Fireside Chat with Megan Beets, September 1, 2016

September 1, 2016

Fireside Chat with Megan Beet, September 1, 2016

Join us at 9pm for a Q&A discussion with Megan Beets of our Science Research Team on the lunar far side. What is it?! Why is the far side of the Moon so different from the near side? What will China do there? And why is this so important for humanity's future? Visit our Space Page for background and graphics:

Ask a question!


RACHEL BRINKLEY:  We can get an introduction from Megan, and I will start the question and answer now.  Megan are you ready to start?

MEGAN BEETS:  Yes.  I want to start by asking everybody on the phone here and listening over the internet, imagine something.  I want you to imagine that it's not late summer of 2016, but imagine that it's late summer of 1986, thirty years ago, and you have just received the news that Expedition Ares, NASA's first manned mission to Mars, has successfully landed. And that means that the first human being ever, is about to take her first step on the surface of the red planet.

Now, imagine what that would have mean, about the 15 or so years prior to 1986, since the 1969 Moon landing.  What that would have meant is that, instead of the cancellation of the Apollo program, instead of the downsizing of NASA and the layoffs, instead of the shutdown of industry, instead of the takeover by Wall Street, instead of all that, we would have, instead, have spent those 17 years expanding our presence on the Moon and in lunar orbit.

We would have just begun to build an orbitting space station around the Moon that would house scientists, engineers, construction workers; we would have established several scientific stations on the surface of the Moon, where scientists could go for temporary periods of time to do astronomical observations, geological work; some of those science stations could be on the far side of the Moon which is where the Apollo 18, 19, and 20 crews would have landed.  We would have just set up the first of what will be many automated mining stations on the Moon to begin to utilize the lunar resources, and we would have regular trips to and from Earth's orbit to lunar orbit.

We also would have sent that Expedition Ares crew to Mars, not on a regular chemical rocket, not on a kind of rocket that took people to the Moon. We would have sent them there on a nuclear rocket, meaning that it took them weeks to get there, rather than months.  Imagine all of that.

But that's not a fantasy:  Those were actually the plans of many of the people inside of NASA and in the space program generally, who actually were the ones to take the leadership to put us on the Moon.  That was the outlook of the people coming off of the great achievements of the 1960s.  Now imagine where we would be today, if that had been our history in the 20th century, if the United States had not given up on that path, if we as a nation hadn't given up on what that represents about the nature of mankind.

Now, I  want you to imagine something different:  Imagine it's the late summer of 2007, which is probably  a little bit easier for some of you; so it's late summer of 2007 and you are a young person in China, and China is going to the Moon.  In less than two months, a rocket will leave the launch center in China and take a little satellite and put it in orbit around the Moon, and that satellite's name is Chang'e-1; and that satellite is going to orbit the Moon and send back photographs, scans of the surface, and all sorts of data back to the people on Earth.

Now, that is not a fantasy, either.  That happened.  That is China's very recent history. And since then, not only has China developed a very robust manned space program, putting people into space and building a space station, but China has sent three more robots to the Moon:  They sent another orbitter, and in 2013, in December, China sends the Chang'e-3 lander and its little companion, its rover named Yutu, and they landed on the lunar surface.  This is the first time in 40 years that anyone has landed anything on the lunar surface.

Another one of these little robots was sent from Earth, it swung around the back side of the Moon, and it returned to Earth, again, the first time that man has returned anything to Earth from the Moon in 40 years.  That happened.  Next year, in 2017, China will send their fifth mission to the Moon and this little robot will land on the surface , will sample lunar dust, lunar rocks, lunar materials, will lift off from the surface, and will bring it back to Earth — again, the first time any sample has come back from the Moon in 40 years.

The year after that, in 2018, in two years from now, China will send a little robot that no country has ever done:  And that is, to land on the far side of the Moon, the side of the Moon that never faces Earth, ever; the side of the Moon that never sees the Earth.

Now that side of the Moon, the far side, is really a mystery to us.  It's very, very different from the side that faces Earth, the near side of the Moon, in many different ways, and we don't know  why.  There's something about the process of the Moon that's created this  completely fascinating asymmetry, in the structure of the Moon and in many other features, and we have no idea why.  The far side of the Moon is also an extremely desirable place to be for things like astronomy:  We'll be able to look out at the Solar System and the Galaxy, and other galaxies, and see them from the far side of the Moon, in a way that we cannot see them from Earth.

So by taking this leadership by doing something which is a first, ever, for mankind, China will begin to open up some questions and begin to answer some of the questions and the mysteries that the  far side of the Moon has to tell us.  And Mr. LaRouche has said repeatedly that what China is doing, what they plan to do with the far side of the Moon, that is one of the most important things occurring within humanity today, and people have to focus on that.  China in taking the leadership that they are, to pioneer a new state for mankind, is leading the  cause for mankind to day.

Up to this point, the United States, which once had that kind of identity, has lost it.  We've lost our connection to that. we've lost our identity in that; it's almost like a state of amnesia has come over the people of the United States, and we forgot what it is to be human.  We forgot that mankind is actually a species of perpetual progress.

