jump to navigation

Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 2-16-14 February 17, 2014

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5 comments

Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 2-16-14

Artificial Gravity

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2188-BWB-2014-02-16.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guest:  Dr. John Jurist.  Topics: Artificial gravity, spinning, tethers, rotation rates, the gravity gradient & more.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcomed back Dr. John Jurist for this two hour discussion on all aspects of artificial gravity.  Note that Dr. Jurist prepared presentation material for this program which you will find on the archived blog entry for this discussion.  Also, I recommend you read the excellent article by our UK guest, inventor, & friend, Robert Walker, “Can Spinning Habs Solve the Zero g Health Issues?  Can Humans Live in Mars or Lunar g? Why Nobody Knows.” (see www.science20.com/print/129424).  During our first segment, Dr. Jurist introduced us to the basics of artificial gravity including the Coriolis effect, the gravity gradient & the info needed from in-space artificial gravity R&D.  Several studies including one by UC Irvine were mentioned, plus other bed rest studies.  He also talked about the Wyle Centrifuge studies which used a short arm for experimentation.  Our attention turned to the presentation material on TSS blog titled “Artificial Gravity Comments–JmJurist.”  Dr. Jurist took us through the tables & charts on his two page document.  He was asked about gender & age differences with gravity as well as small rodent/mammal ISS experiments now or in the future.  Our first caller was John from Ft. Worth who clarified some of his comments from the last Open Lines show plus he talked about the hardware, infrastructure, & engineering issues for in-space experiments.  We talked about the use of tethers & the relationship with microgravity & radiation issues.  With our caller still with us, Jenna emailed asking if either Mars One or Inspiration Mars would provide the needed research that never seems to be done by NASA or others.

In the second segment, Doug from S. California called.  He talked about his T frame tetherball type structure concept as an interim artificial gravity tool but said it was not a long term solution.  He also inquired about tethers, then he wanted to know about the mass of possible tether cables as well as potential materials that could be used for in-space tethers.  Doug then described a reference mission using a long arm centrifuge for the surface of the Moon.  Doug described a very good concept and Dr. Jurist had much to say about it.  We had quite the discussion on possible implementation strategies and the roadmap from theory to operations given our current policy & economic environment, plus the track record on other large projects that never made it.  With Doug on the phone, Ft. Worth John emailed to inquire about stability issues and tidal forces on the tether.  Both Dr. Jurist & Doug made a pass at providing John an answer to his question.  In his closing statement, our guest went over some basic advantages with a tether, the problems of the gravity gradient & the fact that the issues for colonization were very different than for experiments or a reference mission.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above.  If you want to reach Dr. Jurist or our callers, do so through me.

Golden Oldie Replay, Classroom Art. Gravity Show, 2-14-14 February 14, 2014

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Golden Oldie Replay, Classroom Art. Gravity Show, 2-14-14

Featuring Drs. Jurist & Logan, Joe Carroll from May 3, 2011

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2187-BWB-2014-02-14.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guests:  Classroom:  Dr. David Livingston, Joe Carroll, Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Jim Logan.  Topics:  Manned artificial gravity research station in LEO.  Please note that this program originally aired as a Space Show Classroom program May 3, 2011.  This replay is being brought to you today as a result of the interest expressed in the subject during the Open Lines program of Feb. 2, 2014.  As this is a Golden Oldie replay, there is no live participation with this program.  If you have questions or comments for the co-hosts or Mr. Carroll, post them on The Space Show blog for this entry.  In addition, when the original Classroom program first aired, Mr. Carroll provided presentation material. You can see this material by going to http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/lesson-three-presentation-material-5-3-11 and clicking on the two items available for review and download.  Also, the summary below is the unedited summary from the May 3, 2011 Classroom program which is posted both on The Space Show website archives for that date as well as on The Space Show Classroom archives for that date (http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com).

Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

This two hour plus Classroom program was continuous without a break.  For this program, refer to the Power Point presentation by Joe, “Design Concepts for a Manned Artificial Gravity Research Facility.”  Mr. Carroll took us through this presentation slide by slide, plus he responded to listener and co-host questions throughout the program.  You can find this presentation plus his longer IAC Conference paper on The Space Show Classroom blog under Presentation Materials for our Classroom program for May 3, 2011.  Rather than writing a summary of this program, let me say that Mr. Carroll has given considerable thought to the engineering and human factors/human physiology issues regarding an artificial gravity research station in LEO.  Listener questions addressed technical issues relating to spin, center of mass/gravity, hits by orbital debris items and more.  Throughout this Classroom discussion, Joe took us into the technology, operations, and why’s regarding his artificial gravity research station.  Many issues were discussed including but not limited to Mars & lunar gravity, .06 G, spin rates, the Coriolis effect, the Gemini experiments, a Moon/Mars Dumbbell Concept, Airbeam tunnels, radial structure lengths, and much more.  Toward the end of the program, we discussed the economics, costs, and who might pay for and deploy such a station.  You will hear Joe talk about the present economic, cost, and R&D uncertainties for such a project, but you will also hear him talk about the commercial potentials, who should be given “free” access to the research station and why, the use of it with Space X as well as Bigelow, and why not doing it as a NASA project makes sense though he advocated NASA as a customer.  At the very end, I asked Joe about building some small models to help those of us who are not engineers in understanding and even visualizing his concept.  He liked that idea, talked about larger models of the size of a Boeing 737 cabin (he used this cabin size throughout his discussion and presentation), and possibly locating it at a company such as Space X.  As we concluded our discussion, all of us said that after 50 years of human spaceflight, to not be able to answer any of the questions regarding the issues discussed in this program was criminal. Furthermore, as you will hear Dr. Logan and the others say, you can determine the credibility of a human space program by the speed and determination of the commitment to understanding the necessary gravity needs for people, plants, and animals in space.  If there is no commitment to understanding these issues, the program is more likely a rhetoric only program.

Post your comments & questions on TSS blog URL above.  All participants can be emailed through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

The Space Show Classroom with Drs. Jurist & Logan, Monday, 1-6-14 January 7, 2014

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

The Space Show Classroom with Drs. Jurist & Logan, Monday, 1-6-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2159-BWB-2014-01-06.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guests: Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Space advocacy magical/fantasy thinking, radiation, rockets, HSF & more.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcomed back Drs. Jurist and Logan to this CLASSROOM program which addressed many issues of the 2 hours 1 minute broadcast.  We started out with Dr. Logan discussing fantasy or magical thinking going back to the influence of a 2001 Space Odyssey movie poster had on him.  From there, Jim went into a discussion about Constellation, then the Space Shuttle as examples of what he was talking about and as to how programs and faulty ideas grow and multiply.  He also talked about life science challenges.  A listener asked him about space politics, then Dr. Jurist offered additional examples with a focus on air launch.  Our guests then discussed thinking based on agendas and ideology.  One of the keys suggested for breaking out of this magical thinking mode involved surrounding yourself with really smart people.  Later, I offered my perspective on that given my own experiences early on in Space Show time and before.   Both Jim and John said a few times that one needs to know his or her limitations.  Our guests then talked due diligence with assumption building, fact checking, disclosures, and more.  I relayed my own wake -up call experience due to Al Zaehringer who was on the show several times years ago before he passed on.  Before the segment ended, Jim told us a story about the Wright Brothers and their Wright Flyer experience.  In our second segment, John Hunt called in to talk about Jim’s Space Shuttle comments.  This was a lengthy discussion with John, Jim, & John Jurist.  Jim talked about advantages with Saturn V including economic advantages over shuttle to LEO.  Subjects of reusability came up along with issues of getting a specific payload to orbit which our guests suggested advocacy often glosses over with facts and trades for payload mass fractions involved in reusability.  Dr. Logan brought up and discussed what he called NASA Brinkmanship Strategy.  Jim then talked about the reality of sending payloads to the ISS using shuttle.   Trent in Australia sent a message about magical thinking with Mars One.  Our last caller was Alan from St. Louis who said John and Jim were too negative in their discussion.  Alan then talked about using smaller rockets over heavy lift and was working to make the case that we have to work with what we have.  He also talked about evolving up from smaller, not starting off with the biggest.  Each of us responded to Alan.  It’s a discussion you do not want to miss.

