 That was super duper fast. Hey everyone, my name is Jamie Higginbotham. I'm joined with Ryan Catten. Catten? Ryan, how do you pronounce your name? Caiten. Caiten, you know? I'll get it right someday. And by the time I get it right, you'll be full time at NSF, so it won't matter. Welcome to the live show. We're still waiting for a Jared to show up. He'll be in a little bit late. But we wanted to start anyhow. I was at B-398 over in Vandenberg, and now I'm back here ready to go with the show. Ryan, I know you had some pictures of Ariane Six, or at least we think they're real pictures. Yeah. Yeah. You want to show us the pictures of Ariane Six? Yeah. Let's look at the pictures then. I've got them up. So I recall a while ago saying on a news piece, this is Ariane Six. And then it turns out it wasn't Ariane Six. It was like mock-up boosters and whatnot. So what I think is happening here by the color and kind of the structure here, I think this tank section is legit Ariane Six tank. I think this is fake solid rocket boosters. But they said they're going to be doing essentially static fire testing of the volcano. I think it's the Volcano 2.1 engine, is what it's called, which is the main engine under the core stage here. And they've rolled out the building. This is Ariane Six on the pad legit, which is super exciting to see, especially considering all we've really been hearing for the last few months is pushback, pushback delay. Actually seeing stuff on the pad is very exciting. And I would say KSB3 looks really good. Yeah. This is real life. Yeah, as Jay is saying, the core stage is flight hardware. Boosters and pheromones are mock-ups and do nothing. But they're mock-ups, but they're not photoshop, right? They're like, they're there or they're photoshop, I guess, is my impression of this. They're real boosters. What I guess what's happened here is they don't have the boosters yet or they don't want to put the boosters on yet, but they have the tank. But in order to fit the vehicle on the pad properly, they need to have boosters in quote, air quotes there in order to make it fit properly. Maybe the vehicle kind of sits with the solids. It's kind of hard to see from the, oh, we've really got our low angle shots. So it's pretty, we can't see anything with that one. So it's pretty impossible to see what it's actually held up by from something. I really can't imagine if you're going to do a live hot fire of the core, you would want live boosters to be attached to it. That's another thing, yeah. Maybe they just want to see how the core goes before they put actual solid rocket boosters next to it in case anything goes wrong. I have a very important question. And I need to understand the answer to this question. What is the difference between a hot fire and a static fire? And why do we call it two different things also Hi, Jared. Hi, a hot fire. So the technical terminology for this, a hot fire is basically when the engines, the full propulsion system is firing for a set duration. And then a static fire is when everyone on the crew wears socks and goes across the rug with their socks on and then touches the metal of the rocket in order to ignite the propellants. So that's one of those things that's driven me crazy for a really long time because when you're at Company X, if you're at one of the Texas sites, they'll refer to it as a hot fire. But if you're anywhere else at Company X, it's a static fire. And I feel like hot fire is kind of a stupid term. Like, of course it's hot, right? Like, fire hot, right? Like, static fire makes more sense to me. Like, hot fires, I feel like the wrong way to say that particular thing. And I'm like, why do some people call it a hot fire? And some people call it a static fire. And maybe there are weird names. I mean, there's, you see like cold flow test and other things like that. So maybe the difference is that the hot fire is like, you actually are like, I was joking earlier about the difference between igniting propellants and stuff. But maybe that is it. That's, you know, just for people. Chair, if you're making fire, it's hot. If you're making fire, it's hot. Yes. Just so you know how fire works. That's what I just said. Nerd says like tomato versus tomato. Yeah. Sorry, I know I ruined the joke, but it's funnier when you do it that way. Well, SpaceX tweeted this the other day after ship 25 did its spin prime test. And they called it a flight like chill and spin. So not a spin prime like the rest of the world, a flight like chill and spin. Hang on, I would argue chill and spin seems sounds way cooler than sprint prime test, right? But spin prime tells you exactly what it does. It spins up and primes the turbo pumps. Spin prime. Chill and spin. So I don't want to sound spin. What are you doing this afternoon? Chill and spin. Just come over to my house. We can chill and spin. Chill and spin. I don't want to sound too upset about this, but did all the nerds, all the space flight nerds get upset when they called it a chill and spin? Because I remember on the show, when I used to call the booster turning around a turn and burn when it would fly back, people would get very mad about that. I would hope the internet got also very mad about this chill and spin. I can't say anything or whatever we're calling it now. I got to tell you though, a turn and burn is always my favorite. I loved it when you said that. I love turn and burn. I still say it. I'm like, don't turn and burn. I love chill and spin. I love that shirt, turn and burn. Jay Hason says chill and spin is the new industry standard. Not yet, but we're working on it. I feel like the new industry standard. I feel like a real new one that is industry standard, instead of saying GSE, is stage zero. I feel like Elon wheeled that into the universe, and now it's just like, oh, stage zero is GSE. I mean, yeah, it's what gets the clicks now. So it's what we have to call it. I went through the quote tweets of it, and Chris Bergen, NSF Actual, said, SpaceX called the spin prime test, chill and spin. I like that. Here's a video of it from our cameras. I like it too. Chris and I were in alignment. We're in alignment on rockets. We both think Atlantis is the best, because it is. This is why you got to trust NASA's spaceflight. That's a good taste. That's a good taste. All right, so Ariane 6, I'm sorry, I got a soft cry. Ariane 6, it's at the pad. It's got faux solids sitting on it. They're going to do a static fire of the vehicle, and then what's after that? I mean, once you hit static fire, I feel like, look at the data, and then assuming everything's good, flight should be next, right? I mean, that means that flight should be, I don't want to call it imminent, right? Because it's still a hot minute after static fire. No, it's at this point, it's at least 2024. So after they static fire, I assume they're going to do maybe more tanking tests, full wet dress, whatever they need to do with it. Obviously, they need to put real solids on it. They then need to get the