So that's really the mission and that's where we have to set our sights as the incredible developments occurring over this weekend and into next week in Asia, especially around the G20 summit taking place.

So I will leave it there and we can go to questions.

Q1:  Hello, Rachel, Megan, this is R—V— calling in from the Minneapolis area.  I'm visiting with a friend, doing some organizing.  Just a couple of days ago we were talking about China's mission to the far side of the Moon, and my friend asked, "what do you mean, the 'far side' of the Moon?  Don't we get to look at the Moon in its entirety every 30 days or so?"  And I guess I wasn't prepared to answer!  I don't quite understand the relationship between the Earth and the Moon that would not allow us to see the other side.

BEETS: Sure.  The Moon and the Earth really aren't separate in that sense:  You're really dealing with an Earth-Moon system. The Moon orbits the Earth every 28 days;  it takes 28 days for the body of the Moon to make one complete orbit around the Earth. There are a couple of things that happen in those 28 days, and one thing that your friend might be thinking about is the phases of the Moon, the fact that the Sun lights up the Moon in different ways over the course of that  28 days, where we go from a new Moon, where the Sun is not lighting up the face at all, and then you have the growth of the Moon until you get a full Moon. But that's not what makes it a near and a far side.

What happens with our Moon, and also with other moons on other planets, is that the gravitational effect of the Earth on the body of the of the Moon, sometimes called the "tidal force" — it's the same thing that produces tides in our oceans — the tidal forces actually pull on the  body of the Moon such that as the Moon is orbitting, the Earth acts on it to twist it in a certain sense, so that it rotates, at the same rate that it's orbitting.  And that may be a little hard to imagine; we actually have a diagram if you go to But what that means is, for every degree of orbit, the Moon rotates 1 degree, and so the same hemisphere of the Moon is always facing the Earth; and the far side is never exposed to the Earth, so it becomes a very interesting place.

Q1: OK, as I was chatting with Mindy Pechenuk last night on the question, and it seemed like I was beginning to come up with the answer to the question by myself.  I still was unclear, but I do understand now.  Thank you very much.

Q2: This is C— from Santa Rosa and what I'd like to know is I don't see that there's going to be an election.  I mean, for example, the two primary candidates are both subject to arrest; and for other reasons, I don't see that we're going to get that far.  Everything is going to shift dramatically, it is shifting dramatically as per Lyn's preliminary statements much faster than this 70 days or so to the election.

So I just don't see the election  happening in ways that people might imagine; and I'm surprised that the Senator today came out endorsing — and this is a secondary question — I mean it's not going to make any difference with what's going on.  Why are people like him saying I'm going to be backing Hillary Clinton?  He should know better than that.

BRINKLEY:  Who said that?

Q2:  The senator today that did the National Press Club is backing Hillary Clinton.

BRINKLEY:  Yeah, I think he said neither option was very good.  Megan did you want to say something?

BEETS:  Yeah, I can say something briefly and then if you want to add to it:  I think you're right in the sense that there's nothing legitimate or genuine about this  election.  And frankly what's going to happen over the next couple of weeks, led by the process in Asia, starting today, we have four crucial summits occurring in Asia which are establishing reality, completely outside of the power of Obama or the British to do anything about it.  Obama is going to attend the ASEAN and East Asia Summit which will occur on Sept. 4-5, in Laos, and he's there supposedly pushing the TTP!  As a last gasp effort.  It's not going to work, it's nothing! It's the imagine of  King Canute screaming at the  ocean as the tide surges in.

And the reality is being set by China, by President Xi, by Putin, by the kind of complete shift in principles underlying relationships among nations.  It's not just a  realignment of geopolitics; it's a complete doing away with the so-called principles of the geopolitical system, and the reestablishment of relationships based on a principle which is actually valid! Which is that they have common interests among all mankind for progress!  And  we're going to see that as one of the main topics of the G20, along with the focus on the real problems of the collapse of the financial system of the trans-Atlantic.  We're going to see that as a huge focus of the economic forum in Vladivostok which started today through tomorrow.

And so that's the reality, that's what's going to occur. And in the United States, what is going to matter, is whether we can shift the United States to join that process now, not in November, but now.  That's going to determine what our future looks like.

BRINKLEY:  Yeah, I think it's right to say that Nov. 8 is not going to be the change that matters.  What Megan's going through with this global  process is a helluva lot more important for what's going to happen.

Obama is about to go over to this G20, and is he going to control the thing?  No! He is not controlling  anything politically on the planet any more.  The war situation around Syria has been shifted  by Putin, the global economic paradigm is currently being shifted around the New Silk Road policy,  and these are a helluva lot more important, along with the question of shutting down the FBI operation around 9/11, is way more important historically — this has never been done since the creation of the  FBI. We did not get justice on John F. Kennedy's assassination, but we can get justice now. And that's historical.

So these two controlled puppet candidates are important at this moment.  We can create something  way more important, that's already in motion with the incredible  activity that we're seeing, that we're creating right now.

Q3: [internet]  But I'm going to take a question from the internet and while I'm doing that, I'm going to open up for people to get in the queue, whatever question you have.

The question that came in, about the Chinese Moon mission was, "will they land there, and how long will they stay there?"