Please post your comments/questions on either or both The Space Show Blog above or The Space Show Classroom blog, http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com.  You can reach all of the participants including the callers through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Classroom with Drs. John Jurist & Jim Logan, Tuesday, 12-17-13 December 16, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
5 comments

Classroom with Drs. John Jurist & Jim Logan, Tuesday, 12-17-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2145-BWB-2013-12-17.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guests:  Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics: This was a Classroom show on radiation issues for deep space travel, Mars and Moon settlements.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcomed Dr. Jim Logan and Dr. John Jurist to this special 2.5 hour Space Show classroom in-depth discussion on space radiation. We focused our discussion on deep space, Mars, the Moon and BLEO missions. Note that on both The Space Show blog (see above) and The Space Show Classroom blog (http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com),  Dr. Jurist has a Power Point presentation on radiation.  During the program, our guests referred to specific slides that you will want to check out.  In our first segment, Dr. Logan started out by telling us about his interest in the subject, why he has been writing a paper on the subject for publication, and how this Classroom show came about.  He cited our short duration spaceflight experience, the Apollo missions, Space Shuttle flights, and then how things started to change when we had six month ISS visits.  Dr. Logan also made it clear that space was not a benign emptiness type of environment.  He said the reality was that interplanetary space was a sea of disruptive ionizing radiation wrecking havoc on biologic systems.  We moved forward in our discussion from that point.  We talked about the findings of the MSL RAD instrument regarding radiation on the way to Mars and on the surface of Mars.  Both John and Jim spent some time putting the RAD numbers through analysis to let us know what this means for human missions to Mars.  We talked shielding, possible materials, passive and active.  We talked extensively about water and the use of hydrogen as well for shielding.  Our guests addressed the two types of radiation, the GCR (galactic cosmic rays) and the CME/solar flare.  Here, John suggested listeners look at his slide 13 as we talked about protons and neutrons.  Jim said there was no magic bullet and talked about shielding effects of Earth’s atmosphere.  Pay attention here as Jim introduced us to the  RP scale.  For being on the surface, he said nothing less than RP100 would suffice.  For the vehicle, an RP5 was required.  John introduced us to career limits for radiation for men and women astronauts of different age but the career limits are for LEO and not BLEO.  BLEO limits are expected to be more restrictive when made public in April 2014.  Earth Mars transit times were discussed, especially in the context of Brian’s email that suggested a 180 day transit time.  Both our guests said that was unlikely with chemical propulsion and all of us again stressed the need for nuclear thermal propulsion.  Microgravity was talked about, especially in the context of side effects due to the radiation environment.  Jim then brought up the EVA subject and spacesuits.  Briefly, Jim said that quite possibly the ISS construction represented the zenith of EVAs which may become a thing of the past.  Don’t miss why he said this plus his description of serious spacesuit limitations.  We talked about life support to Mars and here Jim suggested we should use Open Loop! Again, listen to the rational behind this recommendation.  Don’t miss what our guests said about theories & movies making it sound easy to go to Mars and that the radiation would be nothing more than just a few more cigarette packs a year.  Our last topic addressed informed consent issues.

In the second segment, I asked our guests for a readiness timetable were there sufficient funding and technology advancements.  I also inquired if Russia, China, and others assessed the radiation risks in a similar way to the U.S.  We then talked about radiation and space pregnancy, fetus development, birth, and informed consent for the fetus, a baby, and a child under 18.  Ethical issues regarding child birth and space pregnancy were talked about as well.  Curt had sent in email questions which our guests answered, especially about drinking irradiated water and microgravity DNA damage & what this may mean for radiation effects.  Next, I asked Jim and John to tell us their 2-5 steps for the start of designing a Mars human mission.  Jim went first and listed Day 1 and Day 2 activities, John listed his top three priorities which were different than those suggested by Jim.  Don’t miss this discussion as its very instructive as to how to do or at least start mission planning for a human mission BLEO.  Roger sent in a question asking if the crew should be senior citizens since they have more resistance to radiation.  Don’t miss what our guests said about this idea.  It may surprise you.  Our next topic was would going to Deimos be easier.  Yes, it would but it would be a very different kind of human  mission.  Jim had some great comments about Mars gravity.  Briefly, he said it was the “best.” Later, when asked to compare the Moon and Mars, our guests said lunar radiation was worse than Mars.  Also, the Mars atmosphere does provide limited shielding while there is no such thing on the Moon.  Jim had earlier talked about a sphere being the perfect shape for an interplanetary spaceship.  Shelia emailed in wanting to know if heavy lift made a difference and if the sphere was so good, why were capsules being used? Don’t miss the response.  We then talked about the complexities of rendezvous and docking, especially in the context of fewer launches (heavy lift) as compared to many more launches (smaller rockets).  Near the end, I asked our guests if either thought our nation, the public, NASA, our leaders and politicians were sufficiently motivated to do a human Mars mission.  Jim did not think so and had much more to say in reply to this question.  John was more pessimistic.  Both thought it was more likely that the private sector would mount a human Mars mission rather than our seeing a government mission, but raising the needed capital might turn out to be a show stopper.  The three of us then talked about what it was like growing up in the 40′s, 50′s, and 60′s as compared to today.  John and I (John is a bit more than 2 years older than me) were probably more harsh than Jim in our assessment of today, but we all realize that the younger generations will be taking us to space, building the next smartphone and more. I talked about my visits to Google, Apple, SpaceX, etc. and the excitement in the air in belonging in their work forces which does not seem to exist with NASA. This opened the door for Jim to put it on the line about his NASA experiences and the potential opportunities providing NASA can somehow reorganize.  He did not think the type of reorganization he was talking about would happen.  Both our guests left us with excellent takeaway points and concluding pearls of wisdom.

