Air Date: April 3, 2026

FULL SHOW

SEGMENTS

Trump Waives Endangered Species Protections


View the page for this story

A panel known as the “God Squad”, consisting mostly of Trump cabinet members, recently voted to exempt the oil and gas industry operating in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act. If courts do not intervene, this decision would waive the standard ESA requirements to protect endangered species including the Rice’s whale, of which there are only a few dozen left. Pat Parenteau, Emeritus Professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School, joins Host Jenni Doering to discuss. (10:43)

Colonizing the Moon


View the page for this story

The astronauts of the Artemis II mission are prospecting for a planned base on the moon, the first lunar expedition since 1972. The crew includes the first woman, the first person of color, and first Canadian to travel to the Moon. John Daniel "Danny" Olivas, an engineer and retired NASA astronaut, speaks with Host Aynsley O’Neill about the mission objectives and challenges, why it faced delays and what sets the Artemis program apart from the Apollo visits to the moon of more than 50 years ago. (22:16)

Artemis II Launch Party


View the page for this story

As the Artemis II launch counted down, folks of all ages gathered excitedly to watch the livestream at the McAuliffe–Shepard Discovery Center in New Hampshire, named for two prominent astronauts from the state. Living on Earth’s Steve Curwood was there and caught up with members of the University of New Hampshire Astronomy Club and others to get their reactions and hear their hopes for the mission and the future of space exploration. (05:53)

A Citizen Science Bioblitz / Aynsley O'Neill


View the page for this story

The City Nature Challenge is an international contest known as a bioblitz: a brief, intensive survey of biological diversity over a set area and time. A few years back Host Aynsley O'Neill met up with the Boston BioBlitz Initiative for Girls during a trip to Thompson Island in Boston Harbor, where a group of teens practiced their observational skills for the competition. And anyone can participate in this year’s bioblitz. (06:58)

Show Credits and Funders

Show Transcript

HOSTS: Jenni Doering, Aynsley O’Neill

GUESTS: Pat Parenteau, Danny Olivas

REPORTERS: Steve Curwood

[THEME]

O’NEILL: From PRX – this is Living on Earth.

[THEME]

O’NEILL: I’m Aynsley O’Neill

DOERING: And I’m Jenni Doering. Invoking “national security”, the “God Squad” waives endangered species protections in the Gulf of Mexico.

PARENTEAU: These are all species that require protection of the Endangered Species Act to survive and recover. Trump could actually be the first president in history to be responsible for the extinction of a marine mammal.

O’NEILL: Also, the Artemis II mission is a key step towards sending humans back to the moon, for good.

OLIVAS: So, this is just I think kind of the more comprehensive story that was lacking in Apollo, and I think will inspire generations to come of people looking up into the heavens, knowing that we are an exploratory species on this planet.

O’NEILL: We’ll have that and more, this week on Living on Earth. Stick around!

Back to top

[NEWSBREAK MUSIC: Boards Of Canada “Zoetrope” from “In A Beautiful Place Out In The Country” (Warp Records 2000)]

[THEME]

Trump Waives Endangered Species Protections

O’NEILL: From PRX and the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios at the University of Massachusetts Boston, this is Living on Earth. I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

DOERING: And I’m Jenni Doering. On March 31st, a panel known as the “God Squad”, consisting mostly of Trump cabinet members, voted to exempt the oil and gas industry operating in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act or ESA. The Endangered Species Committee was established by Congress decades ago to evaluate cases where the ESA could pose a threat to the national interest or security. If courts do not intervene, this most recent decision would waive the standard ESA requirements for the oil and gas industry to take steps to protect the endangered species living in the area. One of them is the critically endangered Rice’s whale, of which there are only a few dozen left. With me now to discuss is Pat Parenteau, Emeritus Professor and Senior Fellow for Climate Policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Welcome back to Living on Earth!

PARENTEAU: Thanks a lot, Jenni. Pleasure to be with you.

DOERING: So Pat, what exactly is this "God Squad", as it’s nicknamed?

PARENTEAU: Yeah, so this is a cabinet level committee, and it was created in 1978 after the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee Valley Authority versus Hill, the infamous snail darter case in which the supreme court basically said only Congress can decide how to deal with a situation where the Endangered Species Act is causing a matter of national interest to be blocked. So that’s where the term "God Squad" comes from, because the committee does have the power to waive the requirements of the ESA all the way to the point of allowing a species to go extinct, but only after there has been every effort expended to avoid that outcome. So the exemption process is the last resort where there’s truly an irreconcilable conflict between a matter of national interest, sometimes national security, and preservation of an endangered species. That’s the background.

DOERING: Gotcha. Okay, so when you say that this is usually part of a long process, this is the measure of last resort. There’s no other options available. Everything else has been exhausted. Pat, I don’t think there’s been much of a process at all when it comes to this most recent use of the "God Squad."

PARENTEAU: There’s been no process at all. None of the steps required in the statute have been met. All that’s happened as a result of the meeting of the Endangered Species Committee, that’s its formal name, is that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared and said there’s a national security problem here. He wasn’t terribly specific. He talked about the fact that there are lawsuits challenging oil and gas development in the Gulf, of which there are, and there will be more, but none of those lawsuits are blocking oil and gas development. None of those lawsuits have resulted in a determination that the Endangered Species Act is actually being violated by anything happening in the Gulf right now. So this idea that you can invoke a national security exemption when there is no threat to national security is not only brand new, it’s ridiculous. And I certainly hope that the courts will agree with me and see it that way, but we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out.