BEETS:  The Chinese will land the lander  and rover, which are Chang'e-4, they'll land there at the very end of 2018, possibly very early 2019, and that rover will stay active as long as it can.  The comparable rover of the previous mission in 2013; it actually had a malfunction of its solar panels, but it could be fully operational today and the lander itself is operational today.  So I think it could be operational for a number of years, but obviously that landing is not intended to be the only one for the next 40 years as happened after the U.S. landings.

China actually intends very explicitly that they are pioneering something which will be followed up very quickly by other nations, and that can be seen in the fact that they've offered their satellites to other nations to use; the satellite I'm talking about is a satellite which is going to be stationed behind the Moon.  Remember that I said that on the far side, the far side cannot see the Earth; and the Earth cannot see the far side.  So you can't have direct radio communications between the two; so the Chinese send up a relay satellite to relay communications from the far side to the Earth and back.  And they've offered that satellite to be used by any nation who wants to, in their operations on the far side of the Moon.

Now,  one other thing I can add when we're discussing landing on the Moon.  China has said that they intend to put people on the Moon by 2036; that seems a far way off.  It's dependent on their ongoing development of a rocket which is big enough to  do that, and that timeframe might be moved up between their collaboration with Russia, and hopefully collaboration with the United States.  So China intends to send people there; the European Union  is in discussions with China and Russia and many other international partners about the establishment of a Moon village on the far side of the Moon.  So I think with what China is pioneering, we should see a lot of exciting breakthroughs and a return to this kind of perspective.  But obviously, China will be pioneering the way two years from now.

Q4:  This is R— in Oregon.  I was just wondering whether the term "tidal lock" not really a scientific term, but just a descriptor that doesn't really explain at all why  the Moon only shows this single face to the Earth at all times?

And, I wonder if you know anything about the lunar treaty, or the international Moon treaty, from 1979 I think; is China a signatory, and is that  treaty still valid law? And is it interpreted under admiralty, or what?

And then, I wonder, did the last Chinese Jade Rabbit [Yutu rover] kick the bucket early, or what?

BEETS:  I can start with your second question because I have a quick answer:  I don't know.  The 1970s treaty you're referring to, I don't know the answer to that. We can find that and get the answer to you.

On your first question:  Tidal locking, it maybe comes from a bit of a mechanistic idea of the interactions of the bodies, but there certainly is  an interaction of these bodies;  the Earth and the Moon definitely exert an effect on one another that results from the fact that the Moon is locked it.  Its rotation is modulated by the Earth, which is very interesting.

So, perhaps it's a bit of a mechanistic view, and I think to say something more generally on what you're bringing up with that:  As this imperial system crumbles and as we begin to free ourselves especially in the trans-Atlantic from the scourge of Bertrand Russell, mathematical thinking; deductive thinking, the idea that man's mind can't actually know anything, all we can do is describe the effects of things.  The more we begin to free ourselves from that, the more we'll have the potential for future geniuses to hypothesize principles that we're not even thinking of, that we've blinded ourselves to, that are actually acting on and organizing the structure and processes of solar systems and galaxies.

Maybe that's a more general comment on what you're saying, but I think that it really is  a beautiful that that future generations will be freed from this kind of mental darkness, that we've suffered under and science has suffered under in the 20th century.  And that will certainly be led by the space program.

On the third question on the rover, Yutu, Jade Rabbit, yes, it's powered by solar panels and it operated pretty well for the first couple of weeks, and then it entered it's first lunar night.  And on the Moon nighttime is two weeks long, and daytime is two weeks long, and it went into its first  lunar nighttime and the solar panels didn't quite fold up all the way and the temperature dropped into the negative 200s, and it didn't quite recover from that; you could get a little bit of operation but not fully.  So it did fail earlier than they planned.  But China did consider it a success, because they were able to prove that what they had engineered had worked.  And for the rover on the Chang'e-4 mission, it's not going to be powered by solar panels as far as I could tell — at least not primarily; they plan to have a neutron source to provide electricity to avoid that kind of problem.

Q5: This W— in Denver.  This is a very interesting talk about why we have to see the far side of the Moon.  What I want to add to this, to clarify this question, is to refer to Mercury, because hot Mercury as it goes around the Sun, it's the same situation, because it always keeps the same side facing the Sun because of Mercury's proximity to the Sun, the gravitational pull of the Sun is relatively great, and so, as Mercury revolves around the Sun, the pull is just so great  that the Sun just keeps the same side facing it all the time as it goes around.

But I was wondering about, you know China has a certain plans for different space explorations and projects.  In the past Russia has had joint space projects with the U.S. and with some other countries.  I was  wondering, don't Russia and China have any plans for joint space projects?

BEETS:  Yes, they do.  The details of what that's going to be haven't come out yet, to my knowledge but there have been recent agreements between Russia and China for exactly that, for cooperation in space development.  And interestingly Russia just announced last week that they intend to accelerate their own development of heavy lift rockets — heavy-lift meaning the kind of power of our Saturn V rockets that put the lunar spacecraft up into orbit.  And Russia announced that they're accelerating the timeframe of developing their heavy-lift rocket to seven years from now. So if they make that timeline, it's incredible, and it's something which is appearing as part of the new, invigorated paradigm of cooperation, and could potentially add a lot to the cooperation of Russia and China.