payloads on it. So yeah, it's a bit of a process in order to get it from static fire to launch, but it feels close. This is the closest we've ever been, and it's exciting to see it at least, especially since Arianne 5 is going to be retiring very, very soon. We've just got the date for that. What's the date for Arianne 5 retiring, I actually don't know. July 4th. Well, first off, July 4th of this year, or next year. Yes, yeah, this year, this year. It was meant to be like last Friday or something, but they had some issues with redundancy or something along those lines, so they had to push to July 4th. So that means that they're going to be without an Arianne launch vehicle, Arianne 5 or 6 for at least half a year, because as Jay just said, and I think it was up on the screen, construction of the flight hardware won't start until November of this year, right? And that's going to take them a hot minute, and like, that feels weird. Yeah, they are the U.S. space program. Yeah, it feels weird, especially when you consider the Arianne 4 and Arianne 5 had an overlap. Arianne 4 retired after Arianne 5 flew for the first time, and the plan all along has been Arianne 6 flies before Arianne 5 retires, but you only have so many Arianne 5s, Arianne 6 wasn't ready in time, so this is kind of Arianne 6's fault. The reason there isn't any crossover, and there isn't really anything they can do about it. You can't postpone a customer's flight just for the sake of having them overlap, and you can't build more hardware when you've already reconfigured for Arianne 6. And Aravell saying, canceling your rocket before your next one is done. It's a big trend these days. So hot right now, it's so hot. I mean, that's true. What's your name? Relativity did that too. They're like, hey, let's print a rocket. They did one. They're like, let's not do that again. Well, I mean, their rocket didn't even... I mean, their rocket just barely went suborbital. Oh, God, you're not wrong. ULA too, right? Like, oh, oh, poor Delta IV. Like, they just shut down. Didn't they just shut down the plant that they make the Delta IVs in? Like, that just got shut down. All the parts are delivered at this point, and it's a little bit weird, because when I'm in Vandenberg, I'm up at... I wasn't at Slikvore, I was at Building 398, and that I think... So I actually don't know this to be true, and maybe someone in the chat room can comment, but I think that might be where they did solid rocket booster work for the Delta. I think that's where the SRB processing facility was. I'm not actually sure that that's true. It feels like it, because it's got high bays that are long that you would have an SRB in, but it didn't feel like it was big enough for a Delta IV itself. So anyhow, that's where I was. Well, the Delta IV is at least a Vandenberg for Slikvore. Oh, no, you're right. No, they didn't have solids. Yeah, you're right. They didn't have salt. No, no, they flew, there were solids on Delta IVs that flew out of Slikvore 6. I'm there for a couple of them. They were just single-stick Delta IVs. Not Delta IV heavy. I'm saying Delta IV heavy because we just flew a Delta IV heavy and so Delta IV heavy's on the brain. But you're right, a single-stick Delta IV could have... But it was the Atlas that had the CURST booster, right? The single... An Atlas V is the one that would have the CURST configuration. Yeah, Atlas V, I, yeah. Sorry, I call that the CURST configuration because it looks like it's a CURST rocket. A 511. Like, yeah, the 501. Yeah. The original power slide. The 411 and the 511. Point is, I was thinking, like I was really thinking about Delta because they shut down the plan. I'm sitting in a building where I thought they were doing, I, again, I don't know that 398 did the solid rocket booster processing but it's right outside of Slikvore 6. So it's got like right down the hill from Slikvore 6. It's kind of in that same complex. And then when you're in B398 and you just look up, you see this giant Slik6 complex but what's really funny to me is like in my mind, I don't see the Delta IV on that pad. For whatever reason, in my mind, I see the space shuttle, right? Because that's where they had Enterprise stage. That was the one. It was the greatest launch pad spectacular viewingness aesthetic-wise in my opinion that we never got. It just, it just looked beautiful. You had a beautiful vehicle on a beautiful pad in the mountains, just perfect. Unfortunately, Challenger put an end to that but I mean, just like even the Enterprise images just look incredible. Oh, absolutely. With like, you had the mountain in the background. I believe all the pictures were taken with the, you're back to the ocean but like if you just roll 180 degrees and go up on the mountain, you would have had, maybe I'm mistaken. Can someone look up that image? Did they have the ocean in the background or did they have the mountain in the background? I feel like they had the ocean in the background. Honestly, if you were looking north or south, you could have both. I don't think they did though, right? I think Ryan's trying to look it up and he'll do a screen check. I think out like, one of my favorites. Well, this image is ocean back, mountain forward. Yeah, I think it's the one I'm thinking of. It's one of them that I'm thinking of, yeah. Yeah, that would definitely, if you turn, yeah, if you turn like, I mean, even heck just 90 degrees to your left, you've got a great shot of the ocean right there. And those structures, I believe those same structures or at least modified versions of them still exist with the exception of the red tower. But like, yeah, the giant vertical assembly buildings. They were used to delta for heavy. Yeah, the giant vertical assembly buildings are still there, barely, but they're still there. Yeah, I literally went past there on a train a couple of weeks ago and they are still there. So yeah, trains, what's those? But yeah, they're still there, so. So, all right, I kind of do, back to the RA on six. Was there anything else on the RA on six? Like I derailed this like five times, talking about building 398, solid rocket motors, and just saying one of the buildings that you walk into, oh, I'm going to 398 today. So actually one other dumb question, if I remember right, because I'm so buried at company X that like I come up for air only once in a while. RA on six is not reusable at all, right? It's a fully expendable vehicle. For now, just like Falcon is for now, but kind of different because RA on six is going to get a reusable crew thing on top, maybe space, RA and group. What does a reusable crew thing mean, right? It means a thing called Susie, which is a background in him. Hang on, I forgot what it is. So far, it's a stage for innovative exploration. Well, if we look at things like Hermes and Hotel back in the olden days, so far the crew things you put on top of things in the European Space Agency and RA on space basically been calls for cash. That's kind of much of anything else. So we'll have