Please post your comments/questions on the blogs. You can reach either of our guests through me.

                                                  Radiation Biophysics and Human Spaceflight

Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13 November 19, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6 comments

THE SPACE SHOW CLASSROOM

Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2125-BWB-2013-11-19.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

Guests:  Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  “Trajectory Challenges Faced By Orbiting Infrastructure Supporting Multiple Earth Departures For Mars.”  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

Welcome to this special Space Show Classroom program with Dan Adamo, Dr. Logan, Dr. Jurist, and myself.  There was no break during this 2 hour 21 minute discussion which at times was very technical.  For those of you interested in missions to Mars, orbiting space infrastructure including depots, Earth & LEO departure points, mission and launch trades, payload issues and trades, radiation concerns, and more, you will find this discussion to be extremely informative and educational.  Guest Dan Adamo took us through the charts and graphs which you can access on either The Space Show Blog or The Space Show Classroom blog ((see http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com and http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com).  Access the document ReuseForMars to follow the MP3 audio transcript. The other document on the blogs is a longer white paper version of the .pdf we used for last night’s discussion.  Dan introduced the topic to us, talked about his tangential work in this area at JSC last summer and the space community interest in orbiting infrastructure, especially fuel depots.  Dan then took us through the .pdf document discussing and explaining each chart and graph.  Rather than report on his page by page discussion, note that Jim, John, and I asked lots of questions per each chart and graph as did listeners by email and later in the discussion by phone.  Some of the main points and take aways from this discussion focused on inclination, launch location, penalties and advantages relating to orbiting infrastructure reuse for Earth departures to interplanetary destinations. For example, Russian launch sites are far to the north and will not be as efficient for Mars launches as sites to the south.  But as Doug discovered when he asked about equatorial launches, they benefit from a boost due to the inertial rotation of the Earth for higher initial launch speed, but otherwise there is no real benefit from the equatorial launch because minimum Earth orbit inclination is imposed by interplanetary geometry.  Another important point had to do with the reuse of orbital infrastructure.  As you will hear, it’s virtually worthless to reuse infrastructure in low Earth orbit to support Mars mission departure, including a depot, unless it can be repurposed for something else other than a Mars mission.  Don’t miss Dan’s explanation of this.  While we talked about Earth departure windows for Mars at two year intervals, we learned that not all these windows are equal.  Here, using the tables in Dan’s document, we were able to see just how unequal the Earth departure windows can be.  We talked a lot about Elliptical Earth Parking Orbit (EEPO) and the relationships with apogee and perigee for our payload departures for Mars.  Later, Dan outlined how we can “store” the cryo in the upperstage of our rocket as kinetic energy in the EEPO shortly after launch, a way to store the cryo energy without having to mitigate boiloff or transfer it between spacecraft.  Much was said about radiation and when you go through the trajectories and see them plotted as Dan has done, we learned that not all trajectories are equal as to radiation exposure.  Other important elements of our discussion that we focused on included the trans-Mars Injection (TMI) and asymptotic Earth departure velocity (v_infinity).  Listener Jimmy emailed us about another paper by a Goddard team that Dan was familiar with and he used some of their data and research.  Access their poster at www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/science/NHATS_Accessible_NEAs_Summary.png (note you may need to cut & paste the URL in your browser).  As Dan & our Classroom panel went through charts, graphs, & tables, we applied the information to launches Earth departures in 2020 and 2022.  It was valuable to see how the constraints change, not always for the better either.  Note that we started with a 400 KM orbit but later dropped it to about 340 km above earth.  I suspect you will find the changing constraints and parameters to be more than interesting.  Near the end, Doug called in to ask about the reuse of the repurposing orbital infrastructure, including depots, as possible infrastructure for the Moon or a cislunar project.  Not only is this a possibility, we learned that something like the orbits that would be involved in doing this were used for the recent NASA GRAIL Mission.  During our discussion throughout the program, we talked about the two Mars missions now en route to Mars, Maven and the Indian mission Mangalyaan.  Note what was said about Mangalyaan and how it is making use of the type of information we discussed in this program to do a lower energy mission to Mars.  In fact, one of the hot topics of our discussion was the comparison between long-way trajectories and short-way trajectories to Mars, what each means for arrival at Mars, capture by Mars, and the return to Earth and capture by Earth.  The reentry speed coming back to Earth is crucial as these speeds can be extremely fast with lots of heat to dissipate.  Keeping speeds below 12k/s for a human Mars mission is vital.

Please post your comments/questions on our blogs and we will do our best to respond to you.  If you want to reach any of our guests, do so through me using drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Dan’s charts and graphs are here:  MultipleMarsDeparturesR1

To best follow tonight’s discussion, refer to;  ReuseForMars

Space Show Webinar: Space Education Outreach, Sunday, 7-14-13 July 13, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Space Show Webinar: Space Education Outreach, Sunday, 7-14-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2048-BWB-2013-07-14.mp3 - Audio

http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow - Video Webinar

Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

 Guests:  Lynne Zielinski, Christine Nobbe, Barbara David, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Space and STEM Education Outreach.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcome you to this Space Show Webinar featuring a panel discussion on Space and STEM Education Outreach.  In addition to listening to this discussion as a regular audio Space Show program, you can view webinar video at http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow.  Our panel members for this two hour 27 minute webinar presentation included Lynne Zielinski, Christine Nobbe, Barbara David, and Dr. John Jurist with myself as moderator.  Each panel member brought educational expertise to the discussion ranging from teaching in elementary school through the college graduate level plus Space Grant.  During the first hour of our webinar, each panel member made an opening statement as to why space and STEM education was important plus they shared a few highlights pertaining to their respective backgrounds & accomplishments.  As moderator, I asked panel members about science misconceptions and what they have found over time to best deal with issues at the appropriate grade level.  I also asked about funding issues given our panel of teachers referenced some highly effective and amazing student programs that they used over their respective teaching careers.  We talked not only about the programs, but also how to secure funding and for such programs since most funding now comes from outside the school district.  This was a most important discussion, also a very creative one so you will want to pay close attention to what our panel members have to say.  Several NASA and space organizations programs were identified in this segment.  Doug called near the end of the segment to inquire about conference attendee gender differences & how gender differences might show up in the early grades for space and STEM subjects and teachers.

In our longer second segment, our panel addressed budget issues relating to space and STEM education, and we talked about teaching to the BIG PICTRE plus ways to inspire the students.  Several methods were shared with our webinar audience but one thing for sure was the need to engage the students in the work, not to just lecture to them with their remaining passive listeners.  Cubesats, fieldtrips, competitions, and even video or digital training were all listed as effective ways of inspiring, stimulating and working with students in space, science, & other STEM subjects.  At times during the discussion, panel members cited specific things they had used so again, you will want to listen carefully and jot down these ideas & suggestions.  The use of toys, models, and props were discussed and as you will hear, several of our panel members maintained space & science toy collections for working with their students.  Everyone said teacher networking was important and this included workshops, conferences, and informal teacher events or brain storming sessions.  Later in the segment when I asked each member of our panel to counsel a new teacher on what works and does not work, we heard some terrific suggestions.  I then extended the question to lessons learned and not learned and again, our panel had much to say that can be helpful for us all.  At one point I asked if the teacher needed the subject interest & passion or if students or parents could drive the quality teaching/learning experience.  You might be surprised by what we heard from our panel members.  As our webinar was coming to a close, an 11th hour question came in regarding the impact of TV on students, then each panel member provided us with their respective concluding comments and “pearls of wisdom.”  Our panel members and I invite you to post not just your comments and questions on the blog but also any suggestions you have for teaching and inspiring students in the STEM and Space fields.  What have you found that works and does not work?  Let us know and you can tell us on The Space Show blog.

