complete the ship and be ready for launch in about five years. five years seems like a long time to me. applause mr musk is a serious person, but serious people can be seriously wrong. but is itjust possible that we are poised for a breakthrough in travel up there, that would incidentally also revolutionise travel down here on earth? we'll ask astronaut chris hadfield if he is an optimist about the future of space travel, or not. the chief executive of microsoft tells us what governments can do if they think tech giants pay too little tax? any country can always throw any multinational out when they feel that they're not creating value in their country. it's absolutely within their right. and mick fleetwood, he of fleetwood mac... we were a blues band and we were in the church of, in the presence of, playing music with our heroes in their home. hello. it's a big friendly rocket... a giant one. bfr is the name given to it, and according to the billionaire entrepreneur elon musk, it's coming remarkably soon. he is a man with a track record, making top range tesla electric cars, developing large batteries and solar roof tiles. and, he's behind the falcon nine rockets that can amazingly land upright. but now he's notjust promising the earth, but mars as well. he's aiming for his new generation bfr to replace all his other rockets and take cargo to mars in 2022, passengers in 202a. oh, and it willalso speed up intercontinental travel on our planet. new york shanghai will the same time as wigan to manchester now. well, entrepreneurs have to be optimistic, it helps get things done. and mr musk is a do—er, for sure. but can he really re—shape space travel? chris cook reports. the future of space travel might be down to this man, elon musk, chief executive of space x. he wants to go to mars, soon. i am fairly confident we can complete the ship and be ready for launch in about five years. five years seems like a long time to me. space x already has a track record, putting satellites into orbit for both public and private customers. agencies like nasser and the european space agency have very complicated systems and public money funds them. getting the budget for something less expensive is a real challenge. we have talked about getting to mars for decades, but we haven't made the first step. elon musk has his own money and a lot of backers, so he can do things nasa can't. as he set out his plans today, he talked about the tools that he has developed. and fast, pressurised fuel tank, and is the key to have enough fuel to get to mars. it has been tested up to its design pressure. and then a little further. perhaps its most magical breakthrough is propulsive landing. it is strangely captivating. rockets that go to space, maybe even mars, then park themselves. and it contributes to their killer feature, reusability. it is crazy we build these sophisticated rockets and then crash them every time we fly. it is mad. his plan to build the bfr can come and go time again. but there is reason to be sceptical. his form of missing timetables. the bfr spacecraft is absolutely enormous. the volume of it is not that different to the international space station and he is suggesting it can go to mars, the moon and the international space station. the challenges is that each one of those missions are quite different. so i would be surprised if this one size fits all is really the best way to do it. musk even sees the bfr as being the basis of earth travel. his rockets can fly into space and drop anyone on the planet within the hour. because making money out of mars might be contentious. i suspect elon musk is driven by a vision, a notion, of really colonising mars, something some people would consider science fiction. the driving force behind nasa's vision of going to mars, the european space agency and the uk space agency, we are driven by the scientific question of understanding is there life on mars, was their life on mars? perhaps those things won't not sit side by side, we will have to see. a new space race could be different to the last. elon musk‘s plans do envisage colonising mars. the modern rush to the stars might not be for prestige or science, but to determine who gets mining rights on other planets. if you suffer any fear of flying, you wont look forward to the prospect of sitting on top of a rocket which takes off and lands again. so will this whole thing fly? joining me is the astronaut commander chris hadfield, former commander of the international space station, first canadian to walk in space and a man who attracted a huge following down here on earth. hejoins us from ontario. good evening. engineering wise, do you believe what elon musk describes is possible? are you convinced? i think everybody is looking at the acronym and i would go with a bit far—fetched rocket at this point. but, don't get me wrong, number one — in order to flight —— fly rockets like astronauts, you have to be an optimist. also, space x has been far—fetched from the beginning, yet they have delivered over and over again. they are a progressive company for some of the reasons you mentioned in that opening special. i don't think it will happen along the timeline he was talking about today, but he has amazing capacity and some brilliant people working for him. i think it is a great, outlandish goal to set for everyone now. you have sat in the space shuttle, sat on top of a rocket, more or less as you go up to the international space station. sitting on one as it comes down to land, would you feel comfortable doing that? he has had 16 in a row now, falcon 9 rockets that have come down successfully, would you sit in one? even the most simple aeroplane in the world that takes a passenger has to have an extremely trained pilot. and for any type of long—range flight, you have to have at least two pilots, otherwise nobody will buy a ticket. and no one is getting on even the most primitive aeroplane that has a robot sitting up front. so i think ticket sales are going to be difficult and especially because this can't glide to a landing. it is a very complex design. it will have to be exquisitely proven before it becomes a viable business model. but he's moving forward incredibly fast and i think this is a worthy target for people to aim for. one of the great obstacles is, it can'tjust be 99.9% safe. that would be safer than the space shuttle, but it has got to be 99.9 to i don't know how many decimal places, to market it for anything other than cargo? the difference is, imagine if you were getting into an error —— an aeroplane with hundreds of other people, with no windows and pretty questionable basic human facilities. where is your food going to come from, how do you take care of your waste and you're going to be weightless for the majority of these voyages. there will be a number of a complexitities that will roll into it. but you have to start somewhere. elon musk is out in front of the pack. i don't want to belittle anything. you are not sounding negative, but what is it all for? he has this vision of going to mars. he's spoken about making life multi—planetary to extend the chances of human beings surviving. is mars really that interesting? i mean, it doesn't seem there is that much up once you get there? i think similar questions were asked about canada. not that long ago. just an expanse of snow and ice. so often the things we discover when we get somewhere tend to make it more interesting than it seems from an unfocused distance. what he also recognises is there are moments in history when things come together. we would never have put people on the moon had it not been for the combination of the cold war, a populist president and then the president being shot. if those things had not happened, i don't think the united states would have sustained the inertia and impetus to put men on the moon in 69 and i think elon musk sees that moment in time when the technology and the economy sort of make this possible. he recognises that his company is in a position to do that. so i think that gives him partially a sense of urgency. what you are saying is interesting because if you looked at it and those who really have the resources, he has billions and he has shareholders, but the place that really has resources, and the will and the desire to show itself as lifting off, is china. or potentially india as well. these guys must be able to beat elon musk with his ten or 15 billion or something? well, both india and china have active space agencies. china has put three people into space. one of only three nations in the world that can. india is working hard to be able to do that. both india and china are targeting putting people on the moon. so they're definitely heading that way, but it is sometimes to the brave goes the victory. and this is definitely, whether it is spoken or not, it is definitely a competition. in elon‘s case it's also a financial competition because throughout all of this, not only has he pushed back the edge of the technology, he has continued to make a profit out of it. that brings us to the final question, is there a business plan that can work and justify this? it would be great if he can achieve it, but can it really pay? reusable rockets, especially to the extent that elon musk is reusing them, more than the space shuttle ever did, that reusability drops the cost significantly and he's getting better at it with every launch. his idea of being able to go from place to place on the surface of the earth with an essentially reusable rocket does start to become viable from a business model. it will be a long time before transport to the moon or transport to mars becomes viable for a business, but if someone has a few billion dollars to spend of their own, they can afford to take the risk and put it up there and build it to see if people will come. that is what he's about. thanks so much for talking to us. everybody knows the name bill gates, the first chief executive of microsoft. when it comes to the current chief executive, not so much. which is a pity, as satya nadella is an interesting man. indian—born, he took over at microsoft in 2014 and has been trying to change the corporate culture in his time there. the company was knocked off its perch as most valuable technology giant by apple back in 2010 and it was pushed into third by google two years ago. can mr nadella restore its glory? and can he help fix the reputation not so much of microsoft but of the huge american tech giants, who are seen by many as hard to regulate and resistant to paying tax? he's been in britain for the last couple of days promoting his new book, hit refresh, and i met him this morning. i asked him about theresa may's proposals to force internet companies to take down terror—related content quicker, or else face punishment. ultimately, any government that wants to force something needs to think through what they are really forcing. because ultimately, progress is only made if you have trust. trust on all sides. so by overreaching by a government, you might in fact, sacrifice some of the most timeless values that you care deeply about, like privacy of your citizens. therefore, being very careful and being very principled, and especially for a democracy, for these things to be actually debated, so that the framework of laws balance out things that we value. it sounds like you are saying transparency is good, so you might need to forego some of my privacy if a government requests that with a court order, but it needs to be transparent? absolutely. china is a difficult case, isn't it for you? you are big in china, you own linkedin, which is big in china and has been criticised for kowtowing to the chinese government? tell me about how you deal with china and are you really transparent in the way you deal with china? you know, in china again, we operate in in more than i90—plus companies. there is very different laws in all of these countries and we are subject to them, so we are not somehow excluded. if you want to participate in china, you have to participate through chinese laws. but twitter, facebook, snapchat, these are not participating in china, linkedin and microsoft are? look, i don't want to speak to what others' choices are and whether it's their choice or the choice of the chinese government. you may want to ask them. but i'll tell you what we think about, whether it's linkedin or any of our properties, we really are trying to conform to the laws, while also being principled in what we will do and not do. there are certain services that we don't operate in china, because we believe that what we have to do is earn the trust of end users and privacy and certain things are more important than participating in china. do you lose sleep over this one though? because linkedin, the conversations in the west that people have on linkedin are uncensored and in china, they are to some extent censored. do you at least lose sleep over the kind of dilemma of kowtowing to an nondemocratic government? look, at this point, for me to pass judgment on people's governments is just out of place. one of the key things we have to respect is the sovereignty of countries and their forms of government, while being principled on what is it you value. and to sort of takes some western attitude toward some particular set of forms of government and spring it on the rest of the world may not serve us well at this time when we need to come together as a global community, is my view. let take another specific issue, which has caused enormous public concern, which is the taxes that large, intellectual property companies like yours, end up paying. do you see the job of a microsoft, the duty to its shareholders, to pay as little tax as it can legally pay? or do you think there is a fair tax that you should pay in each jurisdiction which you are in? i think of the equation broader than tax. first, on tax, i think the core approach is to make sure we are paying taxes that are legally required by us in all the countries we operate in. i understand that point, but i think a lot of people say, i don't want you to just pay the taxes you legally have to pay, no one's going to actually accuse you of actually cheating and writing illegal things, evading tax. it is about whether aggressive avoidance is acceptable by companies like yours and do you think it is not? look, i think picking and narrow ofjust taxation was us looking perhaps... no, i think the public feel very strongly about this narrow point of taxation, we don't have enough tax and where the money is, is in companies like yours. i think any country can always throw any multinational out when they feel they are not creating value in their country. it's absolutely within their rights. so the key question is, what is it that they will use as criteria for making that decision? so i would submit that you should evaluate multinationals, about how much surplus have they created in your country in totality? if it is adding value to your country, you let them operate. if you don't, then you should. you are excited in the book by the fourth industrial revolution, a whole lot of technology coming down the road, they will mesh together, whether it is quantum computing or all the other areas on which progress has been made. a lot of the public are concerned, for example about robots, artificial intelligence, displacing us injobs. you suggest each robot takes away three human jobs. how should society react to that, should we, as been suggested this week in this country, potentially have a tax that says tax the robots to pay for the retraining of the workers. do you think taxing robots is a good idea? is it a way of marshalling or is it luddite? if there is automation, there's displacements, what do we do? i think there are multiple things we should do. one of the things i'm excited about is let's create a feedback, let's not fall for this lump of labour fallacy completely. let us really help skill people, whether they are in schools or whether they've been displaced at work, to find their nextjob. and then ultimately, we do need newjobs. some with the machine, some could be people on peoplejobs, so i do believe we have a more comprehensive way to go at it before we think that alljobs are going away because of automation and you also ask if there is a return on capital and there's no return on labour, that's not stable. we can go back to the industrial revolution and learn from that and then figure out how to get that balance back. satya nadella, nice to talk to you. thank you so much. i have to say that was just over six minutes of a much longer conversation and it doesn't do justice to his views on so many things — microsoft, management, and the need for empathy in business. but if you want to see the unedited version of the interview, it's up on our youtube channel. we'll tweet out a link to that. spain finds itself accelerating towards an extraordinary constitutional showdown this weekend. catalonia, which is 16% of the population of the country, is run by separatist politicians who've organised an independence referendum this sunday. the spanish government and courts say it is notjust unrecognised, but totally illegal. spanish police have been told to stop public buildings being used for the vote. but the problem with central government ramping up tension like that, is that it provokes a reaction. catalonian farmers and firefighters say they'll protect the designated polling stations. and at numerous schools where voting is meant to occur, sit—ins are underway to stop the spanish authorities getting in the way of the referendum. we can talk now to ernest mendoza, who's sitting in a school just outside barcelona. i'm really puzzled as to what you're actually going to do on sunday if the authorities blockade you, what power do you have? well, we have the power of the people. we have the power of the population and we have the right to vote, because that's the sole base of democracy. as individuals, our duty is to defend democracy and that is what we are doing. is it possible there will be violence? if they get rough, will you get rough, or is it entirely peaceful? not at all. they're not going to get rough. because they form part of population as well, police forces are also people from catalonia and definitely there is not going to be violence from our side either. just to give you an indication for the last seven years there has been demonstrations of one million every year and there has not a single problem, not a single issue, nothing at all. tell me about the scene there, there is clearly a large number of you. are you all there until sunday? yes that is the plan. i'm with fellows, parents and the kids and basically we have been organising all sorts of activities like playing, story telling. tomorrow we have a barbecue during the afternoon we will be doing games as well and tonight some of the parents are going to be sleeping here in the school. but you're not, you together can all sing together, but catalonia is to some extent divided by this. it is split between those who want to separate and those who don't. i wouldn't say division. everyone has his own opinion. here with the people that is with me, you will find people that is pro—independence and people against independence. i think what we are talking here is something more deep and something more important, it is freedom of speech and democracy. what is going to happen on monday? you have a referendum on sunday. it is not going to be good enough. it won't be accepted by everybody. probably the referendum bill spoilt by some ballot places being shut. on monday do you declare independence? you should ask my president about this particular issue. but my opinion is the referendum hasn't been taking place yet. i have a lot of confidence in my government that they're going to do a clean transparent and well organised referendum and until now this is what we have been seeing and what happens on monday, it depends on the government. so my opinion, i wouldn't mind the referendum wins pro—independence and there, well i guess there has to be some negotiations, to me the real problem here is they have never been sitting down on the table. the catalan government has tried around 17 times to discuss about this issue. we need to leave it there. definitely. we will see what will happen. thank you for speaking to us. and, gabriel gatehouse is going to barcelona to report for us on monday. anyone around in 1977 will remember fleetwood mac's album rumours, that seemed to be stuck at number one that year. it remains one of the best—selling albums of all time, notwithstanding michaeljackson coming along afterwards. but although you wouldn't know it from that album, fleetwood mac started out as a successful blues band in the 1960s. the fleetwood in fleetwood mac, was the drummer mick fleetwood, who was a constant in the long life of the band, which had oft—changing personnel. now, mr fleetwood has just put together a lavish book — text and images — on the early days of the band. phase one in its life, before rumours. i sat down with him yesterday, to talk about the book, the blues lifestyle, the good old days, and the many turbulent ones. the book is dedicated to peter green, who formed fleetwood mac. so very quickly, this is all about beginnings of fleetwood mac and that period. chess studios you are there, there are quite a few pictures in the book of you there with fleetwood mac. what are your memories of that? well, extreme! chess studios demonstrates what and who we were as young musicians in a band called fleetwood mac. we were in a blues band and we were in the church of, in the presence of the likes of otis spann and willie dixon, buddie guy, shakey horton, jt brown who played saxophone in elmore james band and if you listen to early fleetwood mac records, it is basically elmore james on steroids. so it was a moment pregnant beyond imagination and a thrill to be playing music with our heroes, you know, in their home. obviously, the book gets from this sort of if you like the happiest days of blues playing into more turbulent period in which i think you say we were all taking psychedelic drugs. it doesn't come across as an advert for psychedelic drugs. is that how you look on it? no, this is very, it is driven by images. so it's really about the music and the people and the kudos to those members. this is not... if you pick peter green, who as i said, the book is dedicated to... we should say he left the band in 1970, despite being really the founder of the band. he is the founder. i mention him there. but there is no fleetood mac without peter. but really did his brain in in a serious way with lss. -- lsd. this book is not about that, this is about touching on what the music was all about and to who these people are. it's hard to detach from the subject matter that you mention, but that's the whole another dynamic. i'm interested in the link between that and the music is whether, because you lost another member, jeremy spencer, to a cult, a religious cult, he walked out on the band in the west coast of the states and it is whether that kind of fraught mind helped the music, or whether that's just an unfortunate coincidence. i don't think you will ever know, other than the slightly worn adage that there's often used — for good reason — is the tortured creative person — painter, poet, writer, maybe even interviewer. i can't talk to you without getting on to rumours. the book in a way stops before the rumours phase. it does indeed. i'm sure that is deliberate, but it was one of the best—selling albums of all time, a string of no1 hits, absolutely enormous album. i'm listening to you. butjust at the time that punk is beginning to emerge and everything's getting very raucous, but also a very turbulent time. you have got this very turbulent time for the band. it was the beginning of a very awkward moment. yet a very slick album at a time when the world and the music scene is changing. it was very much a natural progression from where we had left off, which was in the book here — it stops just after you know bob left the band, bob welsh. so it goes right up to until that moment until what you're mentioning, stylistically, a smooth when something else was happening. that i can't really make any comment about apart from... it felt the way you were going and not contrived, not deliberate. not contrived at all. not what was going to sell. no, we never thought of that ever. how many albums have gone out with fleetwood mac, 20 something is it? i actually don't know. you are the only one who is on every single one. correct and john. there was even a period when there was a fake fleetwood mac, because... me and john. there wasn't a fleetwood mac, because... i don't think they ever made an album. no one was on that one. but, yeah, i suppose it gets at the heart of the identity question — what is the true fleetwood mac and where is the heir to it.

Related Keywords

China , United States , India , Canada , Spain , Barcelona , Comunidad Autonoma De Cataluna , Canadian , Spanish , Chinese , American , Theresa May , Peter Green , Chris Hadfield , Willie Dixon , Elmore Jameson , Bob Welsh , Elmore James , Mick Fleetwood , Jeremy Spencer , Fleetwood Mac , Satya Nadella , Ernest Mendoza , Otis Spann ,