DOERING: What does this decision to exempt oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act really mean?

PARENTEAU: Well, if it was upheld by the courts, it would be a devastating blow to multiple endangered species that are in the Gulf of Mexico. That includes the critically endangered Rice’s whale, of which there are only about 51 in the wild, as well as the sperm whale, two species of endangered sea turtles and the manatee. These are all species that require protection of the Endangered Species Act to survive and recover. Without those protections, the risk of extinction becomes much greater for these species. So that’s the real world consequence of what Trump is trying to do. He could actually be the first president in history to be responsible for the extinction of a marine mammal, the Rice’s whale. The science is saying, If just one breeding female of that population were to be killed as a result of a vessel strike, that could doom the Rice’s whale to extinction. This kind of decision is not only unprecedented, it’s wildly irresponsible, because the mechanisms to avoid jeopardy to these species are common sense things. For example, NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has determined that to avoid jeopardy to the Rice’s whale, boats need to keep a lookout for when whales are in the vicinity, and then slow down so you don’t run over them. So you see this is crazy kind of approach to the law. The law is operating very reasonably, just trying to avoid the worst impacts to these species. And along comes Secretary Hegseth and says, “I don’t care about any of that. I want oil and gas development to proceed without regard to protection of any of these species.”

DOERING: And explain how the Trump administration is using national security to justify this most recent use of the "God Squad."

PARENTEAU: There is a provision in the law for a national security exemption, but the legislative history of the 1978 amendments that created the exemption process makes it clear that that is a very narrow exception, and it is only to be used where there is a direct threat to military readiness and military operations. Hegseth’s finding that he presented to the committee on the 31st is that the supply chain for oil has been interrupted because of the war in Iran and the closure of the Straits of Hormuz. But none of that has anything to do with the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act is not threatening oil supplies in the United States at all. It’s not even slowing down oil and gas development. There’s no outstanding injunction against oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico, none. So I don’t know what Hegseth is talking about.

DOERING: So Pat, what are the broader legal and environmental implications here?

PARENTEAU: If, God forbid, this exemption were upheld by the courts all the way up to perhaps the US Supreme Court, this kind of an exemption could apply in all kinds of circumstances. For example, Trump has also said, we have a timber emergency in the United States, and he’s called upon the Forest Service, which manages 190 million acres of forest land in the country, to use every means at its disposal to increase clear cutting on national forests. If Hegseth were to come along and declare, like he’s just done here with the gulf, that the timber supply is a vital national interest, national security interest, and domestic production of timber needs to proceed expeditiously. Therefore I’m directing or demanding that the Endangered Species committee also grant an exemption for timber harvest. You see what I mean? So you can apply this kind of national security rationale to any kind of natural resource extraction affecting endangered species anywhere in the country.

DOERING: Wow. Pat, can you share a little bit of the backstory about the first "God Squad" convening nearly 50 years ago, and how you helped secure protections for endangered whooping cranes? They’re still endangered, but they’re doing okay. What do you think we can learn from the past when it comes to navigating ESA exemptions?

PARENTEAU: Yeah, it’s not an either or choice. It never is. In the case of the whooping crane, what we were able to do there, we brought a lawsuit. We stopped the construction of a massive coal fired power plant, but then we negotiated an agreement that created a mechanism, it’s now called the Crane Trust on the Platte River in Nebraska, which would work actively to conserve the habitat on the Platte River for the whooping crane and also educate people. Each year, the Crane Trust brings tens of thousands of people to the river to watch the magnificent migration of cranes, Sand Hill cranes, whooping cranes, and millions, literally, of ducks and geese and migratory waterfowl. What I’m getting at here is there’s always an alternative to driving species to extinction, always. It’s a choice we have to make. Are we willing to live with some limitations on resource extraction that’s threatening the survival of these species? Are we willing to live with that, or would we prefer a world in which these species keep going extinct one after another? If it weren’t for the Endangered Species Act, thousands of species would have gone extinct by now. Literally, the science has documented that. It’s a shame, isn’t it, that we don’t have an administration that sees the world that way. Let’s find a way to develop the resources we need without driving species to extinction. We have that ability. We can make that choice, if we will.

DOERING: Pat Parenteau is a former EPA Regional Council and Emeritus Professor at Vermont Law and Graduate school. Thanks so much, Pat, as always.

PARENTEAU: Thanks, Jenni.

Related links:
- Learn more about the Rice’s whale, a species threatened by the latest exemption by the "God Squad".
- Read more about the "God Squad"’s latest decision

Back to top

[MUSIC: Keola Beamer feat. George Winston, “Kalena Kai” on Wooden Boat, by Keola Beamer/arr. George Winston, Dancing Cat Records]

O’NEILL: Coming up, Astronauts are headed back to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years. Keep listening to Living on Earth.

ANNOUNCER: Support for Living on Earth comes from the Waverley Street Foundation, working to cultivate a healing planet with community-led programs for better food, healthy farmlands, and smarter building, energy and businesses.

[CUTAWAY MUSIC: Keola Beamer feat. George Winston, “Kalena Kai” on Wooden Boat, by Keola Beamer/arr. George Winston, Dancing Cat Records]

Colonizing the Moon

DOERING: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Jenni Doering

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill.

[LAUNCH SFX]

[ROCKET HISSING SOUND]

And here we go – 10, 9, 8, 7, RS 25 engines lift – 4, 3, 2, 1… booster ignition – and LIFTOFF! The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity’s next great voyage begins.