If you want to email any of our webinar panel members, you may do so through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Here is the Dr. Jurist Power Point Presentation:

Color Space, STEM, and US Society

Rocky Mtn. College Astronaut Panel 2, Friday Afternoon, 3-22-13 March 30, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Rocky Mtn. College Astronaut Panel 2, Friday Afternoon, 3-22-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1985-BWB-2013-03-30.mp3

https://vimeo.com/62994324  Panel 2 Video

Guests:  Astronaut Panel 2: Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Walter Cunningham, Dr. Loren Acton.  Topics:  Astronaut Panel 2 focused on spaceflight issues, policy, and in asking our panel members to share their space experiences with everyone.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.   Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information.  The Copyright for this program belongs to Dr. John Jurist and Rocky Mountain College.  The Space Show has permission from the copyright holders to archive both video and audio formats on Space Show websites, video channels, blogs, and podcasting sites.  In addition to the audio format on The Space Show, blog, and podcasting websites, you can instead view the panel video at https://vimeo.com/62994324 which is on our Vimeo private Space Show channel.

We welcomed our panel members and the live Rocky Mountain College student, professor, and community audience to our afternoon 1 hour 34 minute panel in which we focused on human spaceflight, the Saturn V, the Saturn 1B, and the Space Shuttle, along with space science, risk taking, and what each panel member thought was most valuable for scientific reasons in the solar system.  We took many audience questions on a wide ranging group of topics including why spend money on space, especially in this difficult economy, solar cells, Boy Scouts and space, and what it was like to walk on the Moon.

Please post your comments and questions on The Space Show blog.  If you want to email any of our panel members, you can do so through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Rocky Mtn. College Astronaut Panel 1, Friday Morning, 3-22-13 March 30, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Rocky Mtn. College Astronaut Panel 1, Friday Morning, 3-22-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1984-BWB-2013-03-30.mp3

https://vimeo.com/62994325   Panel 1 Video

Guests:  Astronaut Panel 1: Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Harrison Schmitt, Walter Cunningham, Dr. Loren Acton.  Topics:  Astronaut Panel 1 focused on leadership issues & the importance of spaceflight.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels and websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information.  The copyright for this program belongs to Dr. John Jurist and Rocky Mountain College.  The Space Show has permission from the copyright holders to archive both video and audio formats on Space Show websites, video channels, blogs, and podcasting sites. .  In addition to the audio format on The Space Show, blog, and podcasting websites, you can instead view the panel video at https://vimeo.com/62994325  which is on our Vimeo private Space Show channel.

During our nonstop 1 hour 34 minute panel discussion before a live audience at Rocky Mountain College in Billings, MT consisting of students, faculty, community leaders, and interested people, as moderator, I asked our panel members about leadership, what it takes to be a leader, leadership qualities, and mentorship.  I also asked about human spaceflight, Apollo, going to the Moon, and lots more.  Risk taking,  regulatory risk, exploration characteristics, and economics were also talked about by our panel members.  We took audience questions dealing with the Apollo program, the Moon, the Saturn V rocket, commercial space, private space, NASA management, SLS, NASA’s current mission,  and issues pertaining to our congress and NASA funding/policy.  Each of our panel members addressed most all of the questions and each brought to the table his unique perspective on the issue or subject at hand.  For those of you watching the panel video on our Vimeo channel, you will see students leaving the room around the top of the hour to take exams.  Some things never change on campus, do they?

Please post comments and questions on The Space Show blog for this program.  For those of you wanting to email our panel members, you can do so through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will forward your note to the person(s) of your choice.

