w w, longer damn irrigation infrastructure, and the distribution of water took surrounding communities would be financed by government. the next phase to be constructed will be the leilani damn, which will include a high hydropower station major projects to increase the capacity of the clan, william damn the hazel mir. damn. that's on any dam will improve the supply of water to the west coast a to winnie and the eastern part of. and we were able to see the fest flow of water . and i have insisted that that project must be completed and the people around the guiana villages must get their water. last year we announced a comprehensive turnaround plan to streamline the process for water used license applications, which is vital to enable greater investment. since then, we have cleared the back lock of what to use licenses and reduce the turnaround time for applications to 90 days. now we did identify this as one of the reform processes that we spoke about here. and that has now been reduced. number of people used to wait up to 3 years just to get a water license. it's now been reduced to 90 days. we've just been listening there for the last 30 minutes or so to the president of south africa. several rum oppose. it gives his 7 states. busy of the union address in cape town, it just give you a brief overview of what was spoken about energy. of course, 1st and foremost, that was his principal message that he wanted to get across at one of the main use lines and not a new energy minister. the minister ship will be appointed because the country is dealing with load shedding essentially, and black guides are every few hours up to 8 hours a day. the entire country is dealing with, with that issue saying that electricity sector must be reformed and the people must come together to resolve the problem, the efficiency of cool fired power station, some 80 percent of what the country produces. that will be the focus of the coming months as well. green energy spoken about a controversial subject in south africa because the west is pushing it despite those power issues as well. water security is where he was just finishing on their thought is where we will go to break for now though, here on our tea international time to check in with christie. i next on her show the cost of everything. it's the stellar spending on space, which is the focus today and it gets going and moments stick. close that out to you again at the top. ah, i the faith has historically been an area of collaboration of the us and the soviet union collaborated on a number of projects. and despite the tensions of the cold war. but today that may no longer be the case. i'm because beyond you're watching the cost of everything we're today, we're going to take a closer look at what it costs to fun, the great base race to point out. ah, 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 $118.00 space missions, nasa saw an 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 project average about 7 years versus space x project, which average about 4 years space. x has one boss who executes decisions quickly, a sharp contrast to how the chain of command with a nasa bureaucracy work. now to further break it down, let's bring in hums hamid 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 pakistan. 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, and you know, friends worked 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 to whether that be coming to work, calling an uber, 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 raised is such a big deal so fast. others have better access to information and to very often stace can to make access to education and access to opportunities either next to finance, so much more open and as well as just allow people to get involved in activities that they will be involved in the past. and then so i think that's one reason why the space is wish or urge to always, you know, never 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 then you know, highly developed economies that think is this the common which, which is important for everyone. and then can give benefits to everyone if utilized in the right way. yeah. so nasa has been called slow and antiquated compared to these new private space companies. why is that the case when nasa has such a big head start? what if you think of the history of the space sector that it was always dominated by the space agencies? and that made a lot of sense because whether we admitted or not, the space race started from its desire of countries template to have greater superiority in terms of their designs. and so the prime initial use cases of the space vector are mostly based on defense and pen space is cross the tied to the armed forces and also 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, my, the space agency for my country box, 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 state 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 grow more. and then the private sector being commercially focused and profit oriented sometimes does grow at a faster speed and in a much more disruptive fee, which i think is fine. and you know, i, i don't think it's a quest trying to compare stacy agency to 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 anymore? and what benefits does not offer that private companies do not? 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, engaged 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 or 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 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 started 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 faced 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 10 potential that 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 space acts with starling satellites . really, sol provides a novel solution to this problem which is internet enabled by a small satellite 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 uses as that logic knology is and then help and provide data to those together, opening up its data. data to government, if you so much me for and size, but we'll have you back again on the space race after the break. that right when we come back, countries are racing to launch their own base station instead of collaborating together in the international space station. but at what cost don't go away. ah ah, ah ah, ah, ah, a ah, with the international space station or the i assess is the only base 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 ice us after 2024 and instead build 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 dubbed ross, suggesting that mosque out is serious about going at it alone. china was denied access to the i s s program and is currently opperation. all 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 hunger hamid co chair of the space generation advisory council . so the i s. s 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 economies of the world collaborate and do a mission together. it's served as human kinds, outpost in space for decades now and, 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 physics 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 facet served as and outpost to 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, assess those, 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 the 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 i assess for innovation was when a new space 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 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 ray 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 space. 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 each bar space. and i think cooperation, collaboration is great and i in my work on, 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, 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 particularity 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. but i do think collaboration and cooperation is the way forward. and there are rules in place, particularly in the state sector, in the form of the outer space treaty 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 a space, no use of space for you know, addresses replacing weapons and onto the field bodies and things like that. so there are rules when it comes to defendants and space and how they're interlinked. 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 ace endeavors were in the name of scientific exploration and discovery, today's space 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 in the 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, great off. i think it will always continue to happen. 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 prior 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 have 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 that the defense sector is separate from commercial private space. and then that's fairly for this reason. countries like to deal with dared at an sector in a particular way, and then promote the growth space technology and then 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. yep. thank you. so much for joining us today. while nasa receive $23300000000.00 and funding for 2021 space x rays, a mer $1500000000.00 in the same year. 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 space x 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 support. more impactful endeavors to help managing on. i'm christy. i. thanks for watching. i see you back here next time on the cost with ah, a with a headline story this, our disturbing footage up here is. busy on the line, reportedly showing a ukrainian soldier executing our captured russian p, o w. and we had another instance of a legit war crimes committed by key as forces without thousands, beijing warns of the risk of a escalation where a weapons are ending up in the conflict. because the west keeps pumping p a with arms which it sees as the only way to achieve peace. a people starting underground under vocal in syria because the united states we use to send the, basically the basic of the aid that these people need. us sanctions block vital assistance getting to earthquake victims in syria. washington tries to shift.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11