[ROCKET SOUND]

O’NEILL: The astronauts of the Artemis II mission are now flying to and from the moon for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. It’s a ten-day mission and its role is to test the Orion spacecraft’s system. There are four astronauts in the crew including the first person of color, as well as the first woman and first Canadian to travel to the moon! The previous mission, Artemis I, was an uncrewed flight in 2022, during which an earlier Orion module orbited the moon for nearly a week, collecting crucial data to help prepare for this recent launch. But Artemis II has had several years of delays, with some of the most major issues involving engineering investigations into the Orion spacecraft support systems, heat shields, and even fuel leaks. John Daniel “Danny” Olivas is an American engineer and a former NASA astronaut. Olivas has flown on two space shuttle missions, and to kick off our conversation, I asked him about the Artemis delays and what needs to happen to actually get a space mission off the ground.

OLIVAS: So a lot of us in the space industry really kind of put personalities on the vehicles that we fly. You know, for example, like all the space shuttles, we refer to them in the female context, you know, Discovery, they’re all like, you know, she’s. They have their own personalities. And sometimes, you know, you wake up in the morning, you’re a little grumpy and, you know, sometimes, you know, rockets, when they get ready to launch off the pad, they’re a little grumpy. And so that’s what we saw earlier this year, when we saw that the valves were not working the way they were supposed to. We had leaks here and there, and so we just had to take her back into the barn and get those things taken care of. And you know, fortunately, everything was good enough for her to fly, and the launch was was spectacular.

O’NEILL: And now Artemis II is the first time we’ve sent humans back into the moon’s space in over 50 years. What are some key differences between our space race of the 60s and 70s and the current state of space flight operations?

OLIVAS: Wow, how much time do we have? [LAUGH] There’s a number of things that make our journey to the moon back in the 1960s and early 70s different from what it is today. First off, is a programmatic and financial thing. NASA gets less than .5% of the US budget, and back then we were getting closer to 5%, and even when you adjust for inflation, the equivalent dollar value of Apollo dollars that were going back in the program back then is equivalent to about $200 and maybe $225 billion today. NASA does with far less than that, somewhere around 16 or 14, depending on how much they get allocated. The technology itself has advanced and evolved. You know, remember, back in the days of Apollo, they were solving equations using slide rules and, you know, basically their noggin and pencil and paper. Now we have, you know, computers and computational technology. We have all sorts of, you know, wonderful instrumentation and sensors. And none of that, by the way, at least for a lunar excursion, has ever been tested and vetted. So it is kind of a brand new game. And then the mission itself, you know, we went to the moon with three astronauts. So we know how to do that. This is going to be a crew of four as part of a much more complex architecture than just trying to land on the equator of the moon. We’re actually ultimately destined for a southern pole landing where we believe that there’s water ice. So it’s essentially flying back to the moon this time to stay, not just to go collect rocks and beat our adversaries to a technological leap into space.

O’NEILL: And how differently do we think about safety in this day and age compared to the last time we went to the moon?

OLIVAS: The last time we went to the moon, you know we did so under the shadow of a horrific accident happened in Apollo I, and there were some lessons learned there, but as time wore on and we became much more comfortable and mature in the space program, specifically the Space Shuttle Program, we saw what happened when we let our guard down. Challenger was a perfect example, and so was Colombia. Artemis is elevated by the astronauts who paved the way before through the hard lessons, and those lessons have not been forgotten. Safety is front of mind for the entire mission. And I like to say that the crew’s job is to take care of the mission, but the ground’s job is to take care of the crew. And you know, so long as everybody remembers that in that priority, then we’re going to be good to go. There’s been a lot of increases in our understanding, in our capability. Systems are far more robust and mature, but still, you know, this is the first time, as you said, we haven’t done this in 50 years, 50 plus years. So now you know this is going to be your first time to do it all over again, and there’ll be a lot of lessons that will be learned, and we’ll do everything we can to take care of the crew and ensure that they get the support they need to be able to complete the mission.

O’NEILL: I think a lot of us lay people have some understanding of challenges from launch and landing, but what are some of the challenges that the astronauts may face while they’re up there in space, orbiting the moon?

OLIVAS: Well, your food never stays on your plate for one [LAUGH] no, living and working in space is a challenge, and we’ve come to, I won’t say master it, but we’ve come to really understand it over the course of the past 30 years that we’ve had the International Space Station. We’ve had a human being colony in space on low Earth orbit since the year 2000 and it’s been a phenomenal journey. So you know we’re talking it’ll be 2030 by the time ISS de-orbits. And so doing space and living and working in space is something that we have taught ourselves to do, and I think we do it pretty effectively. So a lot of things happen when you’re up there, especially when you’re doing something like a lunar mission, where you’ve never done that before. So there are systems that are designed to handle the lunar trajectory and the lunar profile, and those are all brand new pieces of equipment. So the mundane things that we don’t necessarily think about, like getting water from the galley, you know, cooking in your food, even using the toilet, these kinds of things, as trivial as they might seem, I mean, that’s part of the human experience and you have to get that right, otherwise you can end up with just a really, really miserable flight. Then there’s the more tactical things that actually carry out the mission, such as, you know, firing thrusters and communicating with the earth and rendezvousing with vehicles. I mean, all these kinds of things need to be tested out and the only way you’re ever going to get that is by having a human in the loop who can introduce the things that humans do naturally. That is, there’s no computer software, there’s no modeling, there’s no algorithm, even AI can’t get it right. You have to have a belly button in the loop, you know, flipping the switch and pulling the lever.

