Former NASA Astronaut Says Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk Are Key to Our Future in Space

What’s it like to leave Earth and realize that from now on, your home planet won’t be the most amazing thing you’ve ever seen? Leroy Chiao, former International Space Station commander and NASA astronaut, can tell you exactly what’s that like.

On today’s show, Glenn wondered if Chiao could compare a spacewalk to anything that everyday people could comprehend.

“Even the sixth time, it’s a bit of a surreal experience,” Chiao said of walking out into space.

What’s in store for the future of U.S. space exploration? Chiao detailed some of NASA’s projects but also pointed to the private sector, calling Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos “visionaries” who will propel the next phase of our ventures into space.

“It’s Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin,” Chiao said. “Here are two guys who are visionaries and who are willing to commit their resources, their personal and influential resources, to go ahead and do exploration. That’s never been done before by commercial companies.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Leroy Chiao, he's an astronaut with NASA. He was the commander of the international space -- was he the -- Leroy, you're here. I should probably ask you.

LEROY: International Space Station.

GLENN: International Space Station. And aren't you the guy who went -- you have piloted Russian and Chinese, or just Russian vehicles?

LEROY: Oh, no. I'm an American. I was born in the US, and I flew three space shuttle missions before traveling to the international space station as a copilot aboard a Russian space craft and I was the commentary of the station for six and a half months.

STU: So you haven't really accomplished much in your life.

(Laughter.)

GLENN: Leroy, just on a personal aside, what is it like to come back to earth and look up and go, I'm never going back there, and it was the coolest thing ever?

LEROY: Well, you know it's kind of funny. I mean, when I got selected to be an astronaut, I never imagined the day would come when I would decide to leave NASA. But, you know, during my first two weeks at NASA, there was a going away party for one of the senior guys, and I overheard somebody talking to him, and talking to another guy, and how do you know when it's time to leave?

And he said, when it's time, you'll know.

And I remembered that. And 15 years later, sure enough, I was getting are they to go fly to the International Space Station -- or actually I had just gotten back, and the chief asked me if I would stay for another shuttle mission, and I thought about it for about 30 seconds, and I turned him down. And I surprised himself, but I had done everything that I could do and hope for in a flying career, you know. I've flown space shuttle missions, I've done space walks to help build the space station --

GLENN: What is it like --

LEROY: -- and done all that stuff, and it was time to do something else.

GLENN: Is there anything that the average person can compare to walking out into space the first time?

LEROY: No. It's -- it is, you know, even the sixth time, it's a bit of a surreal experience. You're actually in the space suit which you can think of it as a personal space craft. It's got all the life support system and everything. But you're all alone. There's nobody else that can help you except for your partner who's out there with you.

But, you know, it's kind of a weird feeling the very first time, looking back through the shuttle windows and waving to my buddies inside who are about three feet away, but something happened, we were out there alone, and, you know, it was kind of up to us to save ourselves.

But, you know, it's okay. Because we're well trained and everything works well, and, you know, certainly there's risk, but you know what to do.

And, you know, we were able to get our jobs done, but it is kind of a weird thing, you know. [Laughs.]

GLENN: Yeah, I bet it is. I wanted to ask you about the Chinese shot of the -- what is it, the Chang E?

LEROY: Yep.

GLENN: Can you explain, going on the other side of the moon, it'll be the first time really that we can hear deep sky, or -- or radio without all of the static from earth. Right?

LEROY: Well, hmm, not really. Because you still have to relay through that -- that relay satellite. Right? So, you know, you're -- the fact that they're going to the far side of the moon is unique. Nobody has landed a probe over there. Not for any particular reason, except that, you know, you have to have a relay satellite in order to communicate with it. So they've got to first put that relay satellite in that HALO orbit so you can relay messages from the far side of the moon back to the ground stations on the earth. But it's going to be interesting to see if there's any difference between what we found on our scientific probes on the side that we can see versus the far side.

GLENN: Why all of a sudden -- and I think it's a great thing. I'm excited with, you know, with what Elon Musk is doing and everything else. But why all of a sudden do we have this race, it seems, to go up into space again?

LEROY: Well, you know, you're right. The commercial side has been the very exciting wild card. NASA has been going along. We've gone the shuttle program, spatial program and we're plodding along with exploration, although there's been no serious -- or know significant, I should say, or farther advancing political and financial commitment to that. There's been a lot of talk, but -- and we are hopeful of developing the new vehicles, but it's Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, Space X and Blue Origin, and here were two guys who are visionaries and who are willing to commit their resources, their personal and influential resources, to go ahead and do exploration. That's never been done before by commercial companies.

You know, where's the profit in colonizing Mars, as Elon Musk wants to do, or in the case of Jeff Bezos, he wants to build infrastructure in low earth orbit and out into cis-lunar space. So he's kind of going -- sounds like a Field of Dreams thing, build it and they'll come. But it would be difficult to get like a Boeing or a Lockheed. There's no way their shareholders or boards would let them go do these things. But these guys, they're out there and they're serious. They're building rockets, launching rockets, and it's exciting. They're pushing exploration for the first time we've got commercial companies pushing exploration.

GLENN: How realistic -- I've read that helium 3, the moon is rich with helium 3, and if you had a fusion system, that you could -- if you could fill the space shuttle with helium 3 and it would run -- it would be enough power for the United States for a year. Is there any way to transfer this or use this?

LEROY: [Laughs.] Well, helium 3, I mean, helium 3 is present on the moon. But it's in the soil in the parts per billion concentration. So that is, you know, for every gram of helium 3 that you might harvest, it'd be a billion grams of regular, you know, lunar soil that you'd have to go through and find a way to separate this stuff out. So it's theoretically possible. You could even -- theoretically possible to separate the helium 3 and store it and bring it back to earth. But the other part of the problem is we don't have a fusion reactor. We've been 20 years from a fusion reactor since the 1950s. Right? And so -- [Laughs.] -- we need to invent a fusion reactor that is practical and actually works before -- before we talk about bringing helium 3 back from the moon.

But people, you know, have used helium 3 as a justification for going back to the moon. And to me, that's nice, but there are a lot more practical reasons to go. If we're going to go to Mars, the moon is the perfect place to prove your equipment, to train your crews, to get some experience before sending all that stuff to Mars, because the moon is pretty close. It's only three days away. If there's an issue you can get your crew back. Mars on the other hand, closest approach is on the average about six months away.

STU: As we saw with Matt Damon.

GLENN: That guy, man.

STU: He's had a tough time. Many journeys are turned out poorly for Matt Damon

GLENN: Leroy, when you hear the size of the rocket that Elon Musk is building, he says it's going to be 40 stories tall and with fit a 747 inside of the day when you see -- and I know this is Hollywood, but when you see these movies, and we are developing eventually some sort of inner planetary, you know, vehicles, they're enormous. Do we -- do we build those in space on the moon? Or do we launch them?

LEROY: You know, there's different ways to look at this. Elon Musk did announce these huge rockets that he wants to build. And that's to support his vision of colonizing Mars.

So he's envisioning building space craft that can take 100 or more passengers to go, you know, start to colonize mars. There's two schools of thought. Either you launch it all at once and you have to have a huge rocket to do that or you build gas station in, say, low earth orbit or orbit around the moon, and then you launch kind of an empty vehicle out there and then fuel it up to go. Right?

So there are pluses and minuses to each approach, but what Elon is talking about is building a huge rocket, much bigger than the Saturn 5. In the 1950s, 1960s, the United States, it was called the Nova rocket. They had these ideas where they were going to build these similarly huge rockets to do interplanetary explorations.

So there's certainly something to that. There's some history to it. You know, the thing with Elon Musk that I've learned, he may not make the exact date that he projects, but by and large, he's able to get things done. You look at the successes of Space X, with Falcon 9 and with Tesla. It's pretty impressive.

GLENN: So if Elon Musk called you and said, hey, I want you to come and colonize Mars, you could take your family, would you do it?

LEROY: You know what? I would love to go explore Mars, but I have no interest in living there. Life is much better here on the earth. Earth orbit, it's great to go out there and have the adventure, but I'm going to come back here.

GLENN: Leroy, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

LEROY: My pleasure.

GLENN: Leroy Chiao, an astronaut extraordinaire, and something that the early astronauts did not have the opportunity to do, and that's to go back into space over and over and over again.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.