that means national government, i'm into the economy as much as a nickel. settle it, cause i said, yeah, i got a little frantic. voting come up and yet we didn't come back. i'm not gonna forget it. to us home to the movies there. my son, he died in the me that know a mess to be sick at sick with his dad. my son he started, i'm on the financial due to to this is a full be ready to just do this. and he, sadly, i mean so that it resets your home phone, go out shamefully from lam. i'm not sure who to lee should, but i'll agree to give you a soon as to resume. this will be 2. i know i can probably my chima a block table don't receive. i'm not fun up with up the door. let's see. the only

thing has historically been an area of collaboration among the us and the soviet union collaborated on a number of projects. and despite the attention of the cold war a day, that may no longer be the case. i'm crispy and you're watching the cost of everything. where today we're going to take a closer look at what it costs to fund the great base rate. to point out with the space raises heating up and the heat isn't just coming from international rivals. private companies have been disrupting the industry that was once under the sol purview of government agencies. over the last decade, commercial activity in space, more than tripled, growing to over $300000000000.20 companies, space ex lou origin. and virgin galactic achieve key feats and space,

travel previously reserve to only countries. so how are these companies able to do that? and all had to do with scope, cost, efficiency and speed. government projects tend to be big, think mega dan. hi fi rails b, i assess these projects are these quantum leap projects that attempt to achieve a massive gain in a single leap, and they're funded because they are massively impressive. unfortunately, most of them end up as being failures as costs are never recruit. in contrast, private companies like space that limit their scope and grow incrementally. first, there was a falcon one than the falcon 9, then the re usable falcon 9. and finally, the falcon heavy. the company focused on solving one problem at a time like a satellite launch before extending it to a spacecraft and launching people. second,

you have cost efficiency. like most things and the government contractors are selected via bits. right now, space suits are being built by 27 different companies that successfully lobbied the government for peace of the action. in contrast, you long must a suits are created by one single contractor. in 118 space mission. nasa, on average cost overrun of 90 percent. in contrast, over 16 missions space x only on average cost overrun of 1 point one percent. and finally, you have speed nasa projects average about 7 years versus space x project, which average about 4 years space x has one boss who execute decisions quickly. a sharp contrast to how the chain of command with a nasa bureaucracy works. now to further break it down, let's bring in hums. need co chair of the space generation advisory council. so

1st off, why is the space race such a big deal? seems like it's a big attraction for millionaires to compete over as a race to develop these rockets. but what's the end goal? and is it really something that ordinary people like you and i should even care about, you know, for me coming from a developing country like docusign, the idea of outer space is always this fantastical sort of scene where only the rigid countries or the, you know, most highly developed economies had access and also needed. then as i grew up more and more and you know, spreads weren't in the area space and space fund particular. i learned that almost everybody relies on space technology for almost everything that they do on a day to day basis. in fact, if i just try to think back to everything that i've done today, whether that be coming to work calling in over, we're talking to my friends over the internet. you know,

most of those activities involve some sort of communication with a satellite or reliance on space technology. and i think when you think of the class, when you, you know, see why the space race is such a big deal is because as a community we want to, you know, do better or develop more, have better access to others, have better access to information. and space can serve as enabler to all of those things. in fact, from a development perspective. and then from the type of work that i do, very often stace can make access to education and access to opportunities, even access to finance. so much more open and transparent, so many people as well as just allow people to get involved in activities that they would normally not be able to be involved in, in the past. and then so i think that's one reason why the space is such a big deal. and then i guess it's just also, you know,

humanities wish or urge to always, you know, try to find out more about the universe about where we came from about all sorts of things that might be out there. that also make it quite a big deal. so i don't think space is just around the billionaires and, you know, highly developed economies to think is this the common switch, which is important for everyone and then can give benefits to everyone if utilized in the right way. yeah. so nasa has been called low and antiquated compared to these new private space companies. why is that the case when nasa has such a big head start with if you think of the history of the space sector that it was already dominated by b space agencies. and that made a lot of sense because whether we admitted or not, the space race started from this desire of tons the template to