O’NEILL: And now you, of course, are not just an astronaut, but also an engineer, and you were involved in an independent review team for the Artemis heat shield. What were some of the concerns with that heat shield, and how were those concerns rectified?

OLIVAS: Yeah, so the heat shield, when it was originally designed, it’s actually the material is very similar. It’s actually almost identical to what was used in the Apollo era. In fact, we, as a country, we have been the only country on the planet to actually bring people, human beings, back from lunar orbit, which is a pretty phenomenal thing, but in doing so, you have to dissipate all the energy that it takes to get there, and that means you’re coming in really hot and fast, somewhere in the order of 25,000 miles an hour, and it exposes the spacecraft to a lot of heat as you enter the atmosphere. So this material can exceed, temperatures can exceed 5000 degrees Fahrenheit exterior. And normally a heat shield is supposed to ablate, you know, think of it here as kind of like it wears away because of the heat. So it’s a nice gradual event that occurs. When we flew Artemis I we designed this heat shield with this AVCOAT, which slightly changed the manufacturing process, slightly changed the design, and in doing so, we introduced some variability that caused the heat shield not to wear away, but in fact, it actually cracked, and pieces started flying off, and that’s a bad thing. NASA doesn’t want that, NASA didn’t plan for that, so it really, it was a surprise to everybody. Over the course of a couple of years you know, NASA conducted a very thorough investigation trying to understand the nature of the cracking of the heat shield, to understand why it happened, what the root cause was and then what they could do to mitigate the effects of cracking the heat shield. And then also, in the process, they discovered how to make it so it doesn’t crack in the future. Now, for Artemis II, they bounded the problem and were able to fly with the heat shield kind of as is, so that they’re going to still experience the same kind of issues. It’s still going to crack, however, the time that it cracks, and the severity of cracking that could possibly happen will happen later in the entry profile, when a majority of the heat has already been dissipated, so the crew should be able to come home safely without any issues. So there’s lots of supporting evidence to suggest that that’s a very good way to approach this. But for Artemis III, they’re changing the design and changing the material so that the material then goes back to wearing away thermally the way it was designed.

O’NEILL: And now the Artemis II mission is planned for about 10 days, but how long is the actual time spent orbiting the moon and what kind of science are these astronauts performing during that time?

OLIVAS: Well, so from a standpoint of science, think of it as basically the science of exploration. Everything, pretty much that’s on the agenda for the Artemis crew is really focused on trying to run experiments on what it takes human beings to get to and from the moon. As far as orbiting the moon, well, it’s only going to do one lap around it, right? We blast off the planet. Artemis will spend about a day getting into what’s referred to as a high elliptical orbit around Earth, and then use gravity to help that in conjunction with a rocket burn, to do a trans lunar injection. And at that point, it will be on a free trajectory flight to the moon. And then once it actually comes into the gravitational forces of the moon, somewhere on the order of around 20,000 miles or so away from the moon, much more closer to the moon than the Earth. The gravitational tug of the moon will pull it towards the moon, but it’ll miss the moon, because it’ll be going so fast that it’ll pass right by it. And then it’ll pass beyond it, and as the moon passes between Artemis II and the Earth, that gravitational tug will pull the capsule back and towards the moon, and then ultimately it’ll pass the moon on its way back to Earth for free trajectory. So we basically get a, we have Sir Isaac Newton at the helm of the motor for coming back from the moon, basically use gravity. So that’s going to be it. And then it’s going to take about four days to get there, about four days to get back. Figure about a day or so, kind of first, when they first take off. So it’ll be a nine plus day, you know, ten day mission.

O’NEILL: Now, overall, we’re still in the very early stages of the Artemis program. What do you find so exciting or interesting about the missions that are yet to come?

OLIVAS: For me it’s the vision of what lunar exploration could be. You know, back in the days of Apollo, the destination to the moon was the objective, and that was to demonstrate to our adversaries that we had technological prowess and we could actually do something really hard and complex, and we did so, but I don’t know that there was necessarily a grand plan afterwards, that here’s what we’re going to do, a, b, c, x, y, z, and I think that’s one of the reasons why it fell out of favor with Congress and the American public, because there was no evolution from there. We are explorers. We, as human beings, are explorers. We always look over the horizon to see what’s next. And, you know, it’s very tantalizing for us to think about, you know, a journey to Mars but in doing so we know that the journey is perilous. We don’t have the propulsion to be able to do that. It would take us anywhere from seven to nine months to get there. Typical mission duration would be two and a half to three years. So it could be a really long journey. And what better way to test things out, as we’ve discovered on ISS someplace close to home. Well, the moon is a perfect place for that. We know there are resources there. There’s water in the southern pole of the moon that could be mined that would allow us to be able to understand how to do in situ resource allocation and utilization, which is what we’re gonna need to do when we get to Mars, because there are no hardware stores that we can go by lumber and all sorts of things that we want to use to build things. So we learn how to use what’s there, and also try different types of technologies, everything from lunar, well, they refer to them as lunar terrain vehicles or basically moon buggies, new moon buggies. To potentially even nuclear electricity, so using nuclear power to be able to, you know, keep things warm at night. All these are going to be important technologies that ultimately we would need when we go to a destination like Mars, but in the case of the moon, it’s a relatively short trip away, any problems come up, we can get back quickly. Communication with the Earth is relatively quick. If we go to Mars, you know you’re talking about as much as a 20 minute delay between the time that you discover you have a problem and you ask for help, and it’s gonna be another 20 minutes before you get the answer back, right?

O’NEILL: Mm-hm. Yeah.

OLIVAS: So there are lots of issues associated with exploration and then, so this is just, I think, kind of a more comprehensive story that was lacking in Apollo that I think will inspire generations to come of people looking up into the heavens knowing that we are an exploratory species on this planet.

O’NEILL: To what extent do you think that this Artemis program is going to renew a public interest in spaceflight, generally speaking?

OLIVAS: So I mean, I’m Mexican American and I would be lying if I told you that I’m not excited about seeing the diverse nature of this particular crew. You have Victor, who’s, you know, a Black astronaut, and Christina has a female astronaut, you know, Reid’s this wonderful Commander, you got Jeremy, who’s a Canadian. So this tends to cut across a number of different demographic spectrums that we didn’t necessarily see before. It didn’t preclude us from, didn’t preclude me from, you know, becoming an astronaut. I mean, I was a child of the Apollo era, and that didn’t take away my dream for wanting to become an astronaut. But when we see in society the people that reflect that, we can see that they would share some sort of commonality, some sort of connectivity with who we are and our lived experience. It’s exciting to know the kind of generation that this is going to inspire. I mean, we’ve already seen just a tremendous amount of interest, you know, globally about the Artemis missions that we didn’t see necessarily with the Apollo. Apollo is more of a curiosity. Everyone was cheering the US on, but now even the Europeans have stake in the game. You know, the service module is a European contribution to the program, and this is going to provide opportunities for people across the globe to participate in lunar exploration. It’s very exciting, and I’m so thrilled that NASA, when it came time to pick the crew, that this was the crew that was picked, and it wasn’t because of these attributes, but these attributes being part of the crew make it just an absolutely, you know, wonderful crew to be associated with and to know that they’re out there representing us.

[MUSIC: Fred Steiner, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, “Main Title And Closing Theme” on Star Trek, Vol. 1 (Original Television Scores) Varese Sarabande Records]

O’NEILL: We’re speaking with Danny Olivas, engineer and former NASA astronaut. We’ll be right back with more after the break, including the all-hands-on-deck approach to solving problems in space.

OLIVAS: My very first space mission, you know, we had a problem with the thermal protection system and you might think to yourself, well, who's going to solve that problem for a thermal protection system? You may say, well, maybe it's going to be a thermal analyst, or maybe another astronaut, maybe trainers or flight director, flight controllers. The answer is, no, it was actually a medical doctor who solved the problem and came up with a solution.

O’NEILL: Stay tuned to Living on Earth!

ANNOUNCER: Support for Living on Earth comes from the estate of Rosamund Stone Zander - celebrated painter, environmentalist, and author of The Art of Possibility – who inspired others to see the profound interconnectedness of all living things, and to act with courage and creativity on behalf of our planet. Support also comes from Sailors for the Sea and Oceana. Helping boaters race clean, sail green and protect the seas they love. More information @sailorsforthesea.org.

[CUTAWAY MUSIC: Jerry Goldsmith, “Overture” on Star Trek: The Motion Picture – The Director’s Edition (Music from the Motion Picture) Paramount Music]

DOERING: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Jenni Doering.

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill. We’re back now with Danny Olivas, an engineer and retired NASA astronaut who flew on two shuttle missions. His journey to space was an achievement decades in the making.

OLIVAS: When I was seven years old, I went on a family vacation to Houston, Texas, and I grew up in El Paso Texas, even though I was born in California. And I just remember being fascinated by the things I saw in Houston, you know, at the Astrodome, AstroWorld, Gulf of Mexico, it was really phenomenal. But we went to Johnson Space Center and as I said, before being a child of the Apollo era, going through the museum and seeing all the relics of the Apollo era that were still relevant at that time for me, I mean, it had just happened. And so it was then that I was kind of inspired that this is something that I wanted to be part of. I didn't know exactly where or how I was going to be associated with it. You know, I think as a kid, you always, you think of space, you think of astronauts, or you think of spacemen, and so that's the first thing that came to my mind, it stuck. Now, I never really thought that I was going to pursue, like becoming an astronaut, but it always sat in the back of my mind. When I became an engineer, I just kind of came to the conclusion that, hey, one day, these astronauts or these spacemen are going to need someone to work on their rockets and I can do that. You know, I can turn a wrench. And that's how I used my engineering degree to basically focus on space and my passion for space and lo and behold, you know, after maybe almost a decade of trying to get in, my application was finally accepted and nine years later, I flew my first mission. So from the time I put in my first application to the time I flew my first mission was 19 years, so it was with me for a while.

O'NEILL: Gosh, yeah, 19 years is definitely, you had patience, is what I'll tell you.

OLIVAS: Well, so let's be clear, I think more of it is like perseverance.

O'NEILL: Yeah.

OLIVAS: You know you want something, and you just have to continue working hard every single day and never giving up. And it's so easy just to stop, but the second you stop, then you know that you'll never achieve your dream but so long as you continue to work towards it, you know, long as you continue to apply yourself and you're trying to improve yourself, you know you're still in the game. And that's what I love about space. Even though I'm no longer flying as an astronaut, I still take the lessons that I've learned in space and I apply it to everything that I do, and I view every project the way I would as if I was on the moon by myself. It's a science project and I just try to bring that astronaut way of thinking to the work that I do and the people that I work with.

O'NEILL: NASA is at a really, I think, unique position in the public sphere here in the United States. What do you think it is that sort of sets NASA apart in that way?

OLIVAS: I think from my perspective and from my experience, it is NASA as an agency's ability to synthesize diverse thought, the inclusion of diverse thought. You know, time and time again, we've seen the value associated in space exploration through that inclusion of diversity. We saw that ushered in, in the Apollo era, where we saw people of all walks of life fly in space and become inspiration to future generations. And I even say, for example, in even my own mission, you know, on STS 117, my very first space mission. You know, we had a problem with the thermal protection system and you might think to yourself, well, who's going to solve that problem for a thermal protection system? You may say, well, maybe it's going to be a thermal analyst, or maybe another astronaut, maybe trainers or flight director, flight controllers. The answer is, no, it was actually a medical doctor who solved the problem and came up with a solution.

O'NEILL: Oh, wow.

OLIVAS: And the reason I think that that's a wonderful story was that when everyone has a common goal in mind and everyone sits at the table and understands what the problems are they can bring their own unique frame of reference to bear on the solution. You know, I was the one who was actually asked to go outside and fix the space shuttle but, you know, I was happy that Jim Lock, our flight doctor, came up with the solution that he did, was that it was simple, it was elegant, it did the job. You know, I recall the story he told me, and I actually had this really cool photograph, it's kind of the Apollo 13 mission where they throw a bunch of stuff onto a table and say, you know, hey, we got to basically take this square cartridge and fit inside of a round hole, type of an event. And Jim was in the corner, just kind of watching what was going on, him thinking in his world and he said "hey, you know, could you guys use a stapler?" and they turned around and looked at him and said "we don't have staplers on orbit.” He says, "yeah, you do it's in the medical kit". And turns out that they pulled the stapler out, they tried the material, they tried the technique, they developed a repair solution, and a few days later, they read it up to me on orbit, and I went outside and did it and came home with it.

O’NEILL: Wow.

OLIVAS: But that, that experience, you know, all of us kind of pulling together our own skills and expertise to bear on a problem, and being open enough and willing to listen to other people who may not necessarily be the leading expert in x, y, or z, but man, they could have a solution to sitting right there, if we give them an opportunity to bring that forward. And that's what I love about NASA, is that NASA is filled with stories like that, and that's why we've accomplished all the things that we've accomplished. And I think while you look consistently in the federal agencies, NASA is always one of the best places to work, if not the best place to work, because it's a very inclusive environment.

O'NEILL: Daniel Olivas is an engineer and retired NASA astronaut. Danny, thank you so much for taking the time with me today.

OLIVAS: Thank you very much for the invitation.

Related links:
- Learn more about Artemis II
- BBC | “'Absolutely Phenomenal’: Astronauts in Awe of Earth as They Prepare for Next Phase of Moon Mission”
- Learn more about John Daniel “Danny” Olivas
- Follow Danny Olivas on Instagram

Back to top

[MUSIC: David Bowie, “Space Oddity” on David Bowie (aka Space Oddity) [2015 Remaster] Jones/Tintoretto Entertainment Company LLC]

Artemis II Launch Party

DOERING: More than 100 people gathered in front of a big screen at the McAuliffe-Shepard planetarium and Discovery Center in Concord, New Hampshire to see the giant Artemis rocket light up and fly. And Living on Earth’s Steve Curwood was there.

[CROWD SFX]

CURWOOD: As a big digital clock counted down, ripples of anticipation coursed through
this all-age crowd including one six-year-old, who could not stay in his seat. Why was
he here?

SIX-YEAR-OLD: I came tonight because I haven't seen a rocket launch and I really like
space and I've never seen a rocket launch. It'd be cool to see one.

CURWOOD: A man named Sam also paced around:

SAM: It's the core of human beings, to be curious, to want to explore, to get to what's
next, and this is that first step for our next journey. We're going back to the moon, and
we're going to set up a station on the moon, and we will have things going on there
where there will be humans occupying the moon as their residence in the future. And
that's just, you know, this is the first step for it. And I just think that that's so incredibly
exciting.

CURWOOD: The McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center honors two famous New
Hampshire astronauts. Alan Shepard was the first American in space and later the first
to hit a golf ball on the moon. And while he made it home safely, Concord High School
teacher and Astronaut Christa McAuliffe did not. The ill-fated Challenger Shuttle rocket
exploded 73 seconds after liftoff. Both astronauts came from towns presently
represented by Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.

GOODLANDER: This is the most extraordinary moment that we could ask for as
Americans, coming together to celebrate the end of an incredible process that led us to
this night and to all that lies ahead, which is the future, which is innovation, which is
space, and all of the discovery that comes with it.

NASA LIVESTREAM: And here we go. 10, 9…

CROWD CHANTING: … 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1!

[CROWD CHEERS, CLAPS]

GOLUBIEWSKI: It was really amazing to watch. It was an incredible experience. And I've
been waiting to see this my whole life. So being here has been amazing so far. [LAUGHS]

CURWOOD: University of New Hampshire astronomy club member and student Rachel
Golubiewski.

GOLUBIEWSKI: It's like a once in a lifetime experience. We're making history now.

OUHHABI: It's felt unreal, out of this world, really. Our generation has never had
something like this. Older folks all talk about seeing the first moon landing and how
unreal that is, and we finally got something like that. That feeling, that's, I don't know –
rush, that's excitement. It's all so unreal.

CURWOOD: Like Rachel, Ryad Ouhhabi also studies at UNH and is part of the same
Club.

NASA LIVESTREAM: Confirm separation. Main engine…

[CROWD CHEERS]

CURWOOD: I asked another astronomy club member, Liam Pearl, to say what he
thinks the Artemis Moon Mission means.

PEARL: Well, I hope it means that we're going to be able to have a permanent presence
off the earth for good. So, yeah, I hope so. Yeah.

CURWOOD: So what, civilization, humanity is never going back. We'll always be more
than just on the earth?

PEARL: Well, I hope so. I mean, I hope we would go back to Earth, but, like, not
exclusively on the earth, you know, to avoid extinction and all that.

CURWOOD: As the big screen showed the Orion spacecraft going faster and faster to
reach 18,000 miles an hour to get into Earth orbit, Rachel touched on the risks ahead
on the even higher velocity voyage to the moon. The odds are daunting, knowing that
while they took many trips, two of the five operational space shuttles eventually came to
fiery and fatal ends.

GOLUBIEWSKI: I think in some ways it's a bit scary, especially for the people and families
who are involved with this. But at the same time, there is a lot of risk involved in learning
something new, and especially with the past missions, although there have been risks,
we wouldn't have been able to make a lot of the discoveries that we have now because of that. So I mean, I think they've done as much as they can to make sure this is safe, and we're hoping and praying that it will be and yeah, I mean, I guess all we can do is really learn from our mistakes, and hopefully this one will go well.

CURWOOD: And I asked Rachel and the others from the astronomy club including
Matthew Anderson and Joey Arena what they might tell the astronauts right now, if they
could.

ANDERSON: When astronauts are far enough away from Earth and they look back on
it, it's almost spiritual how their perspective shifts. And in the modern day, with all of
what's been going on, I want to know how their modern perspective changes when they
see the earth, how it is now in its entirety, from their little ship going to the moon.

CURWOOD: What would you tell them, if you could?

ARENA: I'd tell them that they're the real life Fantastic Four. And I hope that they get
superpowers out there.

CURWOOD: And you, what would you tell them?

GOLUBIEWSKI: I would tell them that their bravery and courage is so admirable, and a lot
of people are willing to, I don't know, do some things with, you know, the things that
they're passionate about, but nobody is really willing to die for what they're passionate
about. And obviously, we hope that's not the case, but the fact that they're putting their
lives out there, and, you know, really just committing their life to this, I think, is an
incredible quality that we all should have for whatever we're passionate about and
courageous about.

DOERING: UNH astronomy students and others speaking with Living on Earth’s Steve Curwood, from the Artemis II launch party at the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

Related links:
- About the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center
- About US Rep Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)
- More on Christa McAuliffe
- More on Alan Shepard

Back to top

[MUSIC: Tommy James & The Shondells, “Crystal Blue Persuasion” on Crystal Blue Persuasion, released as a single, by Eddie Gray, Tommy James and Mike Vale, originally recorded by Tommy James and the Shondells and composed by Eddie Gray, Tommy James and Mike Vale. It was released as a single in June 1969, Roulette Records]

A Citizen Science Bioblitz

O’NEILL: Last month, we brought you the stories of pioneering female scientists, from Marie Curie to Vera Rubin, Mamie Phipps Clark to Sau Lan Wu. But before any of those women made their names in the scientific world, they were young girls whose interests and passions for science would lead them down their life's path. A few years back, I joined up with a similar group of young, passionate, scientists called the Boston BioBlitz Initiative for Girls. A bioblitz is a citizen science competition where people rush to document nature in their own communities. While the team that collects the most data does get bragging rights for the year, the real winner is the scientific community, which is able to use that data for research. So I caught a ferry out to the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area with this group of teenage girls as they practiced their citizen science skills.

[BOAT RUMBLE]

O’NEILL: It’s an overcast spring day, but our group of girls is still excited to be heading out to explore the island habitat. There are ten of us onboard a small ferry boat, five teenagers from different Boston public schools, and their educators from Zoo New England, Brandeis University, and the National Park Service.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: On the island, the spring thaw and rain mean plenty of mud. Fortunately our guide for the day, Luke Thorson from Thompson Island Outward Bound, has planned ahead.

LUKE: We have some tools that we’re gonna give you that’s gonna help you explore today, help you feel comfortable going out, getting your feet… not wet, but your boots wet.

O’NEILL: This field site on Thompson Island is maintained by the program Outward Bound, and frequently hosts Boston public school students. Luke directs us to a shed where we change into knee-high waders.

LUKE: It is early in the season, so we’re gonna have to do some looking, and get down, and get dirty, and see where things are, meet them where they’re at.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: Luke passes out some field guides and we hit the trail down to the salt marsh.

VOICE #1: What’d you catch?

VOICE #2: It was just a black bug that just, it hopped; it’s not like, a big one.

O’NEILL: As we walk, we spot some bugs and some birds. And we’re hoping to see hermit crabs, oysters, fish maybe. But before we even get to the marsh the girls find something unexpected. Marc Albert from the Park Service, Colleen Hitchcock from Brandeis, and Luke help them identify it.

LUKE: Poop. Coyote poop.

COLLEEN: Scat. Look at that scat, guys.

LUKE: Do you all see that?

MARC: Someone should photograph that!

COLLEEN: Who’s going to iNat that?

VOICE #1: Do you want me to take a picture?

VOICE #2: Yeah, take a picture of it.

COLLEEN: Alright, so remember with iNaturalist, we not only can document things that are alive, we can document things that are dead, and we can document evidence of species. And so, taking a picture of this scat is a great thing to add.

O’NEILL: The girls take a picture and upload it to an online database using an app called iNaturalist where experts will identify whatever’s in the photo.

