Hello, Smart Money podcast listeners. Welcome to this week's show. My name is Kirk Chisum. I'll be your host. And today I'm joined with Dylan Taylor. How you doing today, Dylan?
I'm great, Kirk. Great to be here. Thank you for having me.
Yeah. Glad to have you on the show. So, for those of you who don't know Dylan, tell us a little bit about your background.
Sure. I run a company called Voyager Technologies, publicly listed on the New York Stock Exchange. I'm a commercial astronaut. I took a suborbital flight in December of '21. Longtime space nut, longtime space investor, but running Voyager currently. I'm also the founder of a nonprofit called Space for Humanity, which seeks to democratize space. We send people to space for free, in quotes, in exchange for doing something positive here on Earth. So, a little bit about me.
Nice. So, tell me, why did you get interested in space? Like, why space? There's so many areas you could get into.
Yeah. It's a great question. For me, Kirk, it goes literally back to, you know, earliest memory and childhood. I was always really fascinated, you know, believe it or not, Star Trek kind of got its hooks into me. I was always fascinated by the power of space to be kind of this new canvas that humanity could reimagine what would be possible. Our ability to bring out the best in humanity and kind of reach for the stars literally and figuratively. So I was always captivated by that and I always thought that space kind of was the next big thing for humanity to not only look what's over the hill but kind of reimagine, you know, what could be possible for us as a species and as a civilization. So for me it's like space has the power to transform how we view ourselves.
Nice. So, let's talk about space. You know, where are the opportunities in space? I hear about this a lot. Everyone sees, oh, it's all this opportunity, but you know, people are focused on AI and they're focused on other things and space is out there, but you're not seeing this massive rush for it. So, tell me about space. Where are the opportunities that, you know, people can look for?
Yeah. Well, it's a great question. It does tie into AI in one sense and that is you're creating massive amounts of data with space-based assets. Satellites, we've put more satellites in orbit in the last 12 months than we have previously cumulatively in the history of humanity, in large part due to what Elon's doing with Starlink, but there are a lot of other constellations going up. So, we're creating a huge data set. Obviously AI is relevant for what we do with those ones and zeros and creating insight and products and services around that. So that's one key theme. The other key theme which I think benefits life here directly on Earth are these commercial space station platforms. Voyager's involved in one initiative called Starlab. Global partners on that project include Airbus, Mitsubishi, Palantir, even Hilton Hotels if you could believe that, Kirk. So, those are interesting platforms. Why is that? A lot of people don't know this necessarily, but microgravity, which is the environment the International Space Station's in because it's in permanent orbit around the Earth, is really, think of it as a magic laboratory. And essentially chemical processes, when you remove gravity, which is a convective force, right? And chemistry is about knocking molecules together. Think of this as almost like a slow motion machine. So you can do things in microgravity that you literally can't do here on Earth. You can grow perfect crystals. You can create new drug formulations. You can create different kinds of protein folding. You can extrude perfect fiber optic cable. So there's a lot of really interesting use cases you can do in microgravity. A lot of those have been demonstrated on the International Space Station, but there's just not enough capacity and enough lab space. Not to mention the fact that let's say you're a biopharma company, you want to do a drug formulation on the ISS, you've got to co-own that IP with the government as opposed to a commercial platform where you can have a commercial agreement. So there's some really, really exciting things happening on the ISS, but those will be tenfold, 100-fold, a thousand-fold when we get these commercial space stations online sometime around 2029, 2030, 2031.
Okay, cool. So tell me, you mentioned a lot of cool things. So, setting up space stations, it sounds really interesting from an experimental standpoint as you said for drugs, fiber optics, stuff like that. But how does that become commercial? I would imagine you need a ton of space stations up there and then what if they do create this perfect crystal? Then what? You going to mass produce crystals up in a lab? Like it creates some other issues. So how does that work?
Yeah, it's a great question. On the second question first, believe it or not, if you grow a perfect crystal seed in microgravity, and then you bring that back to Earth with, you know, down mass, let's say it's an astronaut return mission. With those perfect seeds, you can actually grow larger perfect crystals here on Earth just with that seed stock, if you will. So, you don't have to grow, you know, thousands of pounds of perfect crystals on orbit. You just need the seeds as an example. This would apply to silicon wafers for microchips as well and things of that nature. But a lot of it just has to do with the know-how. So for example, one of the breakthrough cancer drugs for lung cancer is called Keytruda. Keytruda actually was designed and formulated on the International Space Station. So that's a breakthrough drug happening today. A lot of what with drug efficacy has to do with the actual formulation and the formulation is really what you can work out. So think of it as intellectual property being developed that can then be translated to here on Earth. In terms of commercial space stations, you know, keep in mind International Space Station probably the best things, one of the best things humans have ever done, right? It should be an international Nobel Peace Prize in my view. That being said, it's really been a hodgepodge, right? These were modules put together over time. It wasn't master planned. So these commercial space stations, for example, our project Starlab is optimized for research, right? That's why it's called Starlab with the emphasis on lab. So when you design for first principles towards a research aim or a manufacturing aim or any kind of special purpose, you can have a lot more, you know, the design parameters can lead to better outcomes. The other thing we're taking advantage of is this larger lift capacity that SpaceX Starship is bringing online. So, our space station rather than being assembled on orbit like the ISS was over I think 22 shuttle missions costing hundreds of billions of dollars, our space station is a single launch to orbit where it's tested and all the bugs are worked out here on Earth and then it's launched in a single rocket and deployed. So, that's another advantage of these next generation space stations that are coming online.
Interesting. So, let me ask you this. If I think of labs on Earth, like people go to work every day, they go to a lab and they experiment with stuff and they have a life and, you know, they do that for years, maybe a decade before they come up with something, you know, really fascinating. How is it going to be both economic and feasible for people to run experiments in space when you're effectively, you have to live there for long periods of time and maybe you don't make any progress? Like how do you do that and have a functional life?
Yeah. It's a genius question. A lot of it is the model we have on the International Space Station today. So think of an experiment that's longitudinal. In other words, it's running over time, but the astronauts are being swapped out, right? And those astronauts are trained to monitor, adjust the experiments. So that's the model we have on the International Space Station today. It'll be similar on the commercial space stations. So you'll always have a continuous presence of humans. It just will be different humans. Typically the missions are somewhere between 30 days and at the longer end 180 days. So they'll be swapped out. The other thing, Kirk, that you can do is you can do a lot more automation with the experiments as well. And so that's all being looked at as well. And then way in the future, I know Elon talks about this and others, imagine like a humanoid robot that is being conducted by, you know, think of it almost like an avatar. So the researcher could be in a mock lab here on Earth, which is a digital twin of the actual space station itself, and you're essentially manipulating an avatar. You know, that's being looked at as well. I know it sounds, you know, completely crazy and science fiction-y, but because latency is really not that big of a deal. You're talking about these space stations at 400 kilometers above the Earth as opposed to like, you know, the moon or Mars where there's minutes of latency. You could actually use an avatar as well. That's another possibility.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way. So are the space stations going to be like, a drug company like Merck or Pfizer has their own space station? They do a ton of things there or is it usually a shared space with, you know, other industries or other drug companies?
Yeah, definitely. I would think shared space, Kirk. I mean, we've got a lot of people on our project as I mentioned that rack space, our commercial capacity or the, I'll call it rack space, but think of it as lab space is about half sold already. We haven't announced the different partners that have signed up for that yet, but we will be, you know, at some point in the future, the near future. But yes, I think the best model would be a biopharma company would take a percentage of capacity within the lab space. And then over time, which you're alluding to kind of embedded in your question, I think you will see special purpose space stations where one might be completely dedicated to biopharma, one might be completely dedicated to semiconductor fabrication, things like that. But I think initially it will be a model where people will have different pockets of capacity.
Okay, yeah, that makes sense. So let's talk about, you know, you mentioned crystals. I don't know what people use crystals for other than, you know, other than seeing woo-woo stuff. I'm assuming that's not that kind of crystal, but you know, you talked about things like fiber optic cable. I'm sure there's a lot of things that they can experiment with up there, but it doesn't seem like fiber optic cable, I would assume, is uneconomical to construct up there, at least at this stage. So what are some of the limitations in usage because if you have to make it back on Earth, is it just the experiments or is it, you know, the actual creation of things or what are you seeing as interest?
Yeah, I think, well first of all the crystals, think of these as seeds. So, for example, in drug formulation, back to Keytruda, if you're wanting to make a drug that works well, the purity of the drug under the particular kind of formulation that you design matters and think of gravity, gravity's obviously, we know no different, right? Gravity to a fish about water, right? Gravity is all around us. But one of the things gravity does is it creates defects. And so the easiest example is fiber optic cable that we just talked about. If you extrude fiber optic cable and you do it here on Earth, you will have inclusions. You'll have defects. Those defects affect the ability for the fiber optic cable to transmit data, light specifically. And there's really no way around that. If you remove gravity, then those inclusions and defects are minimized and you get literally a thousand-x benefit in transmission. But that's true of any manufacturing process where defects impact quality. So that would be a microchip, that would be a crystal for a drug formulation. But really any process, think of any material process, material science process that purity matters, and microgravity would have a benefit to that. So that's probably the right way to think about it. And then back to your point on research, even though there have been hundreds of experiments run on the International Space Station, we're just scratching the surface, right? And it's mainly because the ISS, which again is a great asset, it's a national laboratory, and there's a fair amount of bureaucracy to get a new mission designed, flown, the experiment done, and the data received. And so if you take a lot of that friction out, you're going to have a flourishing of additional research that can be done.
Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. So, you know, there's a lot of applications for space. You talked about, you know, space stations is certainly one, but there's lots of other things. I mean, you know, people talk about mining the moon or mining comets or, you know, even putting up a protective shield around the Earth to protect from, you know, civilization killer kind of comets. So, what are the space stations? Sounds like there's a lot of interest, but what are some other things that are feasible that people are considering?
Well, a couple things. I think you've talked about this on previous episodes, but one would be orbital data centers. That's a big thing. You have natural cooling, all the power you can possibly get. So orbital data centers, I think, are going to be a thing for sure. When you talk about the moon, a lot of people don't realize this, but fusion, which, you know, the joke about fusion is it's 10 years away and always has been. But I do think realistically we're coming in for a landing on fusion. I do think fusion will happen in the 2020s. I really do. We've already sort of demonstrated the feasibility now. It's about scale up. But one of the things that's important for fusion is helium-3. The Earth, believe it or not, is running out of helium-3. The moon has a ton literally and figuratively of helium-3. And just to give you a sense, a teacup of helium-3 with a next generation fusion reactor could power Los Angeles for a year. So you don't need a lot of it, but you need access to it. So I think helium-3 could be a resource that makes moon mining feasible. And then rare earth minerals. I know there's a lot of back and forth between the US and China on it. Ironically, rare earth minerals are actually not that rare. It's just they're controlled in many cases by China and others that are potentially restricting access of that. But if you look to the moon, a lot of those rare earth minerals are on the moon. And so that could be another use case for mining on the moon as well. And then just finally, there appears to be a lot of water on the moon. So extracting water from moon regolith not only can create things like fuel but also breathable oxygen for humans as well.
You mean on the moon we're not bringing the water back, right?
Correct. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. Because we do have plenty here. And to your question, it's, you know, when you go on a camping trip you don't bring your kitchen with you, right? You bring a water filter and you bring other resources that allow you to live off the land, so to speak. And same concept on the moon.
Yeah, the moon's interesting. I've always been curious. You know, we went to the moon decades ago and there's a big race for it and then it just stopped and then no one had any interest in the moon. We didn't do anything with it. We somehow had this big technology race, got there and then crickets and now there's a lot of push for space. And we're still not going back to the moon. So, you know, what is it going to take to get to the moon? And how economical does it have to be? Because it's not a small feat. I mean, getting into orbit's one thing. Getting to the moon is another. Getting to Mars is a completely different thing altogether. So, what does that look like?
Yeah, I do think this administration is pushing hard towards the moon and I do think we'll have another moon race with China because China's intent on going as well. But I do think it really has to do with the commercial models, Kirk. And that's why I think, you know, whether it's helium-3 or rare earth minerals or other use cases, I think that's what's going to drive the economics. Frankly, getting to the moon actually isn't that hard. It's really landing on the moon and getting off the moon. That's the big issue, right? We've got rockets that'll take us to the moon no problem. It's really the lander and that's where we're stuck a bit and that's what SpaceX and Blue Origin are competing on right now. And a lot of the heat that is coming down from the administration on delays and we're behind really has to do with the lander and not the rocket itself. So look, I think that's going to heat up because China's making progress and the one thing both sides of the aisle can agree on is the rise of China is a real issue and so I think a rivalry between the US and China is going to drive a lot of this moon activity. But I just like to imagine, imagine sitting on your front porch and you look at the moon and there's lights on the moon and there's lights on the moon because there are humans living and working up there. I just think that would be super cool and inspirational and I think ultimately we're going to get there.
Well, if we move in, where are all the aliens going to go?
They're in the ocean, Kirk. Don't you know that they're in the ocean?
My god. I've been amazed at the alien talk and the spaceship talk and all the stuff going on. It seems like, I don't know, just seems like all of a sudden it's turned up. It was turned off for a while. Now it's turned up. Everyone's talking about it. But yeah, I am curious though because I always find Elon fascinating. He's a fascinating human being. If you think of all the technology he's created and you think of all the technology we would need on Mars, like that's what he's doing, you know, like AI and satellites and the Boring Company and like all these businesses he has. It's like they're all associated with being on the moon. It's amazing to me. So, you know, and he's the biggest proponent. There's some others. Certainly Blue Origin and I'm sure there's some others. Like where does that go? I like competition, but like is it really the kind of space where you can afford to have a hundred companies competing or like what does the future look like?
Yeah, I do think there's going to have to be some consolidation in the industry. So I mean, probably one analogy would be the railroads, right? If you look at the railroad system in the US, you had all these little micro railroads that would connect little spurs of different towns. Everyone kind of working on their patch. And then when you had the intercontinental railroad, right, when that was all joined, then some of those spurs became relevant because they were tied to the intercontinental railroad and others became completely irrelevant. Right? So over time you had a lot of boom and bust. You had a lot of consolidation. You had people who bet on the wrong patch of land if you will. But ultimately everyone knew what the end state was. The end state was that you were going to have coast to coast rail. You were going to have major cities springing up somewhere. But if you were to sit back in whatever it was 1825 and place your bets, you know, it would have been a crapshoot, right? One I'm familiar with because I live in Denver is everyone had bet on Cheyenne, Wyoming because that's where the intercontinental railroad was going. But of course the major city ended up emerging being Denver and not Cheyenne. So I think it's a similar analogy. I think everyone knows where things are trending, but in terms of these little pocket bets and side bets and, you know, what rocket technology is going to be superior to another, what company's going to win, those kinds of things. I think those remain uncertain. I think Elon is very, very formidable because he has the most important asset currently which is reliable, inexpensive, high rate, heavy lift capacity to orbit which that is the limiting factor, that's the steam engine, everything else is derivative of that capability.
Do you think that we are within a reasonable time frame of actually coming up with new technology to get us into space quicker? You know, like you mentioned at the beginning Star Trek and you think of like, you know, we're still using the same technology we used, you know, 75 years ago, or whatever it was. And you know, I hear these murmurs over time of like new energy generation and new tech and all this stuff and it never really surfaces. So I'm wondering like do you see that being in the remote future or is it still kind of Star Trek-esque technology?
I think it's more Star Trek-esque. There are two components of that. One is getting into orbit. The best solution there that would beat chemical rockets would be a space elevator which has been talked about for a hundred years literally. With graphene and other new materials, it's feasible. It's just too expensive. So it would be a huge capital outlay. But if you had a space elevator, that could be more economical than chemical lift rockets. And then the second thing is once you're in orbit, going to a place like Mars faster, right, which really the only technology that makes sense there would be nuclear. Chemical rockets are terribly inefficient. So I think, you know, medium-term, 20, 25 years, 30 years, I think we would be going to deep space with nuclear. Just to give you an idea, Kirk, of how inefficient chemical rockets are, the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, if you were to take a spacecraft the size of the space shuttle and use chemical propulsion and you gave yourself a thousand years to get there, the amount of fuel it would take to get to Alpha Centauri in a thousand years would be more mass than the entire universe. Okay, that's how inefficient chemical rockets are. So the point is if you're talking about interstellar travel, chemical rockets are not possible unless you are going to take a hundred thousand years to get there. And the question is where are you going to get the fuel from? Now I think Elon's got the right strategy for Mars today because nuclear is not a thing yet. But I think 25, 30, 40 years out, it's hard for me to imagine we'll be going to deep space with chemical rockets.
What is the time frame you think before we head to Mars?
Well, I think Elon's very set on trying to get the, you know, there's a window every 20 months as you may know that you can get to Mars because it's where the orbits line up. I think he's very intent on getting a Starship on a trajectory in that next window. It won't have humans on it. Maybe it'll have an Optimus robot on it or something. But in terms of humans, if you roll forward on the various windows, I think the next one is 2026, then 2028, 2030. My guess is 2030 would be the first window we send humans there. That's probably optimistic compared to most people. Most people would probably say 2034, but my best guess is 2030.
What about the moon? What do you think the time frame is before we start sending people there?