to see if they actually end up doing that. I would love them to because Susie actually being able to carry people and do what it does is actually a really cool system. I think it's one of the cooler of the reusable crewed spacecraft that are out there. But that doesn't make the Delta IV heavy or Delta IV heavy. Listen to me, the RA on six. I have Delta IV heavy on the mind, I'm telling you. Who does? It's beautiful, it's gorgeous. It lights itself on fire. Something you do not love it. Delta IV single stick, I said Delta IV heavy. RA on six, I said Delta IV heavy. I'm sure I'm going to do it again. RA on six, like having a crew module on top, that doesn't make the RA on six reusable. That's like saying that. Makes it partially reusable. No, it's like saying Falcons reusable because Dragon comes back. That doesn't make any sense, right? Well, the space shuttle was reusable, but the external tank didn't come back. The space shuttle was refurbishable. And the, yeah, refurbishable, it wasn't reusable. I don't think anyone really ever said the space shuttle was a reusable. I guess they did. I don't think anyone said it and meant it that the space shuttle was reusable. Reusable asterisk, reusable to a degree. Here we go down the line of what do you define as reusable? All right, in the chat room, in the chat room, comments below, live or on demand, how do you define a reusable rocket? Like, what is your personal line in the sand? The difference between reusable and refurbishable, I'd love to know. Like, what do you think? I just get those comments going. It's gonna be fantastic. And then like debate each other. It's gonna be great. Yeah. After RA on six, there is a plan to go more reusable. So they have a, I think it's called RA on next. So they have a vision forward. They're gonna be using their Prometheus reusable engine, which they've just been testing as well. But that's after RA on six. So it does kind of feel like a RA on space. RA on group is like a generation behind a little bit. But I feel like there is still a market for expendable, accurate, precise, reliable vehicles because RA on five has been the workhorse of the major scientific missions over the last couple of decades really. So I feel like for big budget missions, the ability to have a reliable vehicle that can definitely get your payload to where you need it to go is more valuable than the price. At least that's how I'm, in my opinion, that's how I perceive it. I would agree with that because, but question for you, that worked for them because the RA on five was a known trusted vehicle that had a lot of launch history that showed that it was a reliable vehicle. The RA on six, doesn't that reset the counter back to zero? Like, can you trust the RA on six with a big, huge interplanetary mission now? Would you trust James Webb Space Telescope on the RA on six? I feel like they have the name reputation, but obviously they need to prove that the vehicle is reliable. How does one- Well, how much crossover is there? Because one of the advantages that United Launch Alliance touts about Vulcan is that they've been able to fly so much of the avionics and other things for Vulcan on Atlas Vs. Like, what is the total amount that has failed there? What's the total amount of shared systems and shared parts and other things like that? Is it, are we talking like clean sheet design here? Like, we're literally starting over from square one even with this design of the solids on it there or are we looking at heritage items that have already been flown by Ariane Space? So the Solids on Ariane six are the, I think they're P120C solid rocket motors which are the same that is used for the first stage of the Vega-C which is, at the moment, has a 50% success rate. The first flight went fine, the second flight, not so much. The engine on the core stage is the Volcane 2.1, an upgrade of the Volcane 2 which is what is used on the Ariane five. So the core stage propulsion and the solid rocket propulsion have been proven in flight because of flown solid rockets on Vega-C which isn't the reason that the mission failed, I don't believe. And the heritage with the Volcane, that's flight hardware that's been proven. So it's more of the upper stages and the tanks to make sure that they work. And I guess avionics as well. Let's not just port across Ariane five's avionics to Ariane six, because that's the reason that the first Ariane five failed because they ported the avionics from the Ariane four. I believe that's one of the most famous software failures in history. Bruce has an interesting point. They're debating reusable versus refurbishable in the chat room. And I think there's a really good way of looking at it which is reusable is reusable. Refurbishable is reusable after refurbishment, not the same thing. And you look at like an airplane, an airplane is reusable in between flights. That doesn't mean that you don't refurbish it from time to time. There are times when it has to come down for service and it's out of service. So I think all, I would argue nearly all rockets that are reusable are also refurbishable. It's just a question of like, and a lot of the refurbishable rockets are also reusable. So it's a question of like, are you refurbishing them between every flight? Like the space shuttle? Or are you reusing them between flights with a refurbishment schedule? Right? Does that make sense? Or did I say that poorly? Yeah. No, I understand. It's obviously like with an airplane, when it lands, you get the people out, you clean it out, you load it up with any more fuel and food and water or whatever you need to have on board. You put the new people in, you put their cargo. I can't think of what to call your carry-on item. Luggage? I'm going to call it. And luggage, thank you. Sorry, I'm just so in engineer mode right now that I can't think of a little repeat of it. Aren't you literally just on a plane? Payload? Yes, I was actually on a plane seven hours ago. And as far as I'm concerned, I was self-loading payload. Thank you very much. And that to me is like the gold standard of what reusable actually is. Dutta's saying, you know, X still takes the legs off to reset them between flights, so okay. That's wrong. I don't blame some. No, we've got five. I haven't known that for a long time. They fold themselves, they're pushed back into place with block five. Okay, that's cool. With a crane, Jamie, with a crane. And I feel like push the headcrab is saying that airplanes are being serviced all the time and checked and that's true. There were people out there on the plane I was going to be flying in up here up to the bay area. But that didn't stop my plane from going immediately. There was clearly no major issue found or if there was an issue found, it was swollen up that the vehicle could still go. So to me, that ability to have rapid turnaround with minimal change, if you will, the vehicle, that's reusability. Essentially, I want you to be able to come in with your rocket, be able to do a visual inspection, maybe a borescope or two, if you have to at most, but you should really just be able to eyeball it, look with a flashlight, maybe crawl into somewhere if you have to at some point. But really, that should be about it before you put it back on the launch pad. And I see Dada- A wild Dada has appeared. Here he comes. Am I missing somehow that they don't, what, they don't replace the crush structure in the legs anymore? Don't the legs come down and there's like a honeycomb crush structure? But consider that a consumable, right? Like you replace the fuel in your airplane, that doesn't make the fuel refurbishable, right? You've got consumables. Do you replace the brake pads in your car every time you stop? Well, if you do a hard stop on an airplane, you might have to. If you abort a take-off right before V1, yeah, you might. Then you need to go refurbish it, right? I'm not sure you would call replacing brake pads refurbishable. This is where the line gets tricky, right? Cause like, is that refurbishment or is that just consumables? And okay, well, hang on, but then I could, hang on, I can argue against myself if I may. Does that mean that the heat shield? Sorry, I just, I... No, this is great. Does that mean that the heat shield on the space shuttle was a consumable? Or were they refurbishing it every time? Right? Uh-huh. I should not have given you that ammunition. That's refurbishment because it wasn't intended to be an ablative consumable. It was supposed to endure. They only, they didn't replace every tile. It was getting broken into, it was getting hit. Right, but they didn't replace every tile every flight. They repaired what broke. So that's a refurbishment. My idea of reusable is you're on a 737, you took off from Denver, you landed at Long Beach and several more people got on, you refuel the plane, you take off and you fly to Oregon. That's reusable, you've reused it. My car is reusable, I pull up to the gas station, I fill it up and I keep going. So by that definition, there are no reusable rockets yet, right? Not yet. Not yet. I would agree with that. I would say that every venture capitalist upstart of whatever small spaceflight company you hear always makes the comparison of flying a 747 to London and then throwing it away once you get there. So that to me seems like the gold standard of whatever reusability is going to be when you don't have to throw away your 747 and we're just not at that point yet. So Courtney is saying, do you refurbish your car every 30,000 miles when you replace the tires? I mean, that's consumables, right? Your tires are consumables. I would argue your windshield wipers, your tires, your blinker fluid, your oil, your gas. I almost got through it with a straight face. You broke me, Dada, I almost got through it with a straight face. Anyhow, those are all consumables. And I would say that when you're going in, you're not refurbishing your car, right? You're just replacing your consumables. So like... All right, I could accept that definition. So basically if you are driving a race car and you can stay in your pit box and they can do the maintenance and then send you on your way again, then that's reusable. But if they have to put you on the wheels and roll you back into the garage and do more intensive work, that's refurbishable. Yeah, that feels correct. So break style, tires, oil, fuel. But even by that definition, because we're rolling it back into the hangar, right? We're borescoping this thing. So, I mean, all of them, right? So like... My plane today was not borescoped. I watched them for quite a lot of it and there was no borescope action during that. So, there were flashlights. Looking at things, but nobody gave me things. Major, so... The only thing that would have been better is if you're in the air and you see the captain just run out on the flight deck, just run down. Like whip open the shades by the wind, look out and go, oh God, and then run back to the flight deck. Yeah, that would be the only thing. Oh, it's not that there's a money python sketch or two pilots in the cockpit and one of them goes, hey, watch this. And he goes over to the PA and he goes, there's nothing to worry about. So, he's like, don't worry about it. Don't worry about it, don't worry about it. Oh my God, that's amazing. I think about that a lot when we're flying, so... Things to do on your last day as a pilot. All right, yeah. I also like those, there's always those videos of people who are like air dropping photos to people on the plane and it's like a photo of a pilot on the nose in a plane, taking a selfie in flight. So, I like that one too. Yeah, so two things, Pepsi Man 101. Pepsi, I'm gonna have to say Coke. All right, around the room, Pepsi or Coke, Ryan? I'm drinking Pepsi Max right now, not sponsored if you want to, please do, thanks. All right, Pepsi, you got it. Coke. Coke, Jared. RC Cola. There's dead men's fingers in it. RC Cola? I'm a trashy, I'm a trashy, I'm a trashy guy. It's like drinking battery acid. Jared isn't... I don't care, it's better. Jared isn't agent of chaos. So Pepsi Man 101 said this is a conversation that needed to happen with it in the space community for a while. Yeah, like I feel like we actually, we pointed different things so we go, oh hey, this is that. And I think the definitions kind of change over time, right, like when Space Shuttle was flying, we called it reusable. And then as we started to learn more about it and realize like they didn't quite live up to its expectation of turn time and things like that, we kind of changed our language around Space Shuttle to say, well, at least I did. Like I don't want to speak that one. I changed my language around Space Shuttle to be like, no, no, no, no, refurbishable. I wonder if that's going to happen with other vehicles, right? Like my cats are absolutely nuts right now. One is crawling on its belly underneath a thing, like hunting the other cat. So I just look over and I just see it like. So anyhow, yeah, I think, sorry. Ereville, you can't name yourself Cope Man when I want you, that's true. And then Bruce McKean said, we need something in the middle, prepped, right? Cause you do, it's this weird thing where you've got all vehicles, as far as I know, have consumables. Yeah. You know, your car, your tires, your brake pad, your, all the things we mentioned before, including and especially the blinker fluid and right. So. I love that. That's great. It's just like before today's episode, we prepped our Falcon 9. Now we're ready to put it in for one hour at 425 degrees. The thing is like, would you call your car refurbishable? Like I don't bring my car in for refurbishment. Like that's a, that's a whole like, that's a whole different thing. Like maybe if you're dropping the engine or refurbishing an electrical system. I feel like reusability, no matter what you are, well, no matter what you say is reusable, car, plane, rocket, every usability, every type of reusability has to have some degree where it isn't loaded with fuel and go. Your cars, you're going to have to check on it. You're going to have to put oil in, you're going to have to change the tires eventually. You're going to have to change the planes, you have to inspect it, you have to make sure it's all safe. Rockets, you're going to have to do that as well. I think we just need to be able to settle that you can call it a reusable vehicle, but it's not going to be able to be load and go 100% of the time. If it's load and go 90, 95% of the time, then I think that's still good enough. Like an airplane or a car. I've bore-scoped my cylinders in my car. Okay. Like that sounds awkward, but all right. Spark plugs out, put a bore-scope in there, make sure everything's good. Put the spark plugs back in. Apollo decided to throw a wrench into this entire conversation, which I find fascinating. I know we've been hammering on this for a while, but like, I don't think anyone's really, who else is talking about this? And I find it interesting because I don't know what to say. But Apollo says, Vulcan's smart reuse of engines, where does that fall on the scale? And first off, I hate the term smart because I know it's a vacuum, but I personally- It's not smart. It is the dumbest way to do reusability or recovery. In my opinion, right? Just bring the whole thing back. Just bring the whole thing back. We've shown how to do it. Just copy. It's fine, just do that. But anyhow, where would that throw, where would that be on the scale? It's not even refurbishable. It's like, if you were to drive your car, take the engine out after every time you drive it and put it in a new vehicle, what would you call that other than dumb? I think it's safe to call Vulcan, in my opinion, a partially reusable vehicle, just like how Falcon is a partially reusable vehicle. Falcon brings the entirety of the first stage back. Vulcan will only be bringing the engine section and that bit, I think, has some avionics as well in there. Maybe, I don't know. It will only be bringing that section back, but Falcon only brings a section back. It's a bigger section, but it's still only a section. You know? It's percentage-wise, it's less of the rocket, but it's still just a bit of the rocket. Where's the God I think got it? I think we got it won with where's the God. I would call that recycling. So they need to, ULA should start calling it smart recycling. That's what you two get. Should start calling it smart recycling instead of smart reusability. Sure, Tori will love us hearing us call that on the show. We should bring Tori back on the show, right? Like, we should. Oh, Scott's got a really good analogy here, actually. I like that analogy, Scott, which is that most rockets are top-fueled dragsters. So, if you know anything about racing top-fueled dragsters and other stuff like that, once they're done with their run, they literally will take it back to their pit. They'll tear the entire thing down and get it prepped for the next run. They basically will literally disassemble every engine part that they can and prep it and then bring it back together. That's way more aggressive than what we're doing with reusable rockets today. That's like the space shuttle reusability. Yeah, that's space shuttle reusability. Yeah, but I'm just saying that that is not insane that most rockets are like top-fueled dragsters. I feel like that's a really interesting comparison. Not all rockets, obviously. So, some of them are much easier than tearing down the entire dang thing. Not all rockets, Jared. Not all rockets. I just clicked in my head with the show. Not all rockets. I died. All right. Any final comments from the group or time to move on? I feel like this is a very dead horse and we're getting the glue here. It's getting tacky on the floor. It's getting tacky on the floor, exactly. Exactly. All right, Jared, did you have a story this week? Yeah, I do have a story this week. I'll see if I can actually get the thing to come on up. But yeah, I did end up having this really cool thing come along this week. So, let me try and get that to come up. While you're doing that, Bennett Elder said, Tori Bruno and Peter Beck on the same show, Cage Match. It would be kind of fun to have Tori Bruno and Peter Beck on the show at the same time. But actually, both of them are just hardcore space nerds, right? Yeah. I'm not a fan of smart reusability, but I'm a huge fan of Tori Bruno, right? Like, he gives a damn. He's a space nerd and he wants to do cool things. So, and he knows his stuff too, right? He's not just a weird, like, prior to him, it was kind of like this weird ULA political thing going on. And that's just not Tori. I'm mad proud of Tori and his mustache. Tori's not the corporate cookie cutter that was in place beforehand. Tori is an actual engineer and has the chops and everything to go with it. Yeah. All right. Go, Jared. Okay, do you have it, first of all, because mine requires you to actually see something here. Yes, we've got a bunch of dots. Yes. Why is it called Zwicky? Oh, so that's, so a bunch of dots, Jamie, that's what we call astronomy. No. No. I'm getting you, hold up. I really do need that on a shirt. It's just gonna say tomorrow, a bunch of dots, and then on the back, that's what we call astronomy or something like that. And it's just, it'll be a polka dotted shirt. It'll be fantastic. Okay, and you know what? I'll be the first in line to buy it as long as I can get it all black with pink polka dots or some really bad color combos. If someone in the community wants to build a halfway decent shirt, not one of those crappy print your own shirts, but actually figure out how to make that into a decent shirt, I'll figure out how to sell it. Yeah. How's that? That's for the community. I feel like it's gotta be really bad color combos too because let's face it, if you've ever been to a scientific conference or anything like that, nobody knows how to dress half of the time while they're there. But that's also, hang on, that's also, that is also back to us. We're gonna come back to this for in a minute here. That's also like how astronomy is because it's all false color stuff, right? Or a lot of it's false color. Well, yeah, we just use what light is there. And then if we're gonna display stuff to the public to kind of help the public understand it, then we can kind of throw the false color in it. I'm just saying like this should be, this should be a shirt with a whole bunch of different colored dots that do not go together. And like some of them are large splotches and some of them are small splotches. The patterns are way too tight. And it just says astronomy on it. And that's it. Just like ragingly ugly. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. All right, all right. That'll work pretty well. Back to your story, back to your story, back to your story. All right, so Ryan, I heard you ask a question to start this off with. And I thought it would be a good question. What was your, remind me of what your question was again. Why is it called Zwicky? Okay, very, very cool. So this comes from a telescope called the Zwicky Transit Facility, which was named after Fritz Zwicky, who was a Swiss astronomer who back in the 1930s was one of the first people to postulate about dark matter. So he was kind of one of the first people to think about it. He did a lot of work. So this is what he got. This was named after him because this facility is looking for things like supernovae that are happening if you do supernovae to try to measure dark matter and the distribution of it. So it made sense to name it after him. And it saw supernovae and we got a very cool gravitational lens out of it, which is actually going to allow us to see this supernova happening four different times with that there. Geron, I'm not gonna lie, that reminds me of the opening scene of close encounters of the fourth, fifth kind, whatever it is. Right, it looks like one of the UFOs. A little bit, yeah. And what you're seeing there actually is, those labels, the host galaxy is actually where the supernova is occurring at. And then there's a galaxy between us and the host galaxy that it has so much mass that it is gravitationally lensing or bending that light and enhancing it so that we can actually see it. So it's making the light from that supernova about 25 times brighter than we would have seen just from the host galaxy itself. And then in addition to that, because of the way that the mass in that lens galaxy is distributed, the way that it lenses or bends the light as it goes around it, it actually bends that light into four different places. So what we can do, we can actually watch this supernovae happen four different times. We can see periods in time during the supernovae's sort of explosion here. Four different times all at once. So we're seeing four different moments in one supernovae. And that's just like absolutely astounding and yeah, this was just a really great result that came from the Zwicky transit facility and we're currently just keeping an eye on it. So that way we can gather as much information from it as we can. It's a really far away supernovae. So probably an excess of a billion light years from us. So we're just keeping an eye on it. And it's pretty rare to see something that lenses like this where you get four different views of it. And in fact, we call it an Einstein cross because it's using relativity and the gravity bending light. And of course, you might have heard of a guy called Albert Einstein who helped figure out a lot of the mathematics that made us understand that and made our ability to plug that into the universe possible. So we call it an Einstein cross and they're not something that happens very often in this guy. So a really cool result from the Zwicky transit facility and I'm really excited to see what's gonna come out of this at some point in the future. Teacher, I have a question. Yes. What is the time delay between the four dots? Cause the four dots are four different moments in time of the same event, right? Effectively. So what is the time delay between the four different dots? Are we talking like a few milliseconds, a few seconds, a few days, a few years? Like how much time has passed between the moments of those four dots? But between the time that the light is back to that- If we got ultra low latency, low latency, normal latency, do we get close captions? 4K, 1440p? We are basically like looking, in this case, we're looking at a movie being played back four times. And like the one showing at the top of the four is an hour and 15 minutes in. The one at the bottom is an hour and 20. The one on the right is 20 minutes in and the one on the left, we're still at the previews with it. So it's all over the place in terms of where it's at. I don't think the team has nailed it down yet as to when exactly the arrival time of this light is happening at. Simply because this is just such a fresh discovery. But there have been times in the past where we have seen gravitationally lensed supernovae and we've been able to predict when that light should arrive. And then at the exact predicted time that we think the light should arrive, it does. And in some cases, that can be a year to even decades down the line. So it's a- I think that's what I was getting at is like, because- Yeah, so the scale of the universe, but- Yeah, so for now in terms of the scale of the universe, it's fresh. Even the human lifetime is fresh in the scale of the universe. So it almost doesn't matter, if you will, at that point. I think more of what we're thinking, I think more of what you're trying to get an answer to the question to Jamie is more as in when does the light arrive or where are we at in the arrival time of that light? And unfortunately right now- I'm trying to go for scale. I'm going for scale. Like, is A, B, C, and D, are they a few minutes apart or are they a few years apart or are they a few decades apart? And I think you answered it in- It could be years or decades apart between A, B, C, and D. Yeah, don't know- It's so- This is so fresh out of the oven that we can't touch it yet, if you will. So we're still poking the data and trying to figure that out. But the fact that we've been able to find one that especially something that's been lensed four times, things getting lensed once, twice, you know, that's a dime a dozen, three to four times, you know, that's ultra rare. So it's kind of how it goes. This is also what we can see from Earth, which is the light that's flowing towards us. What would have happened if we were 180 degrees around the other side of this? Would it look similar? Or because the light is being bent in a certain way, it would look very, very different from another side. So it would probably look just like a regular supernova. And I would assume that's because if we're on the other side of the host galaxy, obviously I can't speak to what the structure of the universe is like in this area. But why not? We do know, because I'm not that good of an astronomer. But what we do know is that between us and the host galaxy there, there is another galaxy, a closer galaxy. And because of the amount of mass that that galaxy has and its position relative to the host galaxy, it will bend that light and allow four different points, if you will, of that light to arrive here on Earth. So its gravitation lens are bent that light into four different images. As to whether that would happen on the other side, you would need to have a galaxy there with the right amount of mass in order to make that happen as well. So it's all dependent upon where the galaxy is at. It's relative location to whatever is generating the light to be gravitationally lensed. And then also the amount of mass that's there because that really affects the gravitational lensing that you see. If you have a really big cluster of galaxies, you can use those to do some absolutely absurd gravitational lensing, you know, being able to look at things. And in fact, really great example of that with J-Dubb's first deep field that they took, they were looking through the heart of a galaxy cluster because that galaxy cluster had enough mass that it was going to lens the light to allow them to look significantly further back than if they had just aimed it there without a huge amount of mass to blend that light. So then they were able to start seeing objects that were already further back than Hubble was able to look at its deepest in its first deep field. So, and that's really the advantage of using things like gravitational lenses is that you can enhance it, right? So in this case, in the image that you see from Keck right here, the host galaxy, you really can't even tell that there's a supernova happening there, right? It just looks like a fuzzy blob. But we know that because of where that lens galaxy is at, that any light coming from the host galaxy is gonna get lensed. So why is there all of a sudden four really bright dots? But why are there four lights, right? There's four lights. So that's because there's a supernova happening there and we may not be able to see it directly in that host galaxy, but thanks to the gravitational lens, boom, there you go. We could see that a supernova just happened. Also, Jared, I want to congratulate you on your accidental Star Trek reference. Yes, I realized what was happening and I rolled with it. Thank you. Thank you, I do appreciate it. As a Star Trek nerd, I appreciate it. I wanted you to do it more. Oh, four lights is what I really wanted you to do for us. But I'll take the slightly more passive version of that. Absolutely. Is there anything else cool we can do with it? I mean, it looks cool, right? Like it's really neat that we can see it in four different points in time. Are we seeing it at four points in time or five points in time? We're seeing the same point in time, four different times. So four points in time, right? Four different points in time. Well, no, it's one point in time. It's just arriving at four different times. So we're seeing one object at four different points in time because it's arriving at four, the light's coming to us older. No, no. We're seeing the same light from the same event. It's just that, and this is just speculative. This is not when the light actually arrived. But let's say the event happened on, I don't know, Sunday. It happened Sunday at 6 p.m. Okay, and now it's going through, and it gets bent by that. So instead of arriving at, say, Tuesday at 9 a.m., the first bit of light actually arrives on Tuesday at 9 10 a.m. And then the next bit of light, because it got really close to some really massive, really gravitationally strong areas, now the next bit of light arrives Wednesday at 7 p.m. And then- I think we're saying the same thing because we're perceiving it at our moment in time right now. So if we were to take a snapshot right now, on that picture, I saw four different points in time. Yes, but they were- Right, that's what I'm saying. But they're, okay, hold on. Now I'm confused. Right, because that's not, hang on, because we're perceiving it from our time, right? So to us in that picture, there were four moments in time from the same event four moments in time. So in that picture, I saw Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of the same thing. Yes, from an event that happened on Sunday, so. Sure, right, exactly. So it's four different moments in time in one picture from my perspective. Yes. Is what I was saying. I don't even remember my point anymore. I don't even remember how I got there. I just wanted to be right. That was all. Oh, okay. So other than having this really cool thing that shows us four moments in time, which is what it was doing, right? In a way, right? So other than like being able to look at this thing and be like, oh wow, and be able to track it in different ways. Is there anything else we can get out of this? Like is there any other cool science or anything else we can do with this data? Yeah, actually, this type of supernova is a kind that we call a standard candle. That's because we have seen a whole bunch of them happen and they are all at about the same brightness. So it's like having a 60 watt light bulb and you can set them out at different distances and then you can tell, oh, well, this one putting out this much light. I don't know, what do you use to measure light, Jamie, for your camera stuff? A light, candles, lumens? Okay, candles. So this 60 watt light bulb's putting out 100 candles at this distance and then double that distance, it's now down to 25 and so on and so forth. And what we can do is we can actually look at that and compare it to supernovae of the same type that are local and after we adjust for the fact that it's 25 times brighter, then it actually appears, we can then lay out the spectrum or that rainbow pattern of light that comes from it and we could see how far to the red it is and we could get a good, a very nice measurement of just how fast the universe is accelerating in that distance between us and it and then we can figure out a whole bunch of fundamental physics from things like that. So it's not just like, ooh, that was a cool image. We can also study it in terms of the expansion rate of the universe. We can also look at the supernova at four different times at the same time. So that means that we can look at the evolution of it there, which that definitely helps because stars are like pretty bleeding edge in terms of physics. So they're kind of like right on the cusp of what you can work with in terms of understanding. So that's always great to see a supernova and have a multitude of times for us to sample that data from it. And yeah, it's just, there's a lot of things that you can do with it besides just, ooh, look at that. I mean, even also Einstein was right, another confirmation that Einstein was correct in his theories of general and special relativity, like, gosh, when's this guy gonna be wrong for once? Oh, well, what, I got nothing. I do have one more question. I do have, teacher, I have one more question. Does that mean if we found one more of these in another location of the universe or even two more of these where we were able to perceive something similar, a same similar phenomenon happening, we would then be able to get a better three-dimensional representation of the expansion of the universe from our perspective because then we'd have multiple points of which we could do that math because I feel like one data point isn't enough. Oh yeah, we're trying to get as many data points as we can and this specific type of supernovae, we see a lot of them simply because of the distribution of stars, it allows a lot of them to occur. And as many data points as we can get, we want, that's the whole idea of science, right? You test, you test, you test, basically science is testing to prove yourself wrong. And the expansion of the universe has been very interesting because we have been having some interesting results of late once space telescopes jumped into the game, there started to be discrepancies even amongst space telescopes as to what the expansion rate is. And we're still trying to kind of nail down why that is happening. That's sort of one of the big questions in cosmology right now is why is there so, why are the error bars between say like Hubble and another one called WMAP and another one called Herschel and another like our first couple of measurements from JDub, why are they like all over the place? Like what is going on? So this is another data point to add to that comparison and trying to figure out why are these things all over the place? Maybe dark matter has variable density. It could, there's also a lot of facts that dark energy has something to do with that as well. But also the thing about dark energy is that really nobody knows anything outside of you, nobody really knows anything about it. I'm all about the dark energy. Absolutely. You're not saying much. So it's really not helpful. I'm gonna keep all the dark energy secrets to myself. Yeah. And I like head crap right here, which that's a really great comment which is proving Einstein wrong. That is the dream of many scientists. That's true. And you know, I think it's amazing that even though I don't wanna call it, science has never settled, right? Cause that's the whole nature of science that's always checking itself. But it's just fascinating to me that Einstein did all of this back in the 1910s and we're still testing it today. We've been testing it by means that Einstein himself said we're never gonna have the equipment possible to test at this level. And now we're doing that. So he was wrong. He thought was possible. So he was wrong in the sense that, like gravitational waves. Einstein said we're never gonna, he said, no, my math shows that they should happen but we're never gonna detect them. And then literally around the 100th anniversary, the same year, 100 years after he put out his theories of relativity, that was our first detection. And what a good anniversary present for that. And now LIGO, a couple of weeks ago, we talked about LIGO, the observatory that does gravitational waves back online and even more sensitive now. So we're gonna be picking up even more from a whole bunch of different events and maybe we can talk about that a little bit later. We need a gravitational waves shirt. That's basically just a black shirt with it like droops on one side. I believe that's called a shawl, Jamie. Oh, it is called a shawl. It is called a shawl. All right, we need a gravitational shawl. I propose, I propose we change the term gravitational waves. There's a lot of clothes we wanna make from this episode. Exactly, this is the clothing episode. This is the clothing, all right. Before I go into, I thank yous and whatnot, any final comments from the room? From the crew? I mean, it's just cool, isn't it? It's just so cool. Gravity is scary. Yeah. I think gravity is the future of our exploration of the cosmos. If we can figure out gravity and how to control it, like universe is ours. I feel like the universe is ours at that point, right? That just fold gravity onto itself or like so many different things you could do. Power, imagine that. If you could control gravity and you had less power input than you got out of it, like that's unlimited free energy. Yeah, and I think what is so cool about gravity is that we always talk about the power of gravity and how strong gravity is and everything like this, but of those four fundamental forces that make up our universe, gravity is the weakest. It is like a piece of cake. Think about it, you're on a planet, right? And you can spring your legs against the planet and leave it for a couple of seconds. Like, that is weak. You can jump up and off of the entire pull of the Earth's gravity for just a couple of seconds, just with your legs, as long as you can jump. And that's an incredible display of just how weak gravity is. That would be kind of a fun shirt, too, to make people think. On the back of the shirt, when you jump, you're fighting all of Earth's gravity. Just say that. And I think people would actually look at the back of that shirt and go, huh, right? Wouldn't you? Because I would look at that and go, actually, yeah. I think we need to get the gift shop back up and open. I think there's a lot of shirts that are coming up. Lot of shirts. I just don't want crappy shirts, you know? All right, we'll talk about this in the post-show. In the meantime, all right, I think there's like an 80% chance that when we go to these thank you slates, the Patreon Slates, that my audio will stay on the screen. We're about to find out. Chatroom, let me know. But a huge thank you to all of the citizens of tomorrow who are up to make this episode go. Hopefully you can still hear me. We're about to go into the post-show. And if you are one of these citizens, you're gonna be able to, I'm just kind of stalling to see what the chatroom says. You'll be able to continue to watch. And if you're not watching live and you're watching On Demand, that's cool. You can still get access to it in the On Demand archive as well. We'll probably be talking about shirts and whatnot. But then also, I'd love to talk about, I mean, maybe a little bit about gravity. I forgot to take my show notes to actually what we were doing in the show and what we wanted. I don't think there was anything we wanted to push forward. But yeah, I think it's gonna be a lot of fun in the post-show. It's also a lot more casual. If you can imagine a more casual show than this, it's gonna be a lot more casual. It's just one place to hang. And any one of these levels will get you access into that show, as well as the level that's not on here, which is, I think, system support. So it's as little as $1 per month. You help the show a great deal. Help us keep on the air, make things happen. And also, I'm so happy with the God says, audio is still live. So we made it. And this, by the way, is my favorite version or my favorite level. This is the Tomorrow Model 33 Plaid Pro Plus level, which you, the citizens, helped us create in one of our post-shows how magic is it? It's pretty incredible. All right. Thank you, everyone, so much for watching. I'm sorry that I've been on and off so much, but Company X is crazy right now. So next week, I think, hang on, let me just really quickly check my schedule. Just hang out here. I'll be here. I have no idea. What is today the 23rd, so that's the 30th? No, I will not be here next week. But not because of Company X, I will be getting electric. Actually, maybe I will be, I might be able to do it from my car on my phone or something, or I'll do it 3, 4, 5. I could do it from the lobby of the electrolysis place, but I will have just had electrolysis, so my face will be swollen. It's gonna be amazing. Just turn the white button down, you'll be fine. Oh my God, last time I was, oh, you know what, all stories from post-show, I'll talk to you about it in a minute. Thank you all so much for joining, and we'll see you in a few minutes in post-show. Bye.