MARC: And I know this is poop, but it’s mostly hair of animals, so I’m going to touch it with the sticks. I’m just trying to show that there’s bones in here, which’ll make it clear that it’s probably not a dog.

VOICE #1: Coyote?

VOICE #2: Bone in the poopy?

MARC: Bone in the poopy! And look at the photo she was able to take using the magnifying lens.

VOICE #3: Bone in the poopy?

VOICE #2: Bone in the poopy.

VOICE #3: Whoa, there’s a bone in the poopy.

VOICE #4: So you have coyotes on the island?

LUKE: We do.

VOICE #4: That’s so interesting!

LUKE: They appeared here just a few years ago, just a male and female adult that came over, so we have a land bridge that opens up at low tide. So they made their way over, and then they had pups, so they had pups here. And so now we have a family, a grown-up family, that lives somewhere around here. They stay pretty much to themselves.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: When we arrive at the marsh it’s a flurry of activity to get out nets and Petri dishes, and to grab the smartphones and tablets we’ll use to document the species. Within minutes the girls are sifting through water to find plankton, bugs, and perhaps the most hoped-for critter, hermit crabs.

VOICE #1: Oh, a hermit crab! Aah! Success!

VOICE #2: He’s, like, hiding! Should we go do it on iNaturalist?

VOICE #1: Yes.

VOICE #3: We definitely have to iNat that. Yay!

VOICE #2: So cute!

VOICE #4: He’s, like, popping in and out.

VOICE #1: Nice job, Kendra. Okay. Let’s put a little tiny bit of water in there.

VOICE #3: Are you gonna hold it?

VOICE #5: Oh, I can hold it.

VOICE #1: Oh, do any of you want to hold it?

VOICE #3: Definitely should hold it.

VOICE #4: Really tiny!

VOICE #5: Let’s go see how many hermit crabs we can collect and see if we can find the biggest one.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: When we wrap up at the marsh, the sun comes out and we head to the beach to look for native and invasive oysters.

MARC: So we want to go down as low as possible into the low tide area because oysters live underwater basically. They don’t want to be up here where it’s only covered during the high tides. But you can start to see oyster shells already. These are dead oysters, the shells wash up higher. But we ideally want to find some live oysters.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: The oyster data that’s collected from the City Nature Challenge, will help researchers trying to determine the current ratio of native to invasive oysters in this region. The bioblitz team marks off an area and identifies as many oysters as they can find in that space.

VOICE #1: So, one, two, and then three, four, five, six, seven, seven and a half.

MARC: Actually, we found the other species!

VOICE #2: Oh!

MARC: So look at this! So if you open this up, see that purple thumbprint in there?

VOICE #1: Yeah.

MARC: That's an indicator that this is actually the native Eastern oyster.

VOICE #1: Wow, that’s cool!

MARC: And so they very strongly attach to rocks. So that's not surprising that we're seeing this one attached to rocks. But you see, you look inside these other ones, they don't have that same telltale sort of purple thumbprint.

VOICE #1: Wait, so these are the native ones?

MARC: These two are the native ones.

O’NEILL: Eventually, the team finds 26 of the invasive oysters, and just two of the native ones.

[FOOTSTEPS]

O’NEILL: As Thompson Island fades in the distance, I ask the girls what they’ve liked best.

VOICE #1: I think the salt marshes, because that’s when we saw the most life, and it was really fun, like with the boots, and like in the water, and finding all those hermit crabs and everything.

VOICE #2: Well, I also really liked the salt marshes, because we got to, like. I never really paid that close of attention to how much life there was. And I really liked just getting muddy and just exploring.

O’NEILL: And to document the life they’ve seen, the girls log on to iNaturalist. With heads down, huddled around our phones, we must look quite the sight – windswept, muddy, slightly sunburnt, and appreciating nature in our own new-fashioned way.

[BOAT RUMBLE]

O’NEILL: The 2026 City Nature Challenge kicks off with the bioblitz from April 24 through April 27th, so if you're looking to hone your skills beforehand, you can learn more at the Living on Earth website, LOE.org.

Related links:
- The City Nature Challenge
- The iNaturalist website
- Learn more about the Boston BioBlitz Initiative for Girls
- Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center
- Special thanks to the Boston Area City Nature Challenge Steering Committee

Back to top

[MUSIC: Alan Gogoll, “Mulberry Mouse” on Mulberry Mouse 2017, Alan Gogoll]

O’NEILL: Living on Earth is produced by the World Media Foundation. Our crew includes Naomi Arenberg, Paloma Beltran, Sophie Bokor, Swayam Gagneja, Mark Kausch, Mark Seth Lender, Don Lyman, Ashanti Mclean, Nana Mohammed, Sophia Pandelidis, Jake Rego, Andrew Skerritt, Bella Smith, Julia Vaz, El Wilson, and Hedy Yang.

DOERING: Tom Tiger engineered our show. Alison Lirish Dean composed our themes. You can hear us anytime at L-O-E dot org, Apple Podcasts and YouTube Music, and like us please, on our Facebook page, Living on Earth. Find us on Instagram, Threads and BlueSky at living on earth radio. And we always welcome your feedback at comments at loe.org. Steve Curwood is our Executive Producer. I’m Jenni Doering

O’NEILL: And I’m Aynsley O’Neill. Thanks for listening!

ANNOUNCER: Funding for Living on Earth comes from you, our listeners, and from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, in association with its School for the Environment, developing the next generation of environmental leaders. And from the Grantham Foundation for the protection of the environment, supporting strategic communications and collaboration in solving the world’s most pressing environmental problems.

ANNOUNCER 2: PRX.