Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Tuesday, 3-5-13 March 6, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " SpaceX, asteroid mining, astronaut rescue, benefit sharing, business predictability, Chinese Space Program, commercial space, Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, EELV, FAR, human spaceflight, Inspiration Mars, launch rates, lower launch costs, Mars, Mars one, moving a NEO, Return to the Moon, robotic spaceflight, rocket reusability, Space Act Agreement, space business environment, space market issues., space migration, space property rights, space solar power, space wars, species survival through space
add a comment
Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Tuesday, 3-5-13
Guest: Dr. Henry Hertzfeld. Topics: Commercial space, Mars, human spaceflight, regulations & economics. 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 Dr. Henry Hertzfeld back to the show for a fascinating 90 minute discussion regarding commercial space, human spaceflight (HSF), recently announced HSF Mars missions, increasing the launch rate, and more. During our initial segment, Dr. Hertzfeld addressed my question about lowering launch prices to increase the launch rate. Dr. Hertzfeld did a classic economic study on this subject several years ago and I asked him if today’s current market and commercial space progress had altered his earlier conclusions. He said no. Later, I asked if space solar power (SSP) could drive launch rates down. The short answer was no but don’t miss what he had to say about SSP economics, launches, and debris issues. Jerry emailed in a question about SpaceX being a commercial company given its receipt of government money. Henry had much to say about what makes a company commercial or not and if it is even an important issue. Another listener wanted to know about the deep space commercial ventures announced in 2012 and in 2013. The listener wanted to know if these were really commercial ventures, if regulations could stop them, and what would happen re the ventures needing property rights or the equivalent. One of the things our guest reiterated several times during our discussion was the need for stability and predictability for the commercial industry. Questions came in about benefit sharing and he mentioned the likelihood that some sort of international system would develop on these issues. I asked what constituted an acceptable ROI and the example of controlled ROIs as in the utility industry came up. Doug wanted to know about rocket reusability and its impact on launch costs. We also talked about both Mars One and the new Inspiration Mars mission. As part of this discussion, astronaut rescue and the rescue treaty were discussed. In the second segment, Doug called to discuss property rights for a NEO as opposed to the Moon, wondering if the Moon might be more valuable. Doug & Henry talked about our having returned lunar rockets as a model for commercially returning lunar products but Henry suggested there might be a difference in returning something for science as compared to commercial exploitation. Later, we addressed human spaceflight and its challenges. The Chinese space program was brought up as was the risk of a space war. Dr. Hertzfeld was asked about putting 10,000 people on Mars, space migration, species survival, space settlement, and the need to explore as possible drivers for HSF. My final question pertained to our evolving to a business friendly environment in space. Simply put, we are not there yet.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can email Dr. Hertzfeld through me at email@example.com.
Classroom: Dr. Paul Spudis, Dr. Jim Vedda, Friday, 10-19-12 October 20, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Cislunar space development, Dr. Jim Vedda, Dr. Paul Spudis, EELV, Falcon Heavy, heavy lift, human spaceflight, infrastructure, INSITU Resource Utilization, international space cooperation, ISS, LEO, low lunar orbit, lunar ice, lunar poles, lunar water, Mars, Moon, NASA, on orbit construction, Propellant Depots, public/private partnerships, robotic lunar mining, sequestration, SLS, small business community, Space Show Classroom, species extinction, stunt space accomplishments, the railroad model, Vision for Space Exploration
Classroom: Dr. Paul Spudis, Dr. Jim Vedda, Friday, 10-19-12
Cislunar Space Development
Guests: CLASSROOM: Dr. Paul Spudis, Dr. Jim Vedda. Topics: Cislunar space development and economics. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blogs, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com and the Classroom blog, http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Written transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We do not permit the commercial use of any Space Show program or part thereof, nor do we permit Space Show programs to be edited, placed on YouTube or other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted in news articles, papers, academic & research work, but must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact Dr. Livingston for questions about our copyright and trademark policies which we do enforce. For this Classroom Space Show two hour program, we welcomed Dr. Paul Spudis and Dr. Jim Vedda for a comprehensive discussion on the importance of undertaking Cislunar space development as a major focus of U.S. space policy. Our program was in two equal segments but since our topics crossed segments, our summary will reflect the entire program, not each segment. Also, at the end of this summary, I have listed several relevant URLs for cislunar space development and our guests. If you want more information on the subject, I suggest you visit the recommended websites and blogs. Our guests described cislunar space for us and did an excellent job in letting us know why it is important to focus on a cislunar space development program. In the process of addressing this very important issue, we talked about policy, the railroad model, the need for space infrastructure, insitu resource development and understanding, lunar water, lunar ice, lunar polar robotic exploration, the need to learn to live and behave in space, and much more. Listeners called and asked email questions that drew out both our panel members so that our discussion was sufficiently thorough. Side issues were discussed such as budget cuts, tight budgets, how to do cislunar space in a belt tightening environment, small businesses and contractors, even sequestration. Our guests were very clear as to why cislunar development was much more preferable than “space stunt accomplishment” types of programs and projects. Our guests presented a good case in letting us know why cislunar development is preferable over a humans to Mars mission at this time. Another issue brought up by a listener was to ask about “Plan B” if for some reason there was no water or there was insufficient water/ice on the Moon. Dr. Spudis explained why that was not likely but both panel members talked about why cislunar development was important to even without sufficient water/ice resources on the Moon. Here are the URLs of interest I mentioned above: First, Dr. Vedda’s new book, “Becoming Spacefarers: Rescuing America’s Space Program” is at www.amazon.com/Becoming-Spacefarers-James-A-Vedda/dp/1477130918/ref=onegiantlea20. The Paris conference mentioned by Dr. Spudis is the ASTECH’s “Developing Space” Conference is at www.d-space2012.com. Dr. Spudis websites and blogs can be found at www.spudislunarresources.com; www.spudislunarresources.com/blog; http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon. His book, “Blogging the Moon” is at www.amazon.com/Blogging-Moon-Paul-D-Spudis/dp/1926837177/ref=onegiantlea20. Other related websites of interest include www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404; www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999; www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/The%20Vision%20and%20the%20Mission.pdf.; www.cislunarnext.org.
Please post your comments/questions on the blogs above. If you want to contact either Dr. Vedda or Dr. Spudis, you can do so through me.
Space Show Audition Program, Tuesday, 10-16-12 October 17, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Cis-lunar space development, EELV, electric aviation, Falcon Heavy, garage machine and tool shops, hacker spaces, heavy lift, International Space Development Hub (ISDH), interstellar roadmap, interstellar travel, Leeward Space Foundation, Liberty Launch Vehicle, Lunar COTS Petition., NASA & national security, national security interests, rocket fuels, SLS, solid rocket fuels, space economics, space project financing, Space Show Audition Show, Star Voyager, tethers, two-stage to orbit tethers
Space Show Audition Program, Tuesday, 10-16-12
Guests: Dr. David Livingston & Audition callers. Topics: This first time ever Audition show had a variety of topics per below. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We do not permit the commercial use of any Space Show program or part thereof, nor do we permit Space Show programs to be edited, placed on YouTube or other private channels/websites/publications. Space Show programs can be quoted in news articles, papers, academic & research work but must be cited or referenced in the proper citation format. Contact Dr. Livingston for questions about our copyright & trademark policies which we do enforce.Welcome to our fist Space Show audition program. Most callers talked about their projects to earn a place as guest on the program. We received email questions from listeners for the caller. Tell us on the blog if you would like to hear a specific caller as a guest on The Space Show. John was our first caller regarding his concept for a Two-Stