Zimmerman really needs to reign himself in somewhat. He always makes his points clearly and effectively but then continues to reiterate the point which makes followups by the host or caller difficult.

The Tuesday show is usually the only one I can listen to live and I was disappointed I couldn’t catch this one.

Great job by all involved.

As I live in Ireland, I’m not in the right timezone to listen live (and I’m not an insomniac) but I listen via podcast within a few days of the show airing. This blog is a great way for us time-shifters to comment and get involved.
Regards,
John

With four programs a week (on average) there are plenty of Space Show program topics, guests, etc. to satisfy most of the listeners most of the time. I do agree with you, regardless of it being a book or just a discussion about a new commercial space idea or policy, or a trip to Mars, having a guest as prepared as Michelle was is essential but it does not always happen. Remember during the show I told Michelle talking to her about X-15 was like listening to a baseball game in which every stat known in the game is rattled off by the announcers when anything in the game happens. I said that Michelle was like those all knowing baseball computers and stat keepers. I even invited listeners to try and stump her on an X-15 question.

Not only was talking to her about X-15 a real joy and full of new information, I found it personally rewarding. I wish all shows were like that but again, this was exceptional and her book is clearly THE book on X-15. I do learn and benefit from all shows and with some, I work much harder as the information is not as free flowing as it was with Michelle, but it is usually there just needing a bit of coaxing to surface. But all the guests and topics contribute to our knowledge base but I’m glad this one hit the spot with you.

Thanks again for your note. Remember, we people are a mix of just about everything & The Space Show wants to bring as much responsible information with qualified guests to the microphone. I know all programs will not appeal to all people as I hear from listeners with lots of different and even specialized preferences. Again, I’m glad this one was a hit with you.

David Livingston
(DrSpace)

Ingredients for a great show =

Supremely knowledgable guest
+
Actual aerospace program that flew with real hardware

It helps that the book is well researched and well written and has been edited and produced by great team like the UNP.

10/10

I really enjoy these shows, e.g. authors of space books, scientists discussing their work, engineers and astronauts discussing their careers. Tangible acheivements as opposed to powerpoint vapourware.
John

I read reports of Ram/rocket hybrid engines (where effectively the rocket engine exhausts into a cylinder where a afterburner like ramjet is feed by fresh air pulled in by the rocket exhaust) that suggested a doubling of average ISP to orbit, and having the mass of fuel/lox at take-off for the same weight ship, making for a smaller, tougher, more serviceable ship.

I know the DC-X/3 design stayed almost exclusively with off the shelf technologies, but was this studied for the DC-X or any other launcher project your aware of?

Could you comment on this technology?

What markets (other than NASA and DOD) were foreseen for production DC-X shuttles (DC-3’s), and how large (in flights or dollars)

Mid 90’s

Launchers:

· DC-X was proving to offer tremendous cost and operability improvements (3000 times fewer labor hours per flight, over 10 fold direct launch cost reduction, 24 turnaround times)

· DC-X’s DC-3 SSTO shuttle follow-up was so far along, the reviewers said the designs had the catalog numbers of all the parts and components.

· Big firms were arm twisting NASA to adopt (at guaranteed really big savings to them) CATS like RLVs from the DC-X, to Venture Star.

· New space firms were trying to develop Blackhorse derived space planes, other low cost RLV’s. Lots of newspace firms (Beal, Rocketplane, Kistler, Roton, Scaled Composites, etc.)

Market projections

· Huge satellite clusters of dozens to up to a hundred sats each, were in development and would require a lot of launches.

· The SDI design of 60 laser battle platforms the sire of a pair of buses would need 50 flights a year just for servicing – more to construct.

· Tourists surveys were projecting huge demands to orbit and suborbital.

· Major industrial production markets, and orbital research were projected or stated by various major corporations.

Prestige programs

· NASA was projecting huge expansive on orbit research on the ISS.

· NASA was sketching out (as directed) low cost return to the moon programs deployed and recovered by orbiting shuttles.

So it all looked really bright for our future in space.

Now 20 years later

Launchers:

· NASA destroyed DC-X, spun X-33 to a technology demonstrator and used it to “disprove” the concept of RLVs or low cost launchers. Paying L/M a $billion extra in a contract to not demonstrate SSTO capacity, and just demo technologies. Air Force was locked out of investing in RLV’s. The rest of the market seems indifferent. So all the major aero firms drop their RLV / CATS projects.

· NASA demands and gets shuttle not replaced by any lower cost/high safety craft – but a much higher cost, lower safety, retro Apollo Constellation/SLS design.

· DC-X all but forgotten.

· New space firms mostly shut down. SpaceX is fielding a retro Soyuz style system with very pour current reliability records. Some argue it’s a bit cheaper, others (like congress) that it’s much more expensive. No one seriously argues its revolutionary. All advanced space craft projects NewSpace programs are dead and the community argues the 1950’s era designs are the best that technology would allow.

Market projections

· The huge commercial satellite clusters of dozens to up to a hundred sats each, were canceled. Iridium was scaled down, the others canceled, SDI in work as a “Brilliant Pebbles” system that wouldn’t need any significant launcher capacity..

· Tourists to the ISS started reflying one guy after only a couple flights, and at current price points may only be a handful of people.

· Major industrial space dev projects abandoned, or now invalidated due to advances in competing technology.

Prestige programs

· NASA orbital research: Shuttle discontinued. ISS research largely reduced to some testing of advanced life-support systems.

· NASA Doesn’t officially talk about moon or Mars manned missions. Robot probe program is dramatically downsized.

It seems to me that Bigelow isn’t going to be having oversight over other companies or be in a broker position for future operations. Rather, its agreement with NASA is for Bigelow to produce a report for NASA. When that report is turned in, that SAA is over. Specifically the announcement said, “Bigelow will deliver its analysis by the end of this year”.

My take on what’s going on is that NASA is cognizant that there are any number of possible public-private partnerships between NASA and commercial companies for activities BEO in which both NASA’s exploration goals are helped and the commercial companies would develop new revenue streams.

The ideas are numerous. For example, a transportation system that takes NASA astronauts to a EML station could also be used for circum-lunar tourism. A system to bring an asteroid back to the Earth-Moon system for mining might also do the same in order to give astronauts flown on an Orion experience with in-space operations. Manned lunar surface mining operations could also be of benefit to NASA by practicing off-Earth planetary surface operations in preparation for an eventual Mars mission.

Bigelow is an interesting choice to do this write-up. Their inflatables could be used at LEO, at an L-point, on the lunar surface, and even on an Inspiration Mars-type mission. Yet Bigelow (as far as I know) has no serious competitor for inflatable habs. So choosing them isn’t playing favorites. Yet Bigelow has some degree of relationships with Boeing, SpaceX, the IM people, and potentially the Moon exploring and mining companies. So I think that NASA wants the commercial companies to suggest possible partnerships and it has chosen Bigelow to help organize the commercial companies suggestions for such partnerships.

He made a comment along the lines of “space advocates have a more accurate vision of the future” and followed it up with another to the effect that “we know there will be colonies on the moon in a hundred years”. Both comments struck me as more than a little arrogant although they are all too common among space advocates. Space advocates have no better track record of predicting the future than any other group and I can think of no better way to demonstrate that than to look at what space advocates in 1963 were predicting for 50 years hence. And no, we don’t know that there will be colonies on the moon in a hundred years. For all we know the idea of colonies on the moon will seem as quaint and amusing to the world of 2113 as the notions of cities on the sea floor covered by transparent domes seems to us today. Assuming one’s personal convictions to be established fact seems like a poor way to craft space policy at the national level.

I was also mystified by his idea that a consensus would be easier to reach if we focused on very long range goals, a hundred years hence. I am under the impression that that is what most space advocates are in fact advocating. The problem, of course, is that most space advocates, have entirely different visions of the world 100 years from now. Advocates like Spudis and Zubrin spend entirely too much effort on long range goals, in my opinion. Musk, who Nelson seems to dismiss, although he certainly has long range ambitions, has achieved much greater success by focusing on the near term and adjusting priorities as needed.

All that said, Nelson seems to have put a great deal of thought in all this and I hope that after his Space Review piece appears Dr. Livingston can have him on as a guest.