Q6: This is E— from Delaware.  I'm fascinated by the idea of Krafft Ehricke, that if the Creator wanted  mankind to explore the Universe he would have given us a Moon, as a stepping stone perhaps, or whatever.  The thing is, I was also thinking about this idea of why is it  that the Moon always faces the Earth.  Is that because the center of mass of the Moon is on one side of it, or is it just held in equilibrium because nothing is disturbing it?  What would happen if we started spinning it?  I'm just thinking about what are the implications of that, for the future?

BEETS:  Yeah, well, Krafft Ehricke is absolutely the right reference point.  Krafft Ehricke was always thinking deeply about the nature of man, not just a person, but the nature of mankind as a species.  And we are unlike any species on the planet or anywhere else that we know of, because human beings are not animals.  We don't evolve into the future because of biological evolution; it doesn't happen that way.  We evolve because of willful, discontinuous, leaps upward in our powers which are the result of creative discoveries.  And that was Krafft Ehricke's understanding of man, and that led him to the conclusion that mankind was not supposed to stay on Earth; mankind was supposed to expand from the Earth, to begin utilizing the resources in our Solar System.

And he had this really beautiful image of the Earth as a ship which was travelling in the convoy of the Sun. And the Earth was the most luxurious of the passenger liners while the other planets, he compared them to freighters. They carried all of the resources that we might need.  And so his idea is that mankind is actually an  extraterrestrial species; we have an extraterrestrial imperative.

The beautiful think about Krafft Ehricke is that he was a visionary:  And he saw and in the certain sense of that term, he saw into the future what mankind must become.  But he also did the work and laid out the plans or how we might  do that.  And he spent the last decade or more of his life putting together very detailed plans for how we could colonize the Moon, and start to industrialize and utilize the resources of the Moon.

And in terms of the us changing the rotation of the Moon, I don't know, maybe some day.  We probably want to do it with a moon of a different planet; but maybe we could set off a powerful nuclear explosion on a small moon around Jupiter and see what happens to its rotation.  That's a very interesting experiment.

But just having this image of Krafft Ehricke and his insistence that there were no limitations for mankind, is really the right view.

Q7:  [internet]  On that, as a sort of follow-up, someone asked "If there is time, can we go over what helium-3 is, and what it can do on the Earth, and fusion and fission power?"  I think it's the question of creating new resources and what that means to come to the limit of a particular resource.  What are the implications of helium-3?

BEETS:  Sure.  We obviously can't go through all of what fusion and fission are.  Man discovered a new kind of "fire" so to speak, in the image of Promethean fire — man discovered a new kind of fire in the early 20th century which was the result of the work of the Curies, and other people, and Einstein, and that is the "fire" of the atomic nucleus.  And in the beginning of the 20th century we began to exert control over the atomic nucleus. And this nucleus contains orders of magnitude more power than chemical fuels, than wood, than coal and natural gas, certainly than solar and wind.  And so you have your fission fuels, uranium, thorium, and so forth.

You also have work that began in really in the 1930s but more seriously in the 1950s on discovering thermonuclear fusion, which is the bringing together of two nuclei, to create a new, larger nucleus, a new element. And nuclear fusion is even more powerful than fission.

There is continuing work together.  That program has been under extraordinary attack since the 1970s, late '60s and early '70s, the same time we shut down our space program.  But work has still gone on, and it's been determined that using the element of helium-3 as a fuel for fusion would yield even more power than the current fuels that are being experimented with and looked to, which are forms of hydrogen.  Instead, using helium-3 — now helium-3 is a certain form of helium which is a little bit lighter than the usual form of helium, and there's not very much of it on the Earth.  Actually the main source of it is from the deconstruction or take down of nuclear weapons, but there's not very much helium-3 on the Earth at all.

And the reason is that a main source of helium-3 is our Sun, spits out helium-3  in the solar wind and which is blocked out by our atmosphere, our ionosphere. A lot of it is deposited on the Moon.  And in the 1980s, it was realized by a couple of teams of people that the most powerful fuel available to us, would be helium-3 on the Moon, and therefore, that the Moon was actually the most powerful source of energy for mankind within our grasp of the Solar System.  So a lot of people have talked about going to  the Moon to mine helium-3 and bring it back to Earth to power fusion power plants.  We should absolutely do this;  China has discussed this explicitly.  They plan to go there and search for helium-3 and they're doing the work on Earth in their fusion program, which they are funding instead of cutting, to make the necessary breakthroughs for controlled fusion.

So I think it's a great question, and a lot of people have pointed to the fact that if we utilize the helium-3 available to us on the Moon, we are taking the next Promethean leap to a new, higher form of fire, and the powerful available from this is virtually limitless, and would really allow man to do things both quantitatively in terms of power, and qualitatively, in that we could never have done before.

Q8: This is J— from Massachusetts.  I was wondering about the amount of fuel we'd be getting, why we're not going for it right now, already.  But I was wondering about our heavy-lift rocket?  Was that completely cancelled? How far did we get before the Constellation project was cancelled and how long would it take, if we could get some cooperation from our government and get NASA  funded, and start rolling?

I was talking to somebody about it and they said, we're still on the heavy-lift rocket, and I don't know, I haven't heard anything, so I was wondering what the status of  our own?

BEETS:  Yeah, sure.  We don't have a heavy-lift rocket now, we cannot go back to the Moon with people right now.  But there were plans to build on in the early 2000s, the first decade of the 2000, there were plans to bring that back and it was cancelled by Obama.  He shut that down, he said we didn't need to go back to the Moon, because we've been there.

Now, besides the fact that he's evil, but he's also wrong in the sense we've only explored 5% of the surface.  So, if you were to explore 5% of the Earth and say that you know everything about it, you're a fool.

But no, we don't have a heavy lift rocket and NASA is developing one; some of the funding that Obama cut from that program was restored by the Congress, so there is a program to develop what's calls the SLS — Space Launch System which is supposed to eventually come to build a heavy lift rocket.

So, yeah, the capabilities are still there; if we fund it, we could absolutely do it; we would just have to have the idea that Kennedy had, of a crash program, that's  absolutely how we should operate with the thing; we should have a crash program, we should find all these people in the United States who know how to build that, we should employ them; we should start employing young people in these industries and training them and getting them oriented towards no only having these kinds of skills and increasing their productivity as people, but also giving them a sense of contributing to something in the future.

I think you're right, we absolutely should fund it, it should be accelerated, and it would create a lot of opportunities for greater potential for cooperation with other nations.

Q9:  This is J— from St. Paul, Minnesota.  Just curiosity: You're talking about fission/fusion, and the term "antimatter" has come up infrequently.  Is that something that people are working on, or hypotheses?

And secondly, I was reading something years ago and I never quite got that straight in my own mind, when they talked about either Einstein or LaRouche, or one of those heavy hitters who said "the Universe is finite but unbounded."  So are we talking, for instance, in going from fission/fusion, and antimatter, we're not there just yet; we're looking at a finite situation but if the Universe is unbounded those possibilities exist.  Could you say something on that?

BEETS:  Sure.  On your first question, on matter/antimatter reactions, there has been a very small-scale experimental work here and there over the decade.  There's not any kind of serious attention to it that I know of today.  But yes, fusion is orders of magnitude more powerful than fission; matter/antimatter reactions are orders of magnitude more powerful than fusion, so that's absolutely the direction to head in.

In terms of any serious work, there's nothing I know of, but that's something we could get to work on.

And then, on your second question, yeah, it came from Einstein, from his work on relativity, considering the shape of space of the Universe.  I can't say too much more than that on what Einstein's conception of it was, but in terms of LaRouche's conceptions and the implications of that, what does it mean that the Universe is finite but unbounded?  I think it was about seven or eight years ago, LaRouche said, well, it's better to say that the Universe is infinite but bounded, which is a very closely related idea:  And I think what you want to  think about is the real nature of the human mind. And this is something that people don't spend enough time thinking deeply about:  What is the human mind?  The human mind makes discoveries, and the discoveries that are made by geniuses of these principles, they don't  come from the past, they don't come from deduction.  They come from out of the blue, so to speak.

What is it about the human mind that can actually tap into and bring into existence within the mind, conceptions which didn't exist before, and these conceptions of the human mind, for example, the discovery of Einstein, for example the discoveries of Johannes Kepler, his notion that the planets are moved by a physical  power of the Sun — these things are formed within the human mind, and yet, they correspond to the actual Universe.

This is not something which comes from the senses.  It does not come from description.  It comes from the same capacity of the human mind that great musical composition comes from. Discovery comes from the same capacity that great poetic ideas come from.  So what is that mind?

And that is what's limitless.  That potential to overturn what the human mind was and could do before, and establish something completely new, a completely new meaning to the human mind, new powers of creativity that surpass what came before: That's what's unbounded in Einstein's sense, or infinite in LaRouche's sense.

Q10:  Hi, I'm C— , and they've been showing lately a lot of failures by the SpaceX program.  There was one satellite that just blew to smithereens that was supposed to connect with all the internet companies together via satellite; and there was one that was supposed to connect and bring in a lot of customers from different countries including Africa and places that had no internet access. And it just seems that it's been blowing up a lot.  They said that  they've had numerous failures;  what do you think of that.  Is that because somebody  — is it just part of growing pains or is there a real sabotage going on?

BEETS:  Well, I think there's a whole move to say that the private sector is going to take over and get us into space is the problem.  That's insane.  It never should have happened.  Maybe at some point, very far into the future the private sector can start taking over certain things but I mean the point is that the private sector can't do this.  And that's the problem you've got with the explosion of the Columbia space shuttle back in 2003, it was outsourcing, it was lack of oversight and cost-cutting and that led to death.  And yeah, what we're seeing with the explosions so far, luckily, these satellite launches are cargo launches, with different private space companies really shows you the problem.

And it's part of the lie that was told to the American and is touted with a certain grimace from a lot of people within NASA.  Although some people have really swallowed the Koolaid on this the lie that "we're going to make a big revolution and we're going to have the private sector and all of their innovative thinking, they're going to do it, they can do it so much better than government."  Well, that's not true!

And you look at how NASA really operated throughout the Apollo program, it wasn't all government run, so to speak, Grumman, Northrop, Lockheed¸ all of these companies were contracted to do this and that absolutely created a generation of brilliant, brilliant thinkers and engineers within the population. But this idea of commercial space just has to be completely shut down and if it's reconsidered, it's reconsidered from the standpoint of a fully restored space program.

Q11:  I'm S— from the Houston area.  I was wondering, after mining helium-3 from the Moon, and after mining a considerable amount, would that start to have any effects on the tides and rotations or anything of the Moon?  Or would it have any effects on Earth?

BEETS:  No, the biggest effects it'll have on Earth are the great fusion power it will bring us.  Helium is an extremely light element, so the amounts — first of all, there are a lot of things we don't know.  We don't know exactly how much is up there.  But the amount that we would remove from the Moon would do almost nothing relatively speaking to change its mass in any significant way that would affect its orbit.  But think instead of what we are actually doing:  We're taking the Moon and we're transforming it into an incredible power for the development of mankind on Earth but also the development of mankind in other parts of the Solar System and on the Moon itself.  And that is what Vernadsky would call the noogenic migration of atoms; the process of man transforming matter through his creativity into something completely  new and something more powerful than it was before,  that's the role that we would be giving that helium-3 on the Moon.

Q11:  Is it just on the surface or is it something that kind of combines with whatever the Moon's made of and it goes beneath the first layer? Or is it just something that's on the surface.

BEETS: We don't know, and that's the exciting thing, we're going to find out.  We know that it's on the surface.  We know that it does get trapped in the lunar soil, the pores of the lunar soil.  We know it gets trapped there.  And we're going to have to do some work to figure out — there's just a lot we don't know about the lower parts of the Moon.  And actually one exciting thing about the Chinese mission is that they're going to land in a very interesting place on the Moon with their far side mission:  They're going to land near the South Pole of the Moon in a huge impact basin.

And that impact basin is the result of a very old asteroid or some kind of impact on the Moon, which exposed layers of the Moon which go very, very, very deep,  — deep into the crust of the Moon and possibly exposing parts of the material from the mantle.  So we're going to get a chance with this far side mission to begin exploring those kinds of deeper parts of the Moon and probably being very surprised by what we find there.

Q12:  Good evening.  This is E— from Chicago.  And I'm listening to the discussion in terms of the space program and how it was government sponsored in the United States originally and now China has taken it up as a government program, and then in the United States our space program has been shut down, and/or privatized.  But the point is, is that you're making is that private companies cannot do what government can do.  And that brings to mind Abraham Lincoln  and his transcontinental railroad project, where at the end of the day, then you had private individuals come in and take advantage of the technology that had been developed out of that project, but they took control but not in the interest of the general welfare but for their personal greed and selfishness, in terms of trying to gain power.

And so I think that's what we're dealing with today in a different kind of way.  But the point is, the government, United States sponsored scientific and technological progress, and then the privateers came in and took over again.

BEETS:  Yeah.  I mean, think about the time periods you're referencing, Lincoln and his commitment to the transcontinental railroad, which was funded by greenbacks and built by private companies; and Kennedy with the space program, which was funded with credit and was built by people and NASA and in private companies.

But think about these two periods that you're describing: What happened?  Lincoln was assassinated by the British —

Q12:  Uh-oh!

BEETS:  JFK was assassinated by the British!  Right?  So what you're describing is not some kind of natural process — government sponsors it and then private people get the power and....  You're talking about in both those cases the intervention of an imperial system to shut down what was actually a natural process, which is man utilizing a credit system, the system of Alexander Hamilton, to bring something into existence, to fund and bring something into existence which is more powerful, and was freeing mankind. And the British intervened on that.  And that's why they're so angry about what China's doing today.  That's they're spreading so much propaganda and trying to start wars, because you have China actually using the model of the United States, in our better times, to fund these kinds of endeavors, that are freeing mankind from slavery!

Q13:  K— from  Austin, Texas.  It's my understanding that we did not have the resources or the money to continue with NASA. If we don't it's partly because of Congress not funding the it. If we don't do that, we're never going to get any further in exploration or development, to the Moon or anywhere else in space. Because it's very expensive to do this, and all those people that were in NASA, they're either retired or have died. We haven't got anybody to replace those engineers that were developing those things.

I want to know why we can't start this up again, but it costs a lot of money, and  we have lots of problems in the country that need to be developed here.  And you think about China spending all that money to do that, they don't care about the people and the social problems and all the other things that have gone on in the history of China;  same thing with Japan and other countries. So where do we draw the line as to whether we develop things for future generations, if we don't take care of the  people in this country?  That's my question.

BEETS: Well, we can, and you ask why we can't bring the space program back — we can.  And the way we do it is, we cancel Wall Street and we fire Obama.  That's how we do it. [caller laughs] You need the money for NASA?  You cancel Wall Street. You know, why have we gone along with the idea that there are trillions of dollars for the Wall Street criminals and yet people scream — not that they scream because people object, but people get demoralized and say, "well I guess we don't have any money for our space program."  But you know, cancel Wall Street: Put them through bankruptcy, reinstate Glass-Steagall.  Get our credit system back!

We had a credit system.  Money has a completely different meaning.  You know: It's really something, I think people who are older than 30 or 40  who might have been alive and have memories of this, but the meaning of money has completely been transformed and degraded over the last 40, 50 years by this Wall Street system.  Money has no inherent value!  There's no lack of  money. Where do we get money?  We make it!  We just make the money we need, but the problem is value.  With the Wall Street system today is the age-old system of empire and they loot.  And there's a limit to how much you can loot, and kill and suck the blood of the population.  And that system actually destroyed the current value, the current physical wealth and value, but more importantly it destroyed the potential for the creation of future value.

The space program did the opposite.  The investment into the bringing into being of new discoveries, breakthroughs in principle, which tell us that the Universe is different than we thought  and these principles lead to new powers, new capabilities of machining, exponential growth in the productive powers of our workforce, that creates wealth.  That's the meaning of money, it's the potential of the human mind to make these breakthroughs.  The space program is anti-entropic.

And China recognizes that.  And just quickly, China  — people have I think what's a little bit of an outdated idea of China.  And the current and recent administrations in China has actually made a complete 180 in its vision to change the policy of China.  And what we've seen over the past couple of decades is that  China has actually brought 600 million of their people out of poverty! And the idea of China today is to actually finish the job by creating more high-tech urban areas,  high industry, high skilled urban areas to  connect these with tens of thousands of miles of high speed rail.  You know, you talk about a government that cares about its people, China has built over 10,000 miles of high speed rail in the past decade — and we've built none.  So China really is different than most people may have been told, or may remember from times past, and they really have surpassed all other countries in the world in this respect.

Q14:  [internet] We have a question from the internet which I think is a flanking question, but I will bring it up.  This is L—.  She says, "what can we as citizens of the United States do in order to get rid of Obama?  If I knew, you can get I would spread the word among many, because I am concerned with what has been happening since Obama took office, and I know many others who feel the same way I do."

BEETS:  Well, Rachel, you're welcome to pipe in on this, too.  But we just have to do it!  There's nothing standing in the way at  this point, we have to throw him out, we have to insist on throwing him out and not let these FBI operations that that intend to demoralize people, stop people from actually demanding this.  And the candidates are a great example of operations to demoralize the American people.

But I think in terms of the next few weeks of what people have to do toward that goal is exactly what we were talking about earlier in the call, which is, that we have to get the United States to pass Glass-Steagall.  We have to actually step up to what's being offered and organized by China, to put an end to the imperial system. And I think the other part of that flank, along with Glass-Steagall is what's in the process of being exposed around 9/11: The Saudi role in 9/11 and the Obama administration cover-up for the Saudi murder of thousands of American people. And I think we have a great potential with the Congress coming back into session, and with this financial system crumbling, to make an immediate revolution in the United States around that, in the next couple of weeks.

BRINKLEY:  And the discussion we're having today is part of it, because citizens have through these FBI operations and definitely the election is a big one, people have lost their sense of being able to do anything.  And as Senator Graham made that point in the press conference, that really, a republic is about the citizens:  This form of government centers on the citizens, not on a form of oligarchy.

LaRouche, as I mentioned his comments at the beginning said we're getting to the point where Congress is being forced to address the needs of the citizens.  What's happening in the economy?  Everything.  So yeah, I think Megan's right, we have to do it.  The situation is completely open for us to make this happen.

Q15:  My name is J— from update New York.  You people present a wonderful program for this United States and the world. My question is that in the early '80s, I was told that fusion reactions are a very powerful and efficient reaction, but the problem was how to stop the reaction.  Is there any more science that's been done on that?

BEETS:  Funny enough the problem with fusion is actually the opposite:  It's how to keep it going.  Fission, you do have the potential for runaway reactions for what has led to a meltdown in the past; although the most modern fission power plant by design, the pebble bed designs and others, it's impossible.

But in terms of fusion the difficulty is actually keeping the reactions going.  I don't want to get too technical with it, but with one form of fusion works, you're dealing with plasmas, with trying to contain plasmas which are gases at  temperatures of hundreds of thousands and millions of degrees, where no physical material can contain that gas.  So you have to use magnets, and there are lot of different ideas about how you can use these magnets; but the plasmas become very unstable and the temperatures drop or different things cause instabilities which cause the fusion reaction to stop.

And is some very, very interesting work that was going on in the 1970s and '80s.  Smaller scale work, but looking at how to use the natural tendencies of plasmas to  the advantage of fusion reactions, to try to lure the natural geometries of the plasmas. Unfortunately most of the funding for that was cut.

So anyway, yeah; it's a field that our organization was involved very deeply in  in the 1980s with the Fusion Energy Foundation, pulling a lot of the brightest scientists around us with that.  And actually I would say that the most work that's being done today on fusion is being done in China.  That's where the biggest funding is for fusion, so maybe we'll see something interesting coming out of there.

Q16:  [internet]  There's one other question from the internet about the craters on the Moon, "that are so deep they get no exposure to sunlight.  What's the deal with that?"

BEETS:  Yeah, these  are some very interesting features on our Moon which are what the questioner described:  Craters where the deeper part of the crater has never been exposed to sunlight and these are craters which are near poles.  Which means that they are maintained at very, very low temperatures.  We don't know what kinds of materials are in there; we think that it's possible that gases and materials that go back billions of years to the formation of the Moon could be trapped in there because there's been no evaporation.  So it's a place of very tantalizing place to go and study the Moon.

But that question just brings up the whole issue that, the Moon is so close, it's a quarter of a million miles away, it's so close, and yet, we know almost nothing about it.  and we need to study the Moon, not from the standpoint of sitting here on Earth and studying the Moon, and saying "oh, great, we know that."  But we have to study the Moon from the standpoint of letting our activity on the Moon actually change mankind.  Letting these questions and challenges to the way we think the Universe works, and letting the challenges to our own powers in terms of what we can achieve and make happen. Let that transform mankind, and turn us into a species of a higher power.  And I think once we actually take that on, in the way that China's taking it on, as an international effort, I think, 30, 40, 50 years from now we will be a very different species than we are today, and that's something we can be completely optimistic about.

Q17:  Good evening, this is J— from Michigan.  And this has been the most excellent discussion I've heard in a long time on the Fireside Chat.  Since you've covered about all the thoughts that I had, I just want to give you a statement, and I hope you pass this along to people like Walter Jones.  I feel like with the releasing of the 28 pages and hearing that there's still been a lot of lines redacted in it, I feel like the Congress, Walter Jones  and others should step forward and read it unredacted into the Congressional Record, like was done with the Pentagon Papers. What's your take?

BEETS:  Yes, absolutely.  That should absolutely happen, and as Bob Graham said in that press conference, the release of the 28 pages shouldn't be seen as a finality but should be seen as the uncorking of a bottle.  And we need to make sure that that bottle is aired and that the truth comes out.  So, absolutely.

Q18:  This is just a follow-up from R—, maybe you already covered it:  Is there an experimental model or a number of models that China's offered to the public for what the far side probe is going to be doing?  Is it going to be working as an astronomical observatory or is it all for surface exploration?  And if it's all for surface exploration, why does it matter that it's protected from radio noise?

BEETS:  Great question, yes, great questions.  Yes, they have released a certain amount on that.  I already talked about the satellite; one other feature of the satellite is that it will have an antenna for radio astronomy.  And we talked about the far side being blocked from radio communications from the Earth; which means that the far side of the Moon is very dark.  If your eyes could see only radio waves the far side of the Moon would be completely dark, looking out from there.  It means we can see the Universe in wavelengths that we cannot see from Earth. So we can start to look at galactic formations, we can start to look at the Sun, we can look at the planets in our Solar System, parts of our own Galaxy in wavelengths that we've never seen before.  And this could, and very likely will show us that these things are going through processes that we had no idea of before, because we couldn't see it.

So the satellite will have a very low frequency antenna.

And then, let's talk about the lander and the rover.  The lander will be doing radio astronomy; it will also have a low frequency antenna.  It will be studying the structure of the lunar dust, the soil. It will also be studying the interaction of the Moon's environment with the plasmasphere of the Sun.  So how do the Moon and the Sun, and also the Earth's magnetosphere, how do these things interact?  And it will be studying the seismic activity on the Moon.

And then the rover will have a camera so it can take pictures and look around.  It'll have radar, so it can look 100 meters below the surface; it will have an instrument to study the mineral composition of rocks and soil and it will also have a low-frequency radiowave antenna to do astronomy.  And there are two more instruments that have not been announced yet, because they're going to be selected by public competition.

So the Chinese are definitely squeezing as much as they can onto this mission, and some of these instruments have been contributed by agencies in Europe, the Germans, the Swedes, and the Netherlands have contributed instruments, so it is an international effort.

BRINKLEY:  OK, that is all the questions for now.  Do you have any closing remarks you'd like to make, Megan?

BEETS:  Sure.  Just briefly, the main point is that we are a creative species, there are no limitations.  And we have a completely euphoric opportunity presented to us, and the developments in Asia are really forging a new future for mankind and it's a future which is  unstoppable.  Obama and the British can't stop it.  They can start a world war, and that would certainly delay things....

But this really is a new paradigm for man coming into existence and we in the United States have a lot to offer and especially we in the LaRouche  movement.  We who are around the thinking of Lyndon LaRouche have an indispensable role right now: LaRouche is a genius and his insights into the actual nature of the human mind must play a role in the formation of policy and our own outlook on what we want mankind to become.  And I think that should be the mission of everybody on this call. And if that's your mission you better act right now, to make sure that we win.

BRINKLEY:  Great.  And we have plenty of material people can study on the website, under the policy sections, public discussions; so there's plenty of material for people to study and make themselves part of this new paradigm.

This has been an excellent discussion.  We will continue this next Thursday, and I believe there will also be a New Paradigm show on Wednesday, is that right Megan?

BEETS:  Yes. 4 p.m. Eastern.

BRINKLEY:  So people can tune into that live, and I think they're also taking questions there.  So thank you everybody for participating and we'll see you next week.



Also Relevant