Space Show Webinar with Dr. Haym Benaroya, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 2-17-13 February 14, 2013

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Space Show Webinar with Dr. Haym Benaroya, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 2-17-13

Behind The Scenes Engineering for Space Structures and Infrastructure

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1951-BWB-2013-02-17.mp3 (audio only)

http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow  — Video

Guests:  Dr. Haym Benaroya, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Engineering space structures, hardware, and habits for LEO, the Moon, and Mars.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information.

     We welcomed our main guest Dr. Haym Benaroya and co-host Dr. John Jurist to our first Space Show webinar for 2013.  As Dr. Benaroya is a mechanical and aerospace engineering at Rutgers University and well known for lunar architecture and engineering structures, we asked Dr. Benaroya to take us behind the scenes for a look into the engineering needed to have something in LEO, on the surface of the Moon, or Mars.  Dr. Benaroya prepared a special .pdf presentation for us which is on The Space Show blog per above.  I urge you to follow along with the .pdf slides as Dr. Benaroya discusses space engineering.

     During the first half of this two hour five minute webinar, Dr. Benaroya started out by discussing some of the basic issues in space engineering including gravity.  He started with Slide 2 and talked about each item and the engineering considerations associated with it, both here on Earth and in space.  As you will hear, not only are the engineering considerations significantly different between Earth and space, but many are also different from one another depending on if the project is in LEO, on the Moon or Mars.  Make sure you follow along with him using his slides.  Listeners, Dr. Jurist, and I asked Professor Benaroya many questions about lunar based habitats, LEO habitats, shapes, pressure forces, regolith issues, heat issues, and more.  Referring to Slide 5 Dr. Benaroya talked about gravity issues and concerns.  Slide 6 was about lunar dust issues, tidal forces, seismic concerns.  We compared seismic reinforcing in San Francisco or other terrestrial earthquake zones to what would be needed on the Moon.  The subject of engineering for extreme and rapid temperature changes came up for LEO, the Moon & Mars.  Dr. Benaroya suggested many times during our discussion that we would need to use ISRU given the high cost of getting materials to space.

     In this first segment, other topics included the potential afforded lunar engineers by having a Lunar Space Elevator available and even a lunar bulldozer!  The subject of heavy lift came up as it always does on these programs and all of us talked about fewer larger launches as compared to many smaller launches, even using depots. Doug called in to argue for the Falcon Heavy.  As Dr. Jurist pointed out, putting mass on the Moon is about 10% give or take of the rockets IMLEO mass capability.  In responding to Doug, both Dr. Jurist & Dr. Benaroya illustrated the difference between the Falcon Heavy and SLS regarding landing a specific mass on the Moon.  Just before the segment ended, in responding to a question from Dr. Jurist, Professor Benaroya suggested that each person on the Moon would need about 20 times his or her weight in mass on the lunar surface for around a six month stay.  To determine the most cost effective way to get the needed infrastructure and mass safely to the lunar surface, lots of issues go into the trade studies to determine the best approach, including launch vehicle choice.

     In the second segment of our webinar, we took a call from John in Florida who wanted to ask Dr. Benaroya about his earlier comment about using magnesium on the Moon as a type of rebar in lunar concrete.  We next talked about reliability, power sources, competing technologies and design issues.  One of the issues brought up was the need to design the structure to be successful during the design phase, not just the completion stage. This was a most interesting discussion, don’t miss it.  One of the points he made was that we can’t test structures in space like we can on Earth so engineering design issues must be considered & dealt with for space that would not be encountered on Earth.  He talked about the preferred shape for a lunar structure and advocated the arch as in Slide 21.  Our professor then talked about design standards here on Earth, the fact that we have none for space so all of the Earth standards are extrapolated to work in space though we have no history for doing this. Also, he talked about using four to five times for a safety factor where on Earth the safety factor might be more like 1.5 or 1.6.  We also talked about confidence intervals. While on Earth, something may be done with a CI of 95% or higher, he suggested that on the Moon or in space the CI would more likely be pretty low, around 70 or maybe 80%!  He cited dust design as an example of what he was talking about as dust is not a big factor in terrestrial engineering but it will be on the Moon or Mars.  Doug called again to advocate inflatable structures rather than the engineering and building of structures.  Prof. Benaroya suggested that they may be used early on but that most of the studies show their primary advantage to be in transportation because on the surface they have to be made rigid.  This is another discussion you don’t want to miss.  Near the end of our webinar, advanced manufacturing for the future was discussed.  Dr. Benaroya talked about advances in robots, layered manufacturing and 3D printing. He explained how these can really change the game for space structures, engineering, manufacturing, and costs.  Near the end, questions came in as to why the Moon instead of Mars, the 7-8 year time lines mentioned by the lunar companies and Mars One as well as wanting to know if space engineering was strictly an academic project or if it was being worked real time by companies that can actually make hardware.  As you will hear, it’s a combination of both at this time.  Dr. Benaroya kept talking about time lines 2-3 decades long and I asked him about speeding that up and the short time lines for the lunar and Mars One group.  He did not think the shorter time lines were feasible.  See what you think after you hear his and Dr. Jurist’s comments on emerging company time lines.  Dr.  Benaroya concluded by pointing out the popularity of these subjects in both undergraduate and graduate classes and the importance of student research and its benefits.

     Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above.  To email Dr. Jurist, do so through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.  You can contact Dr. Benaroya at benaroya@rci.rutgers.edu.

Here is Professor Benaroya’s webinar presentation material:

Space Show Prof. Benaroya Webinar Lunar Structures Engineering 2-17-13

.

Space Show Webinar with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 11-25-12 November 24, 2012

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Space Show Webinar with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 11-25-12

Audio only:  http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1900-BWB-2012-11-25.mp3

Video Stream:  http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow

Guests:  Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Trajectory analysis to EML2, Mars, and more.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information.  You can view our webinar on our Vimeo Space Show channel, http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow.  To follow along with Dan’s pdf, use

http://thespaceshow.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/adamo-eml2roundtripr2.pdf.  We welcomed Dan Adamo back to the program and Dr. John Jurist as co-host for this special webinar addressing trajectory analysis for an EML2 mission and more.  On The Space Show blog, you will find Dan’s PDF document used during the webinar, a link to the movie he played in the second half of the webinar, and his Phobos-Grunt analysis paper we discussed near the end of the webinar. During the first hour of the webinar, Dan took us through the trajectory analysis to Earth-Moon L2 per his PDF document.  We talked about why EML2, libration points in general, and how such missions are planned.  If the resolution on the webinar video for the charts and tables used during this segment are difficult to read on your computer, please bring the document up on the PDF on The Space Show blog and follow along that way.  Dan took us through Table 1, HALO orbits, and the HOI as well as the Trans-Lunar Insertion points.  We talked about orbital characteristics, delta V, rocket size, and more  We also talked about the position of the Earth, launch windows, the Moon, & other factors influencing the planning of the mission.  While at times the discussion may seem a bit technical or overwhelming for those of us having never done mission planning at this level before, all of us will certainly have a better understanding of the factors considered and influencing both robotic as well as human spaceflight missions.  Near the end of the segment, we talked about the SLS and heavy lift & how payload capacity interacts with mission & trajectory analysis. 
 
     In the second hour of our webinar, Dan took us through his HD movie of the orbital trajectory talked about during the first segment, stopping it at intervals for specific explanations and questions.  The movie is in the QuickTime format but you can see it both on the webinar or by using the URL provided on the blog.  We took several listener calls & questions.  One asked Dan about the differences in planning for the robotic vs. the HSF mission using MSL & Curiosity as an example.  Dan pointed us to a YouTube video he made a few years ago with Dr. Logan using these tools for a Deimos mission (www.youtube.com/watch?v=X10GAqA4Ky4). Another listener called wanting to know the likelihood of an EML2 mission actually happening.  Dan explained why he believed this mission to be the next stepping stone in HSF.  More was discussed about SLS with Dan raising some concerns about its real capabilities & wondering if Congress is being sold unrealistic expectations. We talked about heavy lift in general & with the support of properly placed depots.  SLS and the difference with a Falcon Heavy were also discussed in terms of what the differences would mean in payload, number of launches, costs, risks, etc. 
 
     Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog.  You can contact either guest through me.
 
Dan’s PDF document is here:  Adamo EML2roundTripR2
 
 
In addition, to watch Dan’s QuickTime movie which he will be using during the webinar, please click on this URL and then select the file format .mov:

 https://spideroak.com/browse/share/DanAdamo/EML2roundTrip

Note that you must have the QuickTime player to play this movie if you intend to download it. You can watch it from the above URL without the QT player.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers