Welcome! This unit introduces the central principles of phonetic transcription, the development of transcription systems and the principles of the International Phonetic Association. This includes the main notations used for the transcription of present-day English, in particular for received pronunciation and North American English. In the virtual session where, as usual, you can use the question sheet as default guide through the unit, we will discuss the main principles of phonetic transcription, we will look at the notations used for RP and North American English and we'll also deal with the effect of weakening in present-day English. The mastery worksheet is an RP transcription task where you have to listen and transcribe what you hear using our virtual keyboard. With some practice you shouldn't encounter too many problems. One of the practical deepens your transcription capabilities, focusing on the differences between RP and North American English. Quite a lot to do, but all this is important to analyze and transcribe dialectal data. In summary, quite complex, but manageable.


Hey curlfriends, I'm Bianca Renee and you're watching Bianca Renee Today and today I found a new product that probably isn't new at all. It's probably very, very, very, very, very old, but I feel like no one's talking about it. But when I saw it, I was blown away and I'm going to do a first try on impression with you right now.   I feel like I was one of the first people to talk about Dippity-Doo. I went on YouTube and my video was posted six years ago and before that, I was talking about it. And I never saw a video that convinced me to buy it. I only try this because the brand reached out for a brand deal and that's how that happened. And I've kind of been in love with it ever since. It's just like an OG fave. It's usually $5.99 at Marshall's, if you can find it, and it's literally pink and it's just my hair loves it. Like the definition, the volume, the amount of hole is great. Now it's actually funny that I like this gel because right on the front it says light hold. Y'all know I am not a light hold gal. I love strong hold everything, but I don't feel like this is a light hold. Like it gives me like the perfect hold, but I was on Amazon and I found out. I think someone left me a comment because this Dippity-Doo went viral again on TikTok and someone's like, oh, I remember that blue gel back when like my great grandma used it and I was like, blue, when was it blue? So this is the new look. Dippity-Doo power gel, dye-free, alcohol-free, paraben-free, XX-treme, look at that, double X hold. This is 11.8 fluid ounces. This looks like a thing of condition. How much are you? 11.5 fluid ounces. See what packaging can do, it makes you feel like you're getting more. But I was a little nervous because I could not find the ingredients anywhere online because Dippity-Doo's website is just like, I don't even know. Let's just make sure. Water, glycerin, nothing natural in here, which I'm not surprised, it's literally blue, but I don't see any sulfates or silicone. Proudly made in Canada and it says, every style imaginable every day, that's the purpose of Dippity-Doo. The super flex formula, response to your active lifestyle from light to extreme hold, you're bound to find the right level of hold for your styling needs, let's just try it. I feel like I want to put in some leave-in conditioner, but the Dippity-Doo usually doesn't get along with a lot of leave-ins. I don't only want to experiment too much today, I'm going to try it on its own. We'll see how it goes. Oh, before I drive you crazy, I'm going to show you what my shirt says so you just know. It says you can't be petty in heaven, that's today's message of the day and a reminder to myself when I'm feeling petty. Okay, let's apply it. Yo, what if this becomes the next hot thing? What if this is the next thing that we have to fight for when we go to Marshall's? Even though I found that on Amazon. Smells like, smells good, kind of smells like cleaning supplies, like a nice clean home. What do you smell like? Like a perfumish clean smell. Is it actually not blue? Maybe the bottle's blue. This is clear. That's not blue. Okay, here's the consistency.  Look at that. This might be more for like slick down hairstyles, but I'm going to apply it to my whole head. And I have some place to be tonight and I just love experimenting when I have people to see. Okay, glides on really smoothly, it's been shiny already, it's a good sign. It's kind of applying, give me some definition. I think it feels the way the Dippity-Doo feels when I put it in my hair, but it is a more like thicker stickier consistency than the pink bottle. All right, let's write this in. And we're going to scratch the definition, look and promise. Watch this be the next thing. I also like that it's a squeeze bottle because that's just my bottle of choice for any hair product, especially when you've got nails, that way I don't have to like scoop it in there. And I can just put it right on my palm. Should I be nervous that no one's talking about this? I mean no one's talking about the pink bottle either. You could find somebody that was talking about it before me, I guess, but I don't know. All I know is that I put a lot of y'all on, common if you're a fan of the pink one. All right, now let's do a little flip. Has anyone seen this? Well, one, let me know if you've ever tried this, and also let me know if you've seen this in stores. If you're in Canada, let me know if it's at your Walmart as well. But for me, I got it on Amazon. Oh, how much was it? This bottle was $11.50, which is kind of the price of the other tippity-doo on Amazon now, so I'm curious if this is actually $5 somewhere. So let me know how much it costs in Canada if you guys have it, and if you've ever seen it at any other store. It feels like it's supposed to. It's not leaving my hand sticky. Let's just see. I'm gonna let it air dry for a little bit, then I'll come back and diffuse and see if we can add this to our tippity-doo family. Okay, I'm back. Quick wardrobe change. Um, what is this? It's fluffy. There's no hold. I'm so confused. You put two Xs in the name. You said it was so extreme. I can't even spell it correctly, and I put a lot. I'm getting a little bit of crunch here. This is just air drying. As I diffuse, it's just gonna get softer. I don't know when it's talking about it. I'm gonna add some more, cuz come on now. I'm so confused. With two Xs, this should have been stronger than Curl Smith in shower style fixer. Let's see if I can save it. I really gotta stop experimenting before I go out. Let's diffuse. Okay, I'm back. It is now almost 11 p.m. This turned out to be an accidental wear test with this extreme gel. Once I diffuse it, of course, even less hold. But overall, this is where my hair is at the end of the night. I was able to really fluff it out. I think it looks good, but it's not giving me extreme hold. It's not even giving me strong hold, let alone extreme hold. I really wanted this to be even better than my Dippity-Doo Girls with Curls jelly, but I don't know if it is. I kind of want to give it another chance as a refreshed gel tomorrow, but I need my hair to look really, really, really good tomorrow, cuz I'm going to an event, so I might just have to use the OG tomorrow. I mean, it's decent for $11. I don't know if you should run to Amazon. You could do a light speed walk. I wouldn't fly to Canada for it, like I would my Girls with Curls jelly. And this is with me adding more gel before I diffuse, because it wasn't even air drying to a hard or strong hold. What do we think? I just haven't been blown away if my wash goes lately. I'm kind of cute now. I don't know. Let me do a little consistency check for you. This gel, like that made me feel like it was going to be super strong hold, but it's not as sticky as like my got to be, like that is extreme strong hold gel. Whereas jelly, slightly more watery consistency. If I were to compare it to wet line extreme, an actual extreme, like this is, this is won't even drip. This is very, very, very thick, and it smells really good, and you get 32 ounces for like $5. I think I would choose wet line over this new Dippity-Doo, and then something like the African Pride Moisture Miracle, similar to this one. This one has aloe and coconut water. I think I would choose this one over that one as well. So when it comes to affordable gels, Dippity-Doo Girls with Curls jelly is still going to be top tier for me. I think I'd give second place to wet line, then African Pride, and then this Dippity-Doo. But let me know what you guys think. Have you tried this before? Are you interested?  Do you like extreme hold, strong hold, soft hold? Leave all your thoughts below in the comments section, and make sure to follow me on Instagram and TikTok at Ms. Bianca Renee. I'll see you guys next time. Thanks for watching Bianca Renee today.


So we're here at the GOCV, who are you? Hi, so our company developed technology for digitizing objects, spaces and people around us, like capturing them and putting in 3D environment, virtual reality or quantum reality. This is the output, what is this? Yes, this is a room that we captured with mobile device.  This is a website? Yes, and the 3D model is put on the website. This is a vision, for example, this is yellow, so that real estate agents can put 3D models of environments there and instead of photos or just panoramas to provide the user's better immersive feeling of presence. Do you use a Project Tango? Yes, we're actually using a hardware and platform agnostic, but Project Tango is an example of device which has 3D cameras integrated into it. Such devices are going to hit consumer market like next year, for example, Samsung, Intel, Apple, all work in such kind of solution. So people can already buy the development device? Yes, the development device is open for public. And how much it costs? Right now it costs $500. But soon it will be like normal tablets or even phones? Yes, exactly. Very soon. Okay, so most likely next year it won't be a special hardware, special tablet. It will be in Samsung. It will be, yeah, consumer device like next Samsung Galaxy S7 which you just take out of your pocket and here is your scanner. iPhone 7, maybe. iPhone 7, yeah, why not. By the way, Exit Apple acquired the company behind all this technology and 3D cameras like two years ago, so they're definitely working on this. Nice. And so what is your technology? Because when you buy a Project Tango, this kind of stuff is not built in, what do you do? Okay, so we do technology that allows you to capture high quality 3D models using such mobile devices with 3D cameras. And such 3D models, they are self-contained. They can be used for different purposes, for visualization on the web, for example for real estate or for insurance or for renovation and design. Also, you know, on consumer level such things as gaming industry. It can be VR? Yeah, it can be viewed in VR. So is that based on an app that goes in there? Yeah, so we use some third party service for that, but we can upload our model to that service so that we can then later view it in VR. So yeah, have a fully immersive feeling. So this is really the future of real estate.  Yeah, sure. That's how it works? And then it becomes a 3D model? Yeah, it's not a kind of a few seconds in a matter of a few minutes, but you know, it's still faster than with existing solutions on the market. It's cheaper, it's faster and it's easier because you don't need any special hardware. You just take your phone and you walk around for a few minutes. And you don't shake too much?  Yeah, yeah, so you walk around as if you were shooting video and then you get a high quality 3D model. Yeah, so close to real time. What are you doing here to take crunch disrupt? Okay, so we are here for three days looking for building relationships with big companies which are also pushing this topic and also trying to speak to communicate to people because our main goal right now is to find our product market fit. We see lots of opportunities and possible applications. Are you the only startup here with Project Tango stuff? Do you see any other? Well, never say never, I'm not sure, but I haven't seen others. But because it has to be the future of Android, Project Tango stuff is really awesome. Yeah, sure. So there needs to be a lot of applications, a lot of products to use it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and we really believe that this is future and Project Tango and platforms like this from other developers, other huge companies. Where are you based? Well, we came from Moscow, Russia and our R&D office is there which allows us to hire very talented people, talented engineers with less salaries than it would be in Silicon Valley. But we are now moving our business activity here to US. Currently we are part of Rottenbeck Benches river acceleration program which takes part here in San Francisco. So we'll be here about the end of the year and we're going to open office either here or in New York where I haven't decided on location yet.


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the MC Markets non-farm payrolls report on Pride 86 of May. With me, Michael Hueson, thank you for tuning in before I get started. Just doing some risk warnings just to make sure that you understand that I'm not giving you directional trading advice, I'm just giving you an indication of what the markets are likely to do, where the key chart points are. I cannot be specific about individual decisions to buy and sell when it comes to trying to dissect the nature of the data that is about to be released. So without further ado, let's get started. So today's payrolls report, it's probably not as important now than perhaps it would have been, say for example, a week ago because we've got a clearer idea of what the Federal Reserve is likely to do in the coming months when it comes to rate rises. Going back to the events on Wednesday evening, when the Federal Reserve took the decision to hike interest rates by 50 basis points, I think there was a widespread acknowledgement or a little bit of relief perhaps that Chair Powell took the 75 basis point option off the table and we saw a really strong rebound in the NASDAQ and US markets more generally. Obviously that particular rally didn't pass the SNF test because this Thursday candle here saw us completely reverse those gains. Now we're sitting on a very, very key support level on the NASDAQ 100, which I've drawn in through these lows through here. So basically from the lows back on the 2nd of February 2021, we saw a little bit of a brief push down below there in March 2021 before resuming the uptrend, but since the end of December, we've been in a slow decline, we've been making lower lows and we've been making lower highs. Now obviously Thursday's move, lower, slightly, we are probably likely to have a retest of this key support level. But I think in the context of this particular chart, I'll be paying particular attention not so much to what we're seeing on the NASDAQ, but what we're going to be seeing on the S&P 500. And it's notable that we've got similar sorts of support levels, 4,100. Now I was doing an interview with Bloomberg Radio on Thursday morning, yesterday morning and they asked me about whether or not we could potentially see new lows for this year. And I was in two minds about it, simply on the basis of the fact they asked me when the market was up here. And I basically said, as long as we hold above 4,100 on the S&P and we hold above the key support on the NASDAQ, then yes, however, if we break these lows here, and it's important the last time that we did that on the S&P 500, we actually closed pretty much above or pretty much closed where we opened. So there is, does appear to be demand down there at these sorts of lows. The bigger question is, if we go down there again in the aftermath of today's payrolls report, will we rebound in the same way that we did a few days ago? And that is not immediately certain for me, because I think an awful lot will depend on what bond markets do, particularly the US 10 year and the US 10 year bond yield is looking a little bit vulnerable at this point in time. If we look at this long term chart over the course of the last 20 odd years, 30 years even, there's a big barrier up here at around about 310, 325 on yield. So this is a yield chart. We've been in the downtrend quite some time. We're now potentially on the cusp of breaking higher on 10 year US Treasury yields. If we break higher on that, then I think it's highly likely that that's not going to be good for equity markets, and we will potentially head towards the downside. Now, in terms of today's payrolls report, I'm not so I'm not so concerned about the actual jobs number, even though it's important. But with unemployment down at 3.5, 3.6 percent, it's not as important as it would have been, say, for example, a year or two ago, when unemployment was around about seven or eight percent, the Fed has a dual mandate. That dual mandate is to target unemployment, get that back to target and inflation and inflation to be at 2 percent. So as far as unemployment is concerned, target achieved. So now their main focus is on inflation, and they're not meeting that target. They're not likely to meet that target, which means they're likely to raise interest rates by 50 basis points, at least twice between now and September. So that's another 1 percent plus another 25 basis point hikes as we head towards the end of the year. So potentially, assuming that the market doesn't freak out in the interim, we could see another 150 basis points of Fed rate hikes by the end of this year, plus a reduction in the balance sheet. So that is a significant amount of fiscal tightening at a time when growth is slowing and price rises show no signs of dissipating. So I think today's numbers are going to be more important in the context of the wages data, which currently is around about 5.6 percent. If we see a moderation of that, then that could potentially see the dollar come off and markets potentially rebound. Because at the moment, today's sell-off is predicated on the basis of slowing growth and runaway inflation and runaway prices. So if we see any signs of inflation starting to moderate, that could actually potentially be positive for a rebound off these support levels. So in terms of the NASDAQ, we're on a very, very key support level. And if we get wages data that is likely if we get wages data, which is around about 5.5, 5.6 percent, then that shouldn't be too negative. The problem we've got is crude oil prices and commodity prices in general. They're still looking quite well supported and likely to continue to remain so. But I'm reluctant to say that crude oil prices are going to go significantly higher over the course of the next few days, simply on the basis of Chinese demand. There isn't any Beijing is potentially going into lockdown. Shanghai is in lockdown. China's got a 5.5 percent GDP target, which they've got very little hope of hitting unless they relax their zero COVID rules. And that doesn't look likely in the short term either. So that's going to cause potential supply chain disruptions, which in essence, I suppose you could argue it could be inflationary in terms of supply chains, not so much in terms of demand for crude oil. So that's a slightly murky picture coming out of China. And this week's Chinese data has been pretty appalling. And there's little prospect of that improving in the short to medium term. So over the course of the next few days and weeks, keep an eye on this 310, 320, 10 year yield. If that shows any indication of moving significantly higher, that could be potentially negative for risk, and we could see a break lower. So 4,100 on the S&P and on the NASDAQ 100. Yulian, because you just asked me 12,700 is a key support level here. I am a little concerned as to how quickly this was reversed. Thus far, we're holding above it. But if the CPI numbers, which are due out next week, and are probably likely to drive this market more than today's payrolls numbers, we've got US CPI. So please be aware of them. They are due out next week, US CPI for April. If we get a softening in CPI, that could potentially be positive. But at the moment, it does look as if this support level could well give way over the course of the next week or so. If we get any retracement back to round about 13,000 in the NASDAQ, look at these three peaks here, here, here and here. It's highly likely that we'll probably be an opportunity to sell into those, to sell into any rally back to those levels there. Because on each time that we tried to break above that level, we failed. So that's the key resistance on the NASDAQ going forward. And it's a similar sort of story on the S&P 500. If we look at this chart here, the series of highs all the way through here, 4,300, if we get a rebound today as we head into the weekend, then I would certainly be looking to pair any long positions if you've still got any heading into that resistance level. If we look at the sentiment levels for the NASDAQ, we're pretty much 50-50 in terms of positioning for clients. So our top clients are 71% short of the NASDAQ, 29% long. So the risk reward in terms of our client positioning is that there's more money sitting on short positions than there is on long positions. So moving on to European markets, this trend line that I've drawn in on the DAX, if you've been a regular watcher of my weekly videos, you'll know that I've had this line in for quite some time. It's thus far been holding. I've only had to redraw it once. We retested it on Thursday. We weren't able to break above it. If we take out these lows at 13,500, then it's likely that we'll see a revisit of the lows that we saw back in March. It is interesting to note that while US markets have retested their lows for this year, European markets haven't, but it's not altogether surprising, given how much richer valuations are on US markets relative to European markets. But nonetheless, we are still very much in a case of sell the rally mode when it comes to European markets and equity markets more broadly. Futsi 100, yeah, I mean, what can I say about that? If we do get a big sell off, it's likely to be mitigated by the fact that we've been in a range for quite some time and likely to continue to be so, given that the Futsi has such a big basic resource and energy component within it. So while commodity prices remain high, Futsi 100 should outperform. In other words, it won't decline anywhere near as much as its peers. So the gold price, yes, indeed. The gold price has been a bit of a headscratcher, but that's trading inversely to what US yields are doing. So we've seen a big spike up in US yields over the course of the past few days. And that would explain why the gold price has slid back down to this trend line support through here. And I'm going to knock that line out because it's not really serving me at all. We're still in an uptrend for gold prices. So it still remains very much a case of by the dip on gold. Decent support. If we get a move back to here around about 1840, 1850, but very much a case of by the dip on gold prices, because I think if we do get a risk off, so if we do get a sell off in equity markets, the gold price should still benefit from that, even as the US dollar benefits from that. What's particularly interesting, and I've got five minutes, so I will quickly talk about what we're expecting in terms of the numbers. US payrolls were expecting a number. Oops, I didn't mean to do that.  In terms of the payrolls numbers, we're looking for a slightly weaker number than the number that we got in March. March was fairly decent at around about 431,000. If we look at the weekly jobless claims numbers, there's certainly no indication at all that hiring trends are slowing down. Nonetheless, I'll be paying particular attention to not only to the jobs numbers, which are likely to come in around about 380,000. We could miss because ADP missed earlier this week, but 380, 380, 303, anything above 300,000 is not to be sniffed at. Unemployment rate 3.6%, but the labour market is really about wages. If we come in hotter than 5.6%, that's likely to be dollar positive. Now, earlier this week, in fact, yesterday, this is particularly interesting, cable. What we've seen with cable is not good. What we saw from Andrew Bailey yesterday paints a very dark picture for the UK economy. And I think there's a decent chance we're probably heading towards 120 over the course of the next few days. Why 120? Well, if we go all the way back to the Brexit vote, back here, this was the Brexit vote, found support around about 1,980, 120, 1,980, 120 here, 1,980, 120 here. That was obviously the COVID sell-off, which didn't last very long and came straight back. So that was straddled over a week or two. And now, potentially, we could well retest 120. We've got strong move lower, sideways consolidation. We've broken down below these lows here. And I think as long as we stay below 125, 125, 30, then we're probably gonna head back towards 120, which essentially means that Euro dollar is potentially likely to move lower as well. So I'm still bullish on the dollar longer term. So even if we get a slightly weaker dollar today, then we are likely to see a stronger dollar in the long term. I'm still bullish dolly in. I still think we can go to 135. So why do I think that? Well, basically, we've broken out below above the previous peaks, all the way back in 2015. Where's the next level on this chart? The next level on this chart is these peaks back in 2002, 135. So I think as long as we hold above the lows that we saw earlier this week, so let's go back to the daily chart. These two twin lows here of 128, 50, 60, then we could well see further gains for the US dollar over the course of the next few weeks. Why do I think that? Well, the bank of Japan's not raising rates anytime soon, whereas the Federal Reserve is likely to continue to do so. So right, we've got the numbers coming out now, shortly rather. So in about 45 seconds, so I'll just quickly do Euro dollar. This is the breakout that I was talking about when I wrote a piece earlier this month or maybe the end of April, about Euro dollars of potential parity. This is the next target for Euro dollar, 103.40. So while we stay below 107.80 and 108 and the breakout of this, then initial target 103.40 after that parity and then after that 96. Now, obviously this move here has taken place over three or four years. So I'm not talking parity in the short to medium term. I'm talking over the course of the next 12 to 18 months and essentially, again, it's sell the rally Euro dollar, sell the rally on cable. So numbers coming out now. Here we go. 428, that was for non-farm payrolls, fairly decent number and a revision. Average earnings 5.5, again, pretty much as expected. So there's no wage inflation there at all. Unemployment rate 3.6. So these numbers are fairly lukewarm. There's nothing to be overly concerned about and we are getting a little bit of a rebound in equity markets as I suspect and a little bit of dollar weakness as well on the back of that. So pretty much in line with expectations, 428 on the headline number, assuming that number is correct and Reuters haven't sent me duff information down the feed, 5.5% on the average earnings, which pretty much in line with expectations, slightly below expectations for slightly below the level that we saw in the previous month, 5.6. So all in all, a fairly decent jobs report, wage growth in line with expectations. There's nothing here that's likely to prompt concerns that wages are starting to accelerate aggressively. So all in all, a fairly neutral jobs report, fairly positive I would suggest for risk, but does it really change the overall direction of travel when it comes to equity markets? I would suggest not really. And I think attention will now turn to next week's US CPI report, which is due out on the 11th of May. Now, that I think is probably gonna be more important than today's payrolls report. Now, I know Richard that I haven't gone through Aussie dollar or Canadian dollar. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you. I will come on to that shortly because obviously we've seen a Canadian jobs report as well, which also has posted a fairly decent number. Well, let's look at this. I mean, to be quite honest with DollarCad looking at this chart here, we're pretty much in a range trade on that. So I would suggest that Canadian money for the Bank of Canada monetary policy is going to pretty much shadow US monetary policy. And as a consequence of that, we're gonna continue to trade in the range that we've been trading in since the start of this year. So anytime you get near 129.5, 130 on DollarCad, it's probably gonna be fairly well offered. And on the downside, drop back to rules 125. Again, there's really not too much to say on DollarCad. On Aussie dollar, now that has been interesting recently because obviously the RBA raised rates at its meeting this week by 0.25% to 0.35%. They will raise rates again next month. You can pretty much guarantee that once the federal election is out of the way because there is an Australian election on May the 21st. So, for me, I think that big, big support on Aussie dollar at 69.90. And I would be surprised if we break below that if I'm honest with you. I think the Aussie dollar has found itself a natural base, you can see how solid that support level is down there. Obviously, we've seen a little bit of a sell-off on the back of the NASDAQ and stock market sell-off yesterday. But I think what's interesting about this particular move is that we didn't retest the lows of earlier this month. So I think the fact of the matter is the RBA is also behind the curve when it comes to raising rates. It's not further behind the curve than the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. So I think you could potentially see the RBA start to get an awful lot more hawkish now that they've ripped the Band-Aid off of the initial rate hike. So this candle here suggests to me that there's not much appetite for selling Aussie down towards the lower end of the ranges. But as I say, that could change going forward. So I would suggest the Aussie is probably going to outperform the Kiwi slightly simply because the Aussie is playing catch-up on the RBNZ. The RBNZ has been hiking rates for a lot longer. Therefore, an awful lot more of it is already priced in, which would explain perhaps why the Kiwi is slightly underperforming the Aussie. Because if you look at Aussie Kiwi, I would imagine the Aussie's got to play an awful lot more catch-up when it comes to its performance against the Kiwi dollar, where the RBNZ is pretty much at a 12-month head start on that. So that is what I would describe the differences to with respect to Kiwi and Aussie. I'm hoping that makes some sort of sense to you, Richard. If it doesn't, please feel free to ask some follow-ups. Another piece of data that might be interesting later today, and it could give us an insight into the health of the US consumer, is it's an item that doesn't get an awful lot of attention, and perhaps it should, because I think in terms of US retail sales going forward, it could give an indication as to whether or not we are seeing what I would argue is a slowdown in consumer spending. Now, March consumer credit numbers, which are due later this evening, are gonna be interesting because of the big surge in borrowing that we saw in February. Consumer credit in the US surged from $8.9 billion in January to $41.8 billion in Feb. Credit card lending contributed to $18 billion of that amount, which was a six-fold increase on the January number of 3.1%. Now, you could argue that that was just basically as a consequence of the fact that the US was battling COVID restrictions. People didn't go out in January because they were isolating at home and the weather wasn't particularly good, but there is also the fact that why would you load up on credit card spending if interest rates are going up, and particularly credit card balance interest rates are going up? If you've got a high level of savings, the US consumer has benefited from three lots of fiscal stimulus from the US government. So why would you, if you had savings in your bank account, why would you not use them? Why would you put your money on credit cards unless you were looking to clear that in a subsequent six-week period after that? So the consumer credit numbers, which are due at eight o'clock this evening, personally, I'll probably be down the pub, so I'll look at them on Saturday morning. But if they come in particularly strong, that would suggest to me that the US consumer is living on credit at a time when interest rates are about to go through the roof. The housing market in the US is already starting to slow down with US mortgage rates well above 3% and potentially heading north of three and a half. So it could be a double-edged sword, but a weak number could indicate a US consumer that's starting to cut back and not take on extra debt or another big number could signal a sign of higher borrowing at a time when rates are rising and the economy is slowing. What's the last 24 hours have told me is that markets don't necessarily believe the Fed when it comes to they think that they will be able to deliver a soft landing for the US economy. They think or they're more likely to believe what Mr. Bailey of the Bank of England said that we are heading for a tough 12 months. And the fact of the matter is that potentially markets are looking at what Bailey said and what Powell said and thinking, who's being more honest with us? And at the moment, the markets think perhaps Andrew Bailey is probably being more honest than Mr. Powell. And that would explain why yesterday and this morning we've seen weakness in equity markets more broadly. If you look at the way the DAX has been performing, it's set to finish lower for the fifth week in a row. And we can see that if we change this to a weekly chart. Yeah, there we go. Five weeks on the spin, down, down, down. So that is the way that I'm gonna be looking and approaching equity markets over the course of the next few days. It's about selling into strength against the trend line resistances, looking at the dollar and buying dollar on dips. Until such times, if we get some evidence that perhaps inflation has started to peak, certainly in terms of the CPI numbers. And we've also got US PPI next week as well, producer prices, factory gate prices. They were 11.2% in March and they rose from the February numbers. So it seems rather strange that markets are predicting that CPI the next week will decline from 8.5% to 8.1. That seems rather counterintuitive to me. It'll be good news if it is because it essentially means that perhaps the worst of inflation in the US is over. But if you've seen US natural gas prices this week, you'd have to think that that is not right. US natural gas prices this week have actually gone up. So you can see that here. So there's potentially more inflation in the pipeline for US consumers going forward. And yes, natural gas doesn't get anywhere near as much use in the summer. And obviously there's also a lot of US natural gas being exported to Europe to try and replenish supplies there. But if we also look at say, for example, commodity prices, we're also seeing what I would call an awful lot of stress starting to get built in there as well. So in terms of wheat and corn, though mercifully we seem to be trading sideways when it comes to wheat prices. But it is remarkable that the way these commodity prices are shadowing each other. You've got Brent crude basically behaving in a very similar pattern in terms of the peaks that we saw in March and then trading sideways. And that's what Brent crude is doing right now. If we look at it here, it's up again and again trading sideways. But nonetheless, inflation is gonna be a clear and present danger for quite some time to come. Okay, ladies and gents, do any of you have any other questions for anything that I haven't already covered? Because now is the perfect time. Ask me a question. What do you want me to look at? I'm just going to see if there's anything that I've missed out. I just need to get rid of that. Sorry about that, ladies and gents. Just need to get shot of that. Someone just trying to contact me. Sorry about that. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I AG, I mean, to be quite honest, I was talking to the BBC World Service about I AG this morning. And I gotta say, it's really disappointing when you look at the way I AG have performed relative to Lufthansa and Air France KLM. I mean, they're obviously paying the price for getting rid of too many staff. And the fact of the matter is, I would suggest there are pretty dysfunctional airline. They've got too many brands. They've got Iberia, they've got Air Lingus. And obviously they've got British Airways. And British Airways, there hasn't been anywhere near enough investment into that airline. And I think there is some speculation that they could come under pressure from Brussels to spin off the UK brand. And I potentially don't think that's such a bad idea because I think under I AG, it's become a bit tatty. There has been a bit of a pickup in premium and business travel in the first quarter. They've obviously had their problems with IT issues. Obviously the Asia routes are suffering because of China and what have you. But North Atlantic should be fairly decent and they expect to return to full capacity on the North Atlantic routes by Q3. So I would suggest that potentially the bad news, a lot of the bad news is priced in and barring any mishaps you can see from this chart here that apart from these two days here, the shares have found fairly decent, steady buying interest in and around the low 120s. So I think as long as there are no further surprises in inverted commas, where 8% down today could have been a lot worse, then perhaps we could well see a pickup as we head into the summer season. The only outlier that I do have, British Airways, is obviously fuel costs because of margins and the impact on margins. And also an income squeeze.  And obviously that's where British Airways makes most of its money. Doesn't make any of its money on domestic. Obviously also depends on how well Iberia do on their South America routes, how positive that is. But I would argue relative to other airlines that it's probably the cheapest of them with the potential for a little bit of a pickup. But at the moment, I find it very difficult to be overly enthusiastic about any airlines, despite the fact that US airlines are much more optimistic, but then they make an awful lot of money on their own domestic routes. So hopefully that wasn't too long-winded, Phil, and answered your question. The data from the non-farm results comes through Reuters feed. So basically what you've got is your market calendar here and it basically feeds in through the market calendar through here. And with the market calendar, you can basically set alerts for the numbers to come out. So I'd set alerts on the non-farm payrolls to basically pop up when the numbers were released. So if you want the numbers to send you an alert and basically select the alert function on the right hand side of the market calendar here, and every time they come out, it'll send you a warning that the numbers are due. So, but it comes by way of a Reuters feed which comes into the back of the market calendar. So I hope that answers your question, Christopher. Right, just being asked the question, news wires today saying ECB going to start rate rises soon. Yeah, I mean, there's an element of that. You've also got, I think, the euros up today simply on the basis of the fact that we're heading into the weekend. So you're getting a little bit of short covering, bit of hawkish commentary that they could hike rates in July. They might, but they've also got to be very cognizant of the fact that if they do hike rates and are too aggressive, they could blow out spreads on Italian borrowing and the weaker countries, which they don't want to do. So their scope for raising rates, I think, is fairly limited. I think we could get a 25 basis point rate hiking in July, but by then, the Fed will have hiked by another 50. So, you know, what you're seeing here is a little bit of position adjustment, I think, ahead of the weekend. You're also getting a little bit of sterling weakness, euro sterling strength. So, euros getting bit on the back of sterling getting sold against the euro. So you might get a move back towards 106 on Eurodollar, but I'm still of the opinion that we'd refer on Eurodollar, though it could well be slightly more resilient than say, for example, the pound is in the short to medium term. But as I said in the previous, as I said previously, euro sterling has consistently found it very, very difficult this year to really break through this, well, even last year for that matter, the 86 area. So we could squeeze back to 86 on Euro sterling, but even then, you know, 86.50, there is a limit, I think, to how high euro sterling can go because I'm not sure that the European Central Bank has the capacity to raise rates by that much. That's no problem, Christopher, quite more than happy to help. If you wish, drop me an email, that you will be getting a feedback email after this webinar is finished. Now, I think in the next 24 to 48 hours, you'll get a follow up email. If you want someone to give you a call, Christopher, and walk you through some of the features of the platform, I can arrange that for you. So just let me know, just reply to the email that you get. I think it may be on Monday, come to think of it, but you will be getting an email asking for feedback. Anyway, hopefully that's all for today, ladies and gents. Thank you very much for your time dropping in and listening in. And I hope you all have a great weekend. If you are interested in catching up on my thoughts and what have you on a week to week basis, I do do a weekly video, which usually goes up on the News and Analysis section of the website every Friday. So today's video will cover essentially what I've covered today, so you probably won't need to tune into that. But generally, every Friday, I do usually a 20, 25 minute video talking about what's gone on during the week and what's coming up for the week ahead. So please feel free to tune into that on a week to week basis. Otherwise, have a great weekend. Hope you enjoy the sunshine out there and I'll speak to you all same time, same place in a couple of months because there won't be a payrolls report next week. Thanks very much for listening, guys, and have a great weekend.


The Niger Mining and Geosciences Society has called for due compliance to mining guidelines with a view to protecting the sector from the activities of individuals who may want to compromise standards. President of the Society, Alabo Charles, who briefed journalists ahead of the 58th National Conference of Society in Ilori, Kwarasi Capital, decried the inability of the relevant authorities to fully explore the huge economic potentials in the nation's mining sector. As a society, all we can do is to advise government. We cannot go take the place of government to go and start arresting Chinese who are running over the place, but I agree there is need for sanity in our mining sector. If indeed Nigeria must be a mining destination for people, there are challenges. God has blessed this country, but there are challenges in Nigeria. Our laws have one thing else. It is very difficult for you to say a state government, a local government, where the government doves in government will tell you that, oh, you can go and partner with the government and have interest in mining. That's the different part of them. But there must be reason for a thing, so that we can organize this sector. Because this sector can save this country. Every state of this federation, you have various minerals. I don't see why the governments of various states are not involved in active mining. Alabo noted that illegal mining activities could only be checked if local communities partner with relevant agencies. You can also have the natives who own this soil, but by virtue of our constitution, whatever thing you have on your soil that is inside the soil belongs to the exclusive leaves where only the federal government has power to exploit. Now, it is impossible for you to put a goat and a yam in the same room and you ask the goat not to eat the yam. So even the natives, the natives who own the land, they also bring people to scavenge the ground and say that governments should put it back together. Take the best practice internationally. These things have occurred in other countries. We don't need to redefine the wheel. How are they going up? Our own culture may be different, but our culture cannot stand in isolation, so that we can put our hearts in order. This country is a great country. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


The study found that there has been increasing alignment between clinical and translational science awards, CTSAs, and practice-based research networks, PBRNs. However, there were also areas of discordance, such as decreasing financial support for PBRNs from CTSAs. Additionally, PBRN directors reported increased effectiveness of CTSAs in providing consultation and collaboration on grant applications. Qualitative data revealed diverging experiences between CTSAs and PBRNs. Overall, this study suggests a mutual opportunity for CTSAs and PBRNs to work together on applied research. This article was authored by Maureen Reiler-Baringer, Melinda M. Davis, James J. Werner, and others.


We explore space because we want to push the limits of what we know in the universe. We explore to expand humanity's reach, to gain a foothold, to eventually become a multi-planetary species, while learning why our planet alone has life, because it's really all about understanding if we're alone, right? No. In an idealized world, maybe, but in reality, no. Space is all about politics. For those of you new to The Vintage Space, welcome. I'm Amy, and for those of you who are regulars here, welcome back. Today, we're going to be doing something a little different. We're going to do a deeper dive into the history of and relationship between space exploration and politics, because you guys know me. I have thoughts about things like this. I'm going to put a disclaimer up front. We're doing the Coles Notes version. Consider this an overview as a true, full deep dive would likely take up multiple books. And in fact, there are multiple books on the subject. I myself dive into the foundation of NASA in my first book, Breaking the Chains of Gravity, and look specifically at Lyndon Johnson's role in my second book, Fighting for Space. I'll have a full list of recommended reading at the end of the video if you do want to dive deeper into a specific era. So, to understand why space is inextricably linked to politics, we have to start at the very beginning. In the mid-1950s, satellites and space exploration were largely fodder for science fiction, but a handful of international scientists knew the value that could be gained from bringing this technology into reality. In the United States and the Soviet Union, teams of scientists were working on launching satellites as part of the international geophysical year to study solar phenomena and their impact on the Earth's environment. On Friday, October 4th, 1957, the Soviets got their first with Sputnik. The 184-pound beeping sphere became the first artificial satellite ever launched into orbit. Texas Senator and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson was entertaining guests at his ranch that night when the news broke. After dinner, the group walked out into the Johnson's backyard and looked up at the sky. Though he couldn't see Sputnik overhead, LBJ could feel a change. Space exploration and rockets to the moon were no longer the stuff of science fiction. That once-distance future was here, and victory belonged to the Soviet Union. Johnson knew America had no equivalent technology, so couldn't catch up, but he did see an opportunity to turn America's defeat into his own personal victory. If he could take charge of space policy and mold the nation's reaction to Sputnik, he might be able to launch himself to the presidency. LBJ thus began a campaign to control America's narrative in space. While Republican President in office Ike Eisenhower made public comments about America's Vanguard satellite program, it was Johnson who led an inquiry into how the Soviet Union got into space first. When Eisenhower, after consulting with his advisors, decided to create a new civilian space agency, his intention was to keep space from becoming a battleground in the Cold War. It was LBJ who introduced Senate Resolution 3606, also known as the National Aeronautics and Space Act, to Congress on July 29, 1958. Eisenhower had created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but Johnson's actions had earned him the nickname of Mr. Space in the public eye. But things didn't go as planned for Johnson. Going into the 1960 election, he didn't have the support of the Democratic Party to be the presidential candidate, and ultimately found his way to the White House as the vice presidential candidate on Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy's presidential bid. Kennedy's platform leaned heavily on the perceived missile gap and space. He went head-to-head against Eisenhower's vice president, Richard Nixon, arguing that although Eisenhower had created NASA, it was his party that had left the United States second in space, trailing in what was fast becoming a new outlet of the Cold War. Kennedy won the election on promises that his Democratic Administration would give space the full attention it deserved as an extension of national security and international relations. Kennedy's first few months in office put his space-based promises to the test. On April 12, the Soviets launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit. Another first America didn't have the technical capacity to match. In a press conference later that day, Kennedy acknowledged that the United States was lagging and that addressing the technical disparity would take time. While that press conference was going on, Speaker Sam Rayburn presented House Resolution 6169 to the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Astronautics. This amendment to the National Aeronautics and Space Act installed VP Lyndon Johnson as the chairman of the Space Council. The new arrangement meant Kennedy could take all the credit if the space program succeeded and pass the blame to Johnson if things went wrong. Five days later, Kennedy was dealt another blow with the failed invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. He needed a win. On April 20, he sent LBJ a note. Do we have a chance of beating the Soviets by putting a laboratory in space or by a trip to the moon or by a rocket to land on the moon or by a rocket to go to the moon and back with a man? Is there any other space program which promises dramatic results in which we could win? How much additional money would it cost? Are we making maximum efforts? Are we achieving necessary results? Johnson's subsequent meetings with NASA and Military Brass determined that the only way for the U.S. to regain technical dominance through space was to take on a big, long-term program. The best option was going to the moon. Going to the moon with what became the Apollo program was effectively Kennedy picking an end in a race with the Soviets that neither nation could win so it leveled the playing field while also making space a sort of Cold War battleground. And Kennedy also knew it was unlikely he'd be in office when Americans walked on the moon. The odds of getting to the moon before his two terms were over was small. Nevertheless, he committed to the goal on May 25th of 1961 before a joint session of Congress. The dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the vice president, who is chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides, time for a great new American enterprise. I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals. First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. A little over a year into Apollo's development, Kennedy was starting to reconsider the program.  He expressed his fears to NASA's then-administrator Jim Webb in a private meeting of November of 1962. A little under a year later in September of 1963, he went so far as to suggest before the 18th UN General Assembly that Apollo should be cancelled in favor of a joint lunar mission with the Soviet Union. Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963 sealed Apollo's fate. All of a sudden, the lunar landing wasn't just a presidential order. It took on a new facet of honoring the dream of a fallen president. It was political and social leveraging to keep America's fledging space program moving forward, and seeing it come to fruition fell to LBJ, who assumed the presidency hours after Kennedy was killed. LBJ couldn't not fund Apollo. He couldn't let Kennedy's legacy die with him, and he was also so synonymous with space that defunding the program could be damaging to his own reputation. And so he supported Apollo through his first months in office, and again after winning the 1964 election against Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. Throughout his five years in office, Lyndon Johnson gave NASA the support it needed for the lunar landing. In 1965 and 1966, he approved the agency's largest ever budget of 4.31 and 4.41 percent of the U.S. national spending, respectively. As a point of reference, current spending sees about 8.5 percent of national spending going to education, and less than 1 percent going to NASA. But by 1968, NASA's funding was starting to dwindle, and LBJ had decided against running for another full-term in office. Opinions on why he gave up on the office he'd worked his whole life to occupy are divided. But it's certain that the demands of the presidency were weighing on him, not to mention ongoing civil rights protests, protests over the war in Vietnam, and some loss of support from his party. Space had been one of the biggest focuses of Johnson's presidency, and that commitment was suddenly uncertain when Republican candidate Richard Nixon won over Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Johnson left office in January of 1969 just weeks after Apollo 8 saw the first humans orbit the moon, which meant Nixon inherited a divided country in need of healing with a space program poised for greatness. Apollo 8 proved to be a bright spot in the tumultuous year that was 1968, the year marked with nationwide protests, as well as the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. That first lunar mission united the country, even if for a brief moment, and drew accolades from worldwide leaders. It was a powerful moment that showed Nixon just what he could gain from success in space. Nixon's first months in office saw Apollos 9 and 10 take the final steps towards the moon while his team began laying the foundation to make the moon landings synonymous with Nixon's presidency, basically Nixonizing Apollo 11. His chief of staff, H.R. Bob Haldeman and appointment secretary Dwight Chapin, both former admin, had the marketing background to make it happen. The Nixon team started injecting the president into as many mission-adjacent events as possible, considering all kinds of celebrations, from post-launch presidential receptions to post-flight gala dinners with the crew. In the end, Nixon got two of the events he was most keen on, a televised phone call with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin while they walked on the moon's surface, and being on board the recovery carrier to welcome all three men home. Nixon took great pride in Apollo 11's mission, and in particular, felt his lunar phone call reflected the pride, power, and peace he wanted associated with his time in office. But his excitement over Apollo 11 didn't carry over into his post-apollos support for NASA, because he looked at space differently than had his predecessors. Where both Kennedy and Johnson focused on space as a part of national security and international relations, Nixon's focus was on the domestic implications, applying space technologies to fixing problems on Earth, and using the space program to stimulate American education in science and technology. America's future in space was going to look very different than it had in the 1960s. Beginning in the mid-1960s under LBJ, NASA had begun laying the groundwork for its post-apollo programming, namely the Apollo Extension System that was soon renamed the Apollo Applications Program. Funding was modest, relative to Apollo, but rising. By 1970, AAP's funding had reached 308 million dollars. It was a significant commitment to the future, but that same year, which only saw Apollo 13 fly to the moon, the Nixon administration made decisions that would shape America's next decade in space. NASA management presented the new president with various plans for post-apollo programming. Then-Administrator Tom Paine was particularly passionate about starting another grand program, a sort of Apollo for the 1970s, as it were, that would see humans on Mars in the mid to late 1980s, as well as large space stations in Earth and lunar orbits. But Nixon, focused as he was on domestic and earthly applications for space technology, didn't think America needed or wanted another big, expensive program. Not only that, he'd already started cutting the budget of the space agency. The last three missions, Apollo's 18, 19, and 20, were canceled in 1970 as part of the discussions over the next phase for NASA. Some of the hardware from the canceled missions went to the Apollo applications program, which by this point was centered on the proof-of-concept space lab called Skylab, but this was never intended to be a long-term program. NASA management had bigger plans for a more permanent orbital outpost, one that came with a new vehicle described as a space shuttle to transport crews and hardware between the ground and the station, and eventually another orbiting outpost at the moon. But Nixon didn't share NASA's conviction that a big commitment was needed. He ultimately approved the shuttle, but not the station, and began placing a higher priority on international cooperation in space. As a matter of interest, Nixon did promote and enable arguably the most significant international cooperative effort in space. In July of 1969, he sent his favored astronaut, Frank Borman, to Russia to begin the talks that eventually led to the Apollo Soyuz test project. Nixon made his official announcement for NASA's next phase on January 5, 1972. I have decided today that the United States should proceed at once with the development of an entirely new type of space transportation system designed to help transform the space frontier of the 1970s into familiar territory, easily accessible for human endeavor in the 1980s and 90s. This system will center on a space vehicle that can shuttle repeatedly from Earth to orbit and back. It will revolutionize transportation into near space by routinizing it. NASA, an organization that follows presidential directives, started planning. Other big dreams, like larger stations, plural, deep space human missions, Mars missions, and NERVA, the mammoth heavy lift nuclear rocket, were all arguably casualties of the shuttle decision. The shuttle's development, however, was complicated. See, the shuttle wasn't just a NASA program. Rather, the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense got into the program before long. The USAF added the requirement of launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and the DOD set the size of the payload bay so the shuttle could also launch systems like spy satellites. This was actually an element of the program that drew Nixon to it in the first place. Sharing the development costs and promoting different purposes meant more than one agency would be backing the shuttle's frequent missions, bringing the costs down overall, and eventually, hopefully, seeing ordinary, though highly trained, people flying in space. For all its promises, however, there were limitations. The shuttle was restricted to low Earth orbit. It wasn't a spacecraft that could support missions to the Moon or any other destinations with a crew on board, but it could launch deep space satellite missions. Nixon thus laid a foundation for a new era in space, and looking back at these early Nixon decisions as an historian, I see this as a pivotal moment. For Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, NASA was an instrument of power, showing American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Richard Nixon, now without the benefit of space as an outlet of the Cold War, changed that rule, making NASA something firmly on a domestic level, much smaller and lower in importance than it had been in the first decade of its existence. Let the housekeeping begin. The shuttle proved to be as complex technically as it was politically, and it came to fruition under two presidents we don't often discuss when talking about space exploration, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Neither was an office long. Ford served a truncated term after Nixon's resignation in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, and Carter only served one term after that. For his part, Ford was a strong supporter of both NASA and America's continued preeminence in space. As a member of the House of Representatives, he'd worked on helping establish earlier space policy, but while in office, he mainly made sure things ran smoothly. He kept the space shuttle funded and, most excitingly, happened to be sitting president during the Apollo Soyuz mission, the symbolic end of the space race that saw Alexei Leonov and Tom Stafford shake hands in orbit, as well as the Viking spacecrafts landing on Mars. Carter came into office in 1977, and though he was the first Democrat since LBJ, he didn't attempt to bring back his party's penchant for big-space programs and bigger ideas. We'll see as we keep going through this history that this actually marked a moment when the party's approach to space changed, but more on that later. Carter was sitting president when the twin Voyager spacecraft launched on their grand tours of the outer planets, a mission on the robotic slash planetary side of things that had its roots in the LBJ funding era. Overall, he wasn't too involved in or supportive of space exploration programs beyond keeping the shuttle funded, to a degree. When NASA presented a proposal for five shuttle orbiters, Carter approved four with, quote, structural spare parts for a fifth vehicle. Towards the end of the 1970s, and the end of Carter's time in office, the shuttle was facing a ballooning budget as well as technical and scheduling problems. It was getting so bad, Carter considered cancelling it outright, but he was advised against such a drastic measure. The program was so far into its development, and at that point it was the only system to launch certain satellites, including government payloads, that axing it wouldn't be a shrewd move, and so he maintained the program's funding, disappointed in the end that the first launch slipped to after his term would end. The first shuttle mission launched on April 12th, 1981, three months after Ronald Reagan took office and two weeks after he survived an assassination attempt. Reagan's remarks after the launch of STS-1 said directly to the crew, say a lot about his vision for space. Through you today, we feel as giants once again. Once again, we feel the surge of pride that comes from knowing we are first, and we are best, and we are so because we are free. The shuttle for Reagan was the embodiment of American greatness, and so too, by extension, was the space program that had built and launched it. Reagan saw outer space as humanity's final frontier and America's space program as an opportunity for global leadership. Reagan, like Nixon before him, immediately reaped the benefits of being in office for a successful mission started and funded by his predecessors. He also quickly saw the power that supporting space exploration had for his reputation as president. When his administration started looking for places to cut the federal budget, he walled off NASA's Spatial Program to ensure it kept running at full level. But Reagan wanted more than just maintenance of the shuttle program. His transition team wanted more too. NASA sought to leverage Reagan's favorable impression of space. His transition team was, very interestingly, led by George Lowe, the same George Lowe who had worked for NASA since its inception in 1958, and so had been through the big funding of the Apollo era and the lower level that had seen the shuttle come to fruition. Lowe tried to leverage Reagan's interest in space into another big venture for America. He presented Reagan with the space station that Nixon hadn't approved, the one for the shuttle to, well, shuttle to and from. It was presented to Reagan as the foundation of America's next wave of expansion into space, a program built in the 1980s that would promote American exceptionalism into the 90s and beyond. Reagan liked the idea and also liked the idea of the shuttle being the only American system to launch satellites. This caused a problem for the other partners in the shuttle program. The DOD worried that a big new NASA program would divert attention from the shuttle, a.k.a. its one means for launching spy satellites. There was also pushback over the projected cost of the station that would surely divert other necessary public funds. Reagan pressed forward in light of these concerns, making a formal announcement of the station during his State of the Union address on January 25th, 1984. I said America's next frontier and that's to develop that frontier, a sparkling economy, spurs initiatives, sunrise industries and makes older ones more competitive. Nowhere is this more important than our next frontier, space. Our progress in space, taking giant steps for all mankind, is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry and academia have all pulled together and we can be proud to say we are first, we are the best and we are so because we're free. This presidential directive formally in placement NASA could set up the space station program office and within a year, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency had all signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding to participate in this program. The Challenger disaster in 1986 dealt Reagan a blow in terms of space development. The loss of seven astronauts and one orbiter brought a stoppage in launches and revealed a flaw in Reagan's plan to have the shuttle alone be America's way into space. The country was grounded and Reagan was forced to change his earlier decision. Now he was disallowing launching commercial communication satellites on the shuttle lest they be lost. Against the backdrop of the evolving and problematic shuttle program, production began on the space station. In 1988, Reagan named the station, fittingly for his vision, freedom. By that point it had gone through a fair number of design changes, many of which were motivated by the reduced shuttle flight rate in the wake of the Challenger disaster. We can't move past Reagan without talking about Star Wars or more properly, Defense Initiative. This was the famous, or perhaps infamous, call to build a space laser to take out Soviet spy satellites. Announced in 1983, this would have been a huge space undertaking and NASA might have had a part to play in it, but it would have been a military program so it doesn't fall under the banner of NASA and the space program. Reagan's Vice President George Bush succeeded him into office in 1989. Within months, he presided over the 20th anniversary celebration of Apollo 11's lunar landing. He used the occasion to attempt to give NASA a new, big direction in space. He announced what became known as the Space Exploration Initiative, a long-range, continuing commitment to America's space program that was very much in the same vein as Reagan's view of space as part of America's international supremacy. He threw his support behind the Reagan-era space station freedom, but added to it. Now, freedom was just the first step in going, quote, back to the moon, back to the future, and this time back to stay, and then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet, a manned mission to Mars. Why the moon of Mars, quote, because it is humanity's destiny to strive, to seek, to find, and because it is America's destiny to lead. From the voyages of Columbus to the Oregon Trail to the journey to the moon itself, history provides that we have never lost by pressing the limits of our frontiers. Bush's directive was designed to put America on a path to Mars, but the subsequent study into this mission came back with a $500 billion price tag, a staggering amount even spread over 20 or 30 years. The mission also failed to gain traction in light of political infighting with the Democratic majority in Congress. A feasibility study further revealed that, quote, NASA is currently overcommitted in terms of program obligations relative to resources available. In short, it is trying to do too much. Bush's Mars dream was basically DOA, but work on the station continued, and by the time Bill Clinton was president-elect at the end of 1992, things were looking more or less promising. There was a substantial amount of hardware built, and the international cooperation in space Reagan had promoted was coming to fruition. After years of competition, the United States and Russia were working together in space. The U.S. agreed to buy Russian Soyuz vehicles to serve as backup lifeboats for the Space Station Freedom, and the Shuttle Mirror program met American astronauts aboard the shuttle to visit the Russian's orbiting space station. Space was starting to become a truly collaborative international effort. When Clinton took office, he learned the station program was running behind schedule and over budget. It looked bad enough that he considered cancelling it altogether in favor of addressing the more pressing economic recession left over from the Reagan administration. But he, like Carter before him, was advised against cancellation. There was enough hardware built and a lot of money sunk into the program that it would be more problematic to cancel it than to figure out a way forward. And so, in 1993, Clinton called for the station to be redesigned once again to reduce costs and include more international involvement. It would now include both American and Russian elements and was renamed appropriately the International Space Station. Clinton otherwise didn't place much emphasis on space, it just wasn't his priority program. While other areas of government saw their budgets increase over his eight years in office, NASA's budget decreased to the point that it struggled to carry out its assigned missions. This lower budget led to the faster, better, cheaper era of space exploration, which wasn't all bad. My favorite Mars rover, the proof of concept sojourner, came out of that era. But I digress. Clinton did get to see the first pieces of the ISS launched into orbit in 1998, the Russian Zarya and the American Unity modules. The ISS was still starting to take shape when George W. Bush, we'll call him W to make the distinction between him and his dad, was elected in 2000. He inherited a booming economy from Clinton, which would theoretically allow him to do anything in space his predecessor had shied away from due to financial constraints. But right off the bat, his administration considered cancelling the whole space station program on account of its rising cost and put it on probation. There was suddenly no guarantee it would get built, much to the ire of international partners. The International Space Station, the program designed to foster positive international relations, was risking breeding a lot of tensions. Then W was hit with two major national crises, the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001 and the Columbia disaster in 2003. The Columbia accident investigation report pointed to many things as the cause of the loss of seven astronauts when their orbiter broke up over Texas during reentry. To quote the accident investigation report, we consider it unlikely that the accident was a random event, rather it was likely related in some degree to NASA's budgets, history and program culture, as well as to the politics, compromises and changing priorities of the democratic process. Foremost among the causes though was a quote failure of national leadership in not replacing the aging space shuttle and more fundamentally in not providing a strategic vision to guide U.S. civilian space activities. The final recommendation after the accident was that good leadership was needed to direct a change in culture. This became the catalyst for the W administration to provide that new leadership and strategic vision. W announced his plan on January 14th, 2004, just ahead of beginning his second term in office. Central was his plan to quote implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond. In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world. It is time for America to take the next steps. Today, I announced a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system. Our first goal is to complete the International Space Station by 2010. We will finish what we have started. To meet this goal, we will return the space shuttle to flight as soon as possible. Consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the space shuttle, after nearly 30 years of duty, will be retired from service. Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008 and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the space station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020 as the launching point for missions beyond. W wanted to see a human presence throughout the solar system with an emphasis on returning to the moon by 2020 and Mars shortly thereafter. But it wouldn't be going with the shuttle, not that the shuttle had the capacity to fly to the moon or to Mars. Remember, it was a low earth orbital vehicle. After 2010, it would be replaced by a new human vehicle that could take crews to destinations beyond low earth orbit. This presidential directive began the constellation program. Plans were firmed up, and by 2006 it was centered around the Orion Crew Vehicle that would return Apollo-era functionality to America's space agency. But the changing of the guard in 2009 brought a change in policy. Barack Obama took office during the largest recession in recent years, right after the housing market crash of 2008. Looking to lift the country out of another bad spot, his administration's first pass at space policy, released on June 28, 2010, showed a change in vision. Quote, The policy articulates the president's commitment to reinvigorating U.S. leadership in space for the purposes of maintaining space as a stable and productive environment for the peaceful use of all nations. Obama recognized the importance of space as part of America's identity, as well as the importance of space systems in support of national and homeland security. He didn't, however, take space as an extension of America's dominance, taking a more financially conservative approach amid the other issues plaguing the nation. His approach to space focused on cooperation to lessen the load on NASA and thus the U.S. government, cooperation with both international partners as well as the private sector, companies like SpaceX. Leadership for Obama was less about America alone, and more about America as a leader working in tandem with other nations. America was to lead through collaboration and the responsible peaceful exploration of space. Obama's vision didn't include the constellation program, which at that point had been a $9 billion investment. The program aimed at a lunar landing by 2020 and eventual Mars missions his administration found in an early review of space activities was just not feasible within a realistic budget. It had been underfunded under W and beset by technical problems. So Obama canceled constellation and threw his support instead behind commercial programs, looking to have private companies share the load of orbital missions for the International Space Station, which he funded through to 2020. The station now has support through 2025. He also pressed on with the scheduled cancellation of the shuttle program. Without any American access to orbit, NASA now had no choice but to lean into Obama's directive of international cooperation by buying seats on Soyuz flights for American astronauts. Obama's cancellation of a big American venture in favor of private industry, his administration argued, was quote, not a change from the guiding principles of NASA. It makes America stronger. It enables us to draw more strongly on the ingenuity of the commercial sector and create deeper ties with our international partners. Nevertheless, the change in focus drew ire from diehard space fans. Many are want to ignore what good Obama did for the economy and how much he helped the nation at a very hard time, even ignoring his role in helping launch the new era of commercial space. They will simply say that he ruined space flight. Donald Trump was never subtle in his attacks on Barack Obama. And so it's not at all surprising that when he took office in 2017, he quickly reversed his predecessor's approach to space. His earliest notes on space policy marked a directional shift from Obama, with an America first stance that extended into space. His call was to quote, lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners. Beginning with missions beyond low earth orbit, the United States will lead the return of humans to the moon for long term exploration and utilization, followed by human missions to Mars and other destinations. In Trump's view, quote, our destiny beyond the earth is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. He also said, quote, the United States is the best in space, and our adversaries know it. Space is a key source of strategic advantage for the United States, and potential foreign adversaries are determined to restrict our access to it. Now it's a little hard to characterize Trump's space policy since it seems to be in flux. In March of 2018, he called for a strategy emphasizing peace in space through a strong national program. Part of that was his commitment to America's missions to the moon and Mars. Then in February of 2009, he flew in the face of that as well as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 by establishing the Space Force, a new military branch dealing with space. Like Reagan with SDI, we aren't going to look at Trump's Space Force as part of this discussion since that doesn't really tie into NASA or space exploration, but rather increased military expenditures and presence. Besides, I put my ranty feelings on that one in a video a while ago. The link is right up here if you want to pause and watch that one. But again, I digress. On June 7th, 2019, Trump threw all that for a loop with a tweet. Quote, For all the money we are spending, NASA should not be talking about going to the moon. We did that 50 years ago. They should be focusing on much bigger things we are doing, including Mars, of which the moon is a part, defense and science. Just leaving that there. Earlier this year, he celebrated America's return to launches, with no mention that the SpaceX mission was an Obama-era program, with remarks emphasizing the country's exciting future in space. This is the first big space message in 50 years. Think of that. And it is an honor to be delivering it. Today, as we gather in this special place to celebrate not only the launch of a new spacecraft, but also our nation's bold and triumphant return to the stars, it's a special day. Moments ago, the world bore witness to the flight of the first new manned U.S. spacecraft in nearly 40 years since the space shuttle launched in 1981, a long time ago. I am thrilled to announce that the SpaceX Dragon capsule has successfully reached low Earth orbit, and that our astronauts are safe and sound. With this launch, the decades of lost years and little action are officially over, a new age of American ambition has now begun. Past leaders put the United States at the mercy of foreign nations to send our astronauts into orbit, not anymore. NASA's budget has seen some increase under Trump, but his calls for lunar landings by 2024 are frankly completely unfeasible, and his idea of bypassing the moon and just getting humans to Mars ASAP are similarly problematic. But it's not surprising to see him calling for big action in space. So here's where I'm going to editorialize quite a bit. There's a trend I see in all this that I hope some of you see too, and it has to do with so-called Kennedy moments, those moments when presidents make a grand proclamation in space in an attempt to cement their legacy. In 1961, Kennedy committed to the lunar landing, knowing full well it wasn't something that could happen overnight, and he likely wouldn't be in office when the landings took place. And even though it was his decision to commit to the landing, he called to cancel it because he wasn't certain it would leave him with a positive legacy. But 50 years later, we look back and we only see the moon landing pledge as a grand vision and the actual lunar landings as the peak of American technological ingenuity. It's entirely unsurprising that a president would want to replicate that, especially since with a large-scale goal like a lunar landing, the president who starts the program might not have to fund it all the way through to reap the benefits. Reagan did it with space station freedom. Bush did it with his call for a mission to Mars. W did it with the constellation program. Trump did it with his call to go to the moon and or Mars. The linking factor here, they're all modern-day Republicans whose vision of America is more or less in line with a vision debuted by Reagan in 1980 that sees American greatness linked to ostentatious goals and successes in space. This is in contrast to the Clinton and Obama approaches as well as Ford and Carter that saw reduced funding and a focus on international cooperation, an approach that in space meant slower but steadier advancements. The irony is that limited government spending is a central tenet of the Republican platform, but in the last 40 years it's been Republican leadership that has called for grand space programs no matter how unrealistic. I'm going to posit that after the success of Apollo 11 and the Apollo program as a whole, success in space became something that was a great way to show America's preeminence and the scale of these space programs comes down to an individual president's idea of the brand of America. So let's talk branding. The brand of America largely promotes the idea of freedom and economic stability rather than discussing unseemly issues of poverty or racism, but that changes president to president. Obama projected the image of an America defined by equality and a place where immigrants wanted to make a life, whereas Trump presents an America of closed borders and fanatic nationalism. We can say the brand of America is the vision of the country as a candidate presents and sells as part of his campaign and America's space program is a big part of the image of America. It can convey so many things from exploration and innovation to culture and leadership and in some cases dominance. Reagan's vision for America was centered around the belief that the United States is the God-chosen nation and the last best hope of man on earth. What historian John Logston calls divinely guided American exceptionalism. He ran on the campaign slogan, let's make America great again, and part of that greatness was establishing a strong foothold for America in space with freedom. That space station was designed to be the platform for America's expansion into space for decades, cementing Reagan's legacy in the process. Bush followed a similar line. His kinder, gentler nation slogan held promises of softening Reagan's conservatism, but continuing in the same vein. W. echoed his father's campaign and a vision for America that one political writer described as putting, quote, class back at the heart of U.S. politics. America was great, comma, for those who were already great. Both Bushes tried to cement their legacies with a mission to Mars, an achievement that would stand the test of time and endure as a show that their America was great because it had done something previously thought impossible. Trump's vision of America is very much wrapped up in his version of Reagan's slogan, make America great again. Greatness for Trump is, like it was for the Bushes, wrapped up in American exceptionalism, something exemplified as a big feat of American daring and ingenuity, something he'd like his America to stand for. And a moon or marge landing does just that. He can say no one's done it in half a century, and if he does it again, his legacy will, he hopes, be as the president who achieved the height of American success, none of his predecessors and no other nation could duplicate. The reality is one of America's biggest standard achievements and the one incredible thing it's done that no one else has managed is landing people on the moon. So for a president who wants to be known for greatness over other nations, that is the dream achievement. And it sounds a lot like the framework of Kennedy's call for the lunar landing in the first place. And I'll add that Kennedy's own campaign slogan for 1960 was a time for greatness. So you can see the ties to the Kennedy legacy, or rather how the Kennedy legacy would be inspiring. The difference lies in context. For Kennedy, might in space was a peaceful way to show might against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Once that mission was done, the need for might in space was unnecessary. America had won. Post-Apollo, big programs in space were more about recapturing greatness. There was no urgency. Not to mention going back to the moon is never going to be as exciting as the first time. And Mars is just such a different scale, and we haven't really had urgency to fast track that goal. It's clear to me at least that the lack of support from one administration to the next is part of why we've been in low earth orbit on the human side of things since 1972. At the end of the day, the modern Kennedy moments are a lot harder than Kennedy's original moment. Kennedy knew the moon was a far off goal, but also knew it was feasible, and it was a nice, round approach. Man, moon, decade. These are three things we know.  Human, Mars, 30 years or so, doesn't work as well. We still know the human, but few people really understand how far Mars is, not to mention the challenges of getting there, and it's incredibly hard to sell anyone on an idea that will take three decades to complete. Not to mention a lot can change in 30 years. Take the shuttle. In 1981, Columbia was the cutting edge of spaceflight technology. In 2003, it was considered the lesser orbiter, older and heavier because it used antiquated materials. That design, frozen in 1981, couldn't endure. Long-term, open-ended programs in space are hard and need not only financial commitments, but political support that can survive changing parties in office, not to mention the changing nation and world politics that are arguably much more important than getting boots on Mars. So, this many minutes later, what's the end point in all this? We want to have an idealized view of space exploration as an endeavor for all mankind, and diehard space fans are want to follow any president who promises big visions in space, but space has almost always been leveraged for political gain, setting up big programs or attempting to for the sake of reputation, not for scientific return or furthering our reach into the solar system. Science should be the ultimate domain where humanity works together for a brighter future, but that's just not the case, at least not yet. Until presidents can commit to programs beyond their terms in office and stop leveraging space exploration for political gain, exploring our cosmic backyard will always be a politically loaded endeavor. The private sector might change things, but we can't forget private companies are looking to profit, which opens up a whole new world of reasons that space exploration will not be free of politics. All that said, at least we're getting somewhere, maybe? Question mark? If you'd like to learn more on specific eras and presidents, here is a short reading list. I mentioned my own books earlier, Breaking the Chains of Gravity for a Look at NASA's Roots, and Fighting for Space for an LBJ Heavy Dive into the Early Apollo Era. My go-to source for all things space policy is John Logston, who has multiple titles, John F. Kennedy and The Race for the Moon, After Apollo that's all about Nixon, and Ronald Reagan and the Space Frontier that, you guessed it, is all about Reagan. James Killian's Sputnik Scientist and Eisenhower is a really neat look at the early years, too. Killian was Eisenhower's science advisor, so it's a very interesting first-hand look. And there are more, but those are some great ones, and all the links will be in the description below. For more space and mid-century deep dives, be sure to subscribe right here, and you can find me all over the internet, though Twitter is where I am most active with daily posts. I've also got a Patreon that gives you exclusive access to my Discord and YouTube members get that access, too, so if you're keen to support The Vintage Space, those are two great options that help me keep making content. Thank you guys so much for hanging out with me this long, and I'll see you next time.


What's up Youtube, real ist the gaming here and in case you were wondering yes I just woke up from a nap I took a quick little nap on my desk because I was feeling a bit tired And now we're good we're gonna go and today we're being you guys this one late night at McDonald's Pretty tough explanatory on the title to McDonald's based horror game And let's see about this game five minutes horror experience with retro style graphics and voice acting Please use your headphones and turn for the better experience alright, so we got our bad boys on We're ready to go and it says click to get spooked.  I should really start looking for new offers Yeah, but not now. I'm so hungry. I need to find some place to eat on my way home Okay, sounds like he really hates his job, huh?  Wait, oh my god. No, they're passing by Fries at all. No, no, dude. Slow the heck down. They're about they're going like 50 miles an hour on a neighborhood Street, bro They're wild and right McDonald's. Oh, this thing is packed Don't need McDonald's crass line of people might take a while Okay. Oh, what you got there wash my hands. You got there my boy. What is that a big Mac? Hey, I Was much more surprised like there's no tomorrow. He really is Chew with your mouth. No, this guy has no manners at all. All right. Let's see what's going on over here I've got the galaxy out to enjoy it. All right, and what's up with the worker?  Okay, let's go wash our hands And is the weirdest restroom setup, okay? So wait, I just realized it's a boy and a girl restroom, but there's only urinals like how does that work? Okay, whatever.  Where's everybody? There was someone at the door that No, no, no, no, this is not good I'm not going crazy. There were so many people before and I was completely empty and dark and I also saw some bearded behind the exit door staring at me You know what? I'm not going to act like a brave rechart in those horror movies I'm going to go and I won't open the door until they arrive. That's for sure God the biggest Android ever Clark Street 105 something strange is going on. I don't think that I can explain it, but people just disappeared Hey, it's Clark Street 105 Did you get it? What this can be I'm inside right now Thank you, my name is Alex. Thanks so much Okay, so they said there's no McDonald's at this location, right? What's going on? I'm pretty much sure there is an explanation for all this Yeah, I just need to wait for the police Everything's gonna be fine. All right. That's a pretty crazy plot twist. Oh, what is that? It's kind of a police, right? I just called them big old phone Hey, I called like one minute to go only but there's already somebody knocking on my door. Is it a police? What's really here? Thank you. I'm opening the door dance fast Okay, so we so we trust this or not. I feel like it's not the police, but Here goes nothing.  All right, so it seems like it was all a scam there was no McDonald's there to begin with that was pretty crazy Like he called the cops again in the location They looked it up and they reported that there was no McDonald's So where the heck were we at the entire time and the jumpscare at the end it was a little cheesy You should have just made it like an expectedly Jumpscares when it was dark instead of him seeing come at us, but overall the game was pretty cool I like the concept and I like to retro horror style pretty cool I'll use the link for you guys to check it out if you want quick little horror game All right, so since the game was short we're gonna watch this creepy McDonald's commercial All right, let's make a full screen and let's get it.  I'm just totally freaked out Why is Ronald McDonald in his bed Oh Here, where are you going you freaking clown? All right, I don't even know that was an official commercial or not I I think it was like a like someone just made it on their own, you know, like they just took their time and they created that Well, there we have it if you're scared of clowns. I know you definitely love this video I was just kidding. I know you hated it and maybe you're even more terrified Well, thank you for watching thank you all for the base support and I'll catch you guys in the next one