have greater superiority in terms of their defense. and so the prime initial use cases of the space vector are mostly based on defense and pen space. the coffee tied to the armed forces and also are tightly under the ambit of governmental institutions. at the same time, if you go back to looking at the development or start of most of the face agencies, you'll find that their primary purpose is research and you know, testing the boundaries of what's possible rather than commercial activities. so if you look at any space agency, whether that be nasa or you know, might the space agency for my country box done, which is a particle. their primary goal is to conduct research and then facilitate an environment in which the space economy can grow. and i think most space agencies do that really, really well. they set out these ambitious programs that take

a lot of testing research development. and then those programs and initiatives sort of motivate the rest of the community, including the private sector to do more and more. and then the private sector being commercially focused and profit oriented sometimes does grow at a faster speed and, and much more disruptive fee, which i think is fine. and you know, i don't think it's a quest trying to compare state agencies, the private sector. it's about trying to figure out how all of these different parts of the space puzzle together, which i think is the most important thing. and now if we have a sex blue origin and other private companies launching into space and handling all the satellites, telecom services, what's the point of nasa? do we technically even the nasa any more? and what benefits does not offer that private companies do not?

oh absolutely, i think there are several reasons why space agencies and public sector bodies generally need to continue to exist and support the advanced technologies. like i said, you know, the primary goal of these agencies from their consumption was to promote research and science and development. and not to, you know, make a profit. and whereas the primary goal of any private sector entity is to have a commercially viable business. and so, while, in my opinion, you know, where the space agencies and the public sector institutions can add the most amount of value in doing scientifically innovative thing is research projects, you know, testing the boundaries of what's possible and things that are highly capital intensive and probably not a palatable for the private sector because they might not be profit generating immediately. so, for me,

the space agencies and public sector bodies in the space sector play that role of where they test out, where they come up with the best and brightest ideas. in terms of technology and then you know, engage the private sector or push the private sector to turn those ideas and technologies into viable business models. so i certainly think that, you know, private companies it's, they facts are blue origin, always seem to complement the strategies or the vision that space agencies put forward and then bring together and complement their work rather than compete with them. and then i think it's house. well, in, within any government or within any country, the private sector works with the governmental institutions that determine the success of that particular countries based program. yep. so while it's primary

purpose is to further space exploration, nasa has contributed quite a few inventions that benefit the public space today. everyday items like memory full mattresses, freeze dried food, firefighting equipment, emergency space, blankets, all of that. all that stuff from nasa. have private space companies contributed any benefits to the public? absolutely. i think a lot of private companies have dedicated programs and products that are designed to benefit the global community. a good example that i can point to, for example, is, is a lot of these private based companies that are working towards launching constellations that would provide internet access to areas of the world that might not be served with broadband. so a good example is, for example, starting from basics, which really does open up to 10 potential that had never existed before,

right. it was almost impossible to get internet services in rural areas or where broadband service providers really couldn't make a good case to provide high speed internet and stay facts with starling satellites . really, sol provides a novel solution to this problem which is internet enabled by small satellites and lower earth orbit. and i think that fantastic. and then there are so many parts of the world, including in developing countries where access to internet is a big, big problem. and it's largely an infrastructure problem, a problem that is very hard to fix for developing countries and then can be remedied through space technology such as a series of satellites that provide internet. another good example is the use of satellite data in disaster mitigation. so if you think of one of the main use is that like knology is earth observation and remote sensing,

which is when the satellites look down at earth and then help and provide data to those to government institutions as well as to, you know, private entities regarding weather patterns regarding the movement of rivers regarding rainfall, soil conditions, all of which have a big, big public sector benefit. and then so i do think there are lots of examples. the private sector opening up its data, data to government entities in the public to allow for things like disaster management and then relief at the same time as providing services that are just beneficial the public generally rather than to make a profit. yeah, thank you so much. honda, me for insights, but we'll have you back again on the face raise after the break. right. when we come back, countries are racing to launch their own base station instead of collaborating together in the international station might at what cost don't go away.

ah, i ah, what it was to be thought on. i mean, i had a major was how your ship with a hair dresser, a bus driver, a sales person, anyone could become a victim. that's our private negotiators. first ipad with. we would have to speak with a couple a september that use more on your board yet,

but i am on that on the global lending issue won't be face useful mentioned on from the yet to be a study sports took over the serious me go forward with this quiz cuz it would go this week was to 2nd assign the west ukraine proxy war on russia is not going as planned. a new narrative is making the rounds. it's called the korea solution, the end of active hostilities and enormously keep in mind the side considering an armistice seeks to avoid complete defeat. we all know which side that is ah, the international space station or the i as that is the only space station that's currently fully operational, the us, russia, japan, europe,

and canada collaborate on the i assess. and currently russia owns about a quarter of the i assess and is responsible for navigation and control of the spacecraft. but it had announced that it would end cooperation with the i assess after 2024 and instead billed is own space station due to sanctions imposed by the west. this is a heavy blow, as it is not yet clear, the space station can remain operational without russia. instead, russia space agency unveiled a model of its own space station. doug ross suggesting that moscow is serious about going at it alone. china was denied access to the i s s program and is currently building its own space station called can go translated as the less fuel palace, which should be fully operational by the end of 2022. once it becomes operational, china is expected to be the only country to operate its own space station. now to

further break it down, let's bring back in. hums. are hamid co chair of the space generation advisory council? so the i asked us is the most expensive item ever built and cost nasa about $4000000000.00 a year to operate? what does that money go towards and why is it so expensive? so i think the international space station, or the us, is a phenomenal example of multilateral cooperation. and how things can get done when you know the most advanced space, the economies of the world collaborate and do a mission together. it's served as human kinds, outpost in space for decades now, and is really fundamental, inspiring the future, you know, thinkers that students,

young professionals in the space industry. i think it's a super important project because it enables us to test technologies in outer space, which is not an environment we generally have access to here on earth. i think it serves as a testing as a, as a graph, as a station for experiments, whether those, the scientists, scientific experiments within various different deals. so there have been projects on diocese that have involved, you know, agriculture medicine as well as his aches, in biology, all of which have have shown results that were not possible on earth. so i think it adds a lot of value with that. and then i think the, i assess and serve as and outpost 2 astronauts to go to space and then you know,

look back at earth to understand how the feeling of being and stays, fields like and, and that whole collaborative atmosphere that mean different countries. those are enabled countries that would normally not have access to space to have one of their astronauts in space, which i think is excellent with regard to why it costs so much. i think it's an incredibly mm cost expensive operation to run because it's based in outer space . i think all of those on that equipment costs a lot. i think the cost of a launch is really, really high and old astronaut in the us need to be provided resources such as food, water, anything else that they need from earth. and so re supplying resources, di assessors obviously inexpensive process then the i assess, is navigated through ground through a ground station. so obviously providing ground station support is an expensive,

expensive tool. and just the upkeep of a space station is obviously a very expensive activity. and if you ask me whether or not it's worth it, i think it's completely worth it. it's inspired so many people to, to, you know, build more business models for space. and it's great and it's a symbol of cooperation like we've never seen before. it's a good example of recent, the recent use of the ss for innovation was when use based company use the us a lot launch port, right? so i'm sure you've seen videos where small satellites vertically thrown out of the us and deployed into orbit as an innovative mechanism to have satellites in space. and then that was only possible through having a station like the ice that's out there. yeah. so while we have a couple of these alliances and space blocks here you have the russia, china block, the air space, coordination group, and the euro block,

etc. and while these blocks are gray and allow for nations to collaborate closely, do you think that there is a possibility that the more rigid these alliances become, the more likely conflict is to ensue between the blocks? so i think that's a great question, right? i think political powers and political factors are at play in every industry. and you always find that as the importance, if a sector grows more and more countries want to explore it. and often countries tend to form blocks or alliances to try and further their common goals or, you know, comes for the stage. so for any sectors, i think space is the same. where you see a lot of, you know, countries with common missions or common ideologies. grouping together and what you

described as these blocks to try to join lead floor space. and i think cooperation and collaboration is great. and i mean my work on a day to day basis. we encourage corporation and collaboration on as multilateral level as possible. but then also on, on regional and bilateral novels, whether or not that leads to conflict in space. i think the answer to that is the same as whatever, you know, geopolitical situations are going on around the world at any given times. i don't think space has any particular charity in this whole block diplomacy that goes on around the world at the un or at other international organizations. and, and i think it's just one part of the bigger picture. i cannot

specifically point to any, you know, geopolitical blocks and then the roles that they play in, in the global space economy that i do think collaboration and cooperation is the way forward. and then there are rules in place that you get early in the state sector in the form of the outer space, judy as to how, you know, a country or even a group of countries can and should use space. and then within the rules, you'll find lots of provisions relating to things such as the importance of demilitarization, a space of space, no use of space for you know, i versus replacing weapons on. so shield bodies and things like that. so there are rules when it comes to defense and space and how they're interlinked. and,

and i would imagine those rules to be followed and for space to continue to be a collaborative and cooperative stare for most countries. yep. and now, while previous endeavors were in the name of scientific exploration and discovery, today's face endeavors have an element of technology, security, and communication. and does that change the nature of cooperation and collaboration between even friendly partners? it would be wrong to suggest that security was not always a part of space exploration. it always buys the space race was, you know, a big part of the cold war. and since then, security has only and defense have always been key elements of any countries, development and space sector. whether or not that changes the way ways countries collaborate. i don't know, i think the answer to that again is that space will always continue to be part of

broader alliances and in friendships that countries will build or, you know, break off. i think it will always continue to, i think the impact of space technology, particularly and defense will continue to grow as signs and technologies deployed in space, grow space technology now plays a much bigger partner in conflicts in issues that come up. and so obviously that will come up as, as a domain where countries might want to compete or had their own systems in place for, for reliability or further safety and security. i don't think it particularly impacts cooperation and collaboration between from the states as, as that's in the interest of the broader community. i think you'll always find that the defense sector is separate from commercial private space.

and then that's fairly for this reasons. countries like to deal with derek with an sector in a particular way and then promote the growth of space technology and thought space science in a different manner. and while that's not the most ideal solution in many countries, most countries still work like that. yeah, thank you so much for joining us today. while nasa receive $23300000000.00 and funding for 2021 space x rays, a mirror, $1500000000.00 in the same year. but more money doesn't mean it's better. it's interesting that in the 21st century, the space race is no longer between countries, but instead between 3 private space companies must base ex bays those blue origin and brands and virgin galactic. all 3 companies are pushing the boundary of

humanities reach beyond earth. and each of them have a distinct goal and vision in mind. space x wants to land on mars by 2024 blue origin. they aim to make space probably accessible to citizens and obtain new energy sources and materials from the for system. while virgin galactic, they're focused on sub orbital space experiences that include supersonic transport liners flying at mach 3. that would make the new york to london flight only 2 hours faster than the now retired concord. and now the success of these companies, they can benefit people greatly as it opens the doors for more advanced technologies to be adapted for the daily life. but until that happens, many critics claim that space exploration is a waste of taxpayer money that could be otherwise be redirected towards more impactful endeavors to help managing on earth. i'm christy. i. thanks for watching . i will see you back here next time on the cost with

ah oh, in the year of 1954, the united states of america engaged in warfare against the people of vietnam. the white house supported the corrupt puppet government of southern vietnam. in 1965 americans began their invasion following the aim to defeat the forces of vietnamese patriots. the pentagon was confident that the victory would be on the american side due to its military superiority. however, the vietnamese turn this war into

a total hell for the occupants. unable to cope with guerrillas, the american army started blanket bombing alongside using chemical weapons and napalm which burnt all alive. the village of my lay wearing 1969 american soldiers killed 504 civilians, including 210 children, became a tragic symbol of this war. all in all, during the whole period of this conflict, the usa dropped on vietnam more than $6000000.00 tons of bombs, which is 2 and a half times as much as on germany during the 2nd world war. in 1973, the american army under the pressure of the rebels, withdrew from vietnam. and only 2 years later did the puppet regime in saigon fall . however, the vietnamese paid a high price for their freedom. more than 1000000 vietnamese people became the

victims of american aggressors. ah, ah. hello and welcome to cross stock, were all things are considered on peter lavelle as a sign the west ukraine proxy war on russia is not going as planned. a new narrative is making the rounds. it's called the korea solution, the end of act of hostilities and an armistice. keep in mind the side considering an armistice seeks to avoid complete defeat. we all know which side bat is.