >> yes, i would like to say

hello. is the speed of light unattainable? his speed of light too slow for space travel? this whole thing about space travel is a bunch of nonsense because -- [inaudible] going to mars, nothing worth going for. so, it's all -- what is this all about? >> well, let me break that down into a few things. speed of light, 186,000 miles a second. so,, a light year is seven trillion miles. unless einstein was wrong, of course. this is derived from einstein's general theories of relativity. and, so, it is extremely much faster than anything sent into space so far.

there is an effort by a group called the -- to take a very small spacecraft, propelled by laser propulsion up too close to the speed of light to journey to the nearest star, alison tory. still light years away. and that effort is quietly ongoing. but again, it has nothing to do with human journeys to the moon and mars. why did we do them? because we could. kennedy in 1962 speech at british university says, why do we do these things, why do we climb mountains, there are demonstrations of human capability that are intended to inspire us to think about what

humans together can do. and eventually, some think that we need a beat to get off of this earth so that the human species will survive if we succeed in destroying ourselves with climate change and nuclear weapons. i don't particularly subscribe to that as a major reason for sending -- into the solar system. i think that some very serious people, including steven hawking, and elon musk subscribe to that degree. >> john, i want you to react to this social media post that has a pretty down view on private companies going into space. >> the privatization of space is one of the most horrifying things to ever happen in the history of our species. instead of being motivate by scientific discovery and the joy of exploration and the possibilities, we're going to commercialize space. we will ruin it.

do you agree or disagree with that, john? >> well, first of all, space has been commercialized since the 1960s. and most of them, the money spent on space his made from space is from private companies launching satellites, particularly various forms of communication satellites, but also conservation satellites. to deliver services to people on earth. i don't think that the privatization of space so far has ruined space. there is a very successful coexistence between governments sponsored and private sponsored space activities. i see no reason why that could not extend to human, private human activities and space. and there is legitimate concern

of private people going to other celestial bodies and disrupting them, kind of messing up in these sites. where the apollo mission's landed, destroying the pristine character of mars and we need to make sure that that does not happen. there is an outer space treaty of 1967 that says no country or a citizen of a country cannot claim sovereignty over the moon or other celestial bodies. so you can't go, the united states when they went six times to land on the moon during apollo, did not plant the flag and say this is now hours. that would be a violation of international law.

as the exploitation of deep space proceeds, certainly there is need for new norms, new rules, regulations. at is not.all to say what is pee and what is not. >> which brings up the question, john, if someone like a jeff bezos or elon musk wants to build a city on the moon, who gives them permission? or do they even have to get permission from anybody? >> i am not a lawyer. and this is the sort of thing that space lawyers love to debate. my impression is that there is no permission needed to build an outpost on the moon. you can go, land, and establish an outpost. it will be a long time before we have cities, or settlements

on the moon. but not so long before there will be scientific basis, and maybe mining operations to extract oxygen from the water ice and lunar craters. i think that there is a need for rules for that. they don't yet exist. but i don't think that there is any particular permission -- except the suggestion of so-called -- so that one private entity or government can operate in any particular area, and not be subject to interference by somebody else. >> are there already those types of keep out zones on the moon? like for example where neil armstrong set foot? >> i think the u.s. has passed legislation declaring the lunar landing sites to be equivalent of national parks, and national

monuments but that is only u.s. law, that is not international law. so, on an international basis to answer a question it is no. >> okay. let's go back to our phone lines. let's start with brady calling from dover, florida. freddy, good morning. >> good morning. hey, thank you for having me on. and great conversation with the professor, mike. my statement was regarding an earlier comment about how they billionaires, you know, they can build yachts and do this, and go to space, but my point was that there are also providing great jobs for stem folks and scientists. and also for support personnel who operate these launch sites. and also the fact that there has been some innovation in my terms in terms of reusable boosters by spacex. that is my comment, i'll take my answer off line. >> the comment is well said.

these are new businesses, and new businesses contribute to the economy, create jobs and have enough innovation to do the jobs that they want to do. so, economic terms dictate that things like a blue origin, and virgin galactic, or others, our economic places. it's not government money that is being used to fund these things. it is -- profits of people buying things off of amazon. like blue origin. so, and indeed reusability of rockets pioneered by spacex is a disrupting innovation. it gives space access much -- then it has been historically. so, i think the net positive in

economic terms for these undertakings. >> we have another question from a social media follower that wants to know, are there any rules, regulations, rules, responsibilities for the billionaires space club adding to the already existing issues of space debris? >> well, they are subject to the same guidelines. excuse me. there are not laws about creating orbital debris. which is a real problem, by the way. these two ventures blue origin and virgin galactic, do not go to orbit. so, they cannot create orbit debris, almost by definition. but you know, every launch in two orbit is a potential for failure, and a potential for

creating debris. and there are guidelines, and it's hard to avoid that. they are subject to. so, i think that they don't add to the problem in any significant way. >> let's talk to chris calling from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. chris, good morning. >> hi, good morning. you know, i guess on the surface you could say that these programs appear to be wasteful. why nasa, spacex, blue origin, and virgin galaxy -- but when you watch people working together, driving in young people who are attracted to working on science and technology, working with older people who have been there and later the groundwork. are mentoring them, and also backing up the goal. it is such a relief to see

these types of energies, working, and solving problems, and doing something together. and i think it is just wonderful to watch. >> that was very well stated. clearly, one of the side effects of these undertakings is to create a sense of motivation for technical excellence. one of the people in virgin galactic's flight, was one of our former students at the university. so, it's not very long ago that students in the classroom, studying space policy now gone into space, maybe not into orbit, there is that motivating impact of the undertaking. and i think that there is an inspirational impact. i mean, we still use the image of the american flag on the moon.

i've buzz aldrin standing next to that flag as a symbol of american achievement, of american capability. it is part of our heritage. and to do these grand things. i think there is a tangible, real element of space exploration. in creating a sense that, hey, i can do that. that hits a very positive impact on society. >> now, we know that these new companies like spacex and virgin galactic and blue origin are leading, right now. what rules do longtime firms like boeing and lockheed martin have in spaceflight efforts? >> well, they are heritage companies with lockheed martin that into their space extremities to 90 plus percent on government contracts. so, they are partners in

government space exploration and space science programs, but they are not investing their own money in creating -- i'm thinking as i say this i have, to amend it a little bit -- they are not investing much of their own money in creating these new capabilities, and new new things. lockheed martin is developing a new launch vehicle called dolphin. but it is mainly for launching commercial satellites under government contract. neither of those companies -- knowing is not talking about a commercial space liner. as part of its future ambitions. so, this is the entrepreneurial companies that i think are leading the way in private activity in space. >> and we have another question

from his social media followers. i think that you've addressed but i want you to talk about this specifically. nasa has contributed to our daily life in countless ways, velcro, flame retardant close, enriched baby food formalized's same -- name a few. what are these space flights taken by bezos and branson contributing? >> a sense of possibility that i someday can go to space also. if i'm paying a lot of money. it is not with these flights are for. , i've said a couple of times, i will say it again, they are business ventures to try to create something the people will pay for, and eventually to turn a profit. they are entrepreneurial space ventures that our businesses, not social whirl fare programs. >> well, we would like to thank john larsen, president -- george washington university,

and founder of the space policy institute for being with us here this morning and talking us through these private ventures into space. john, thank you so much for your time. >> happy to be with you.

>> capitol officer came and said it is necessary to evacuate. and that we should take the hoods -- there are hoods under the seat of each... seat in the chamber. take them out, and be prepared to put them on. so, everybody did. and i think, when you pull the little red tag, it activates. so, some people were not wearing them. there had been tear gas released in the chamber, in the rotunda which is why we were advised that we might need to wear them. but there was this tremendous kind of worrying, hissing noise from all of these hoods, it was the background of the moment.

and of course the pounding and the noise from the mob had become much louder. at some point, someone up in the chambers, in the gallery, a member was yelling at the republicans to call trump and have trump call off his mob. and there was some little yelling back and forth among members in the gallery. >> call trump! tell him to call off this revolutionary attack! call trump! call your friend, tell him to do something! >> sweet you'll also hear from republican robbie divisive illinois, and madeleine dean. january 6th, views from the house. sunday at 10 pm eastern on c-span. c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app.

3985. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, h.r. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> mister speaker, the averting loss of life and injury by expediting -- or the allies act makes essential changes to the afghan special immigrant visa program to ensure that the lives of those who serve faithfully onside american troops in afghanistan are protected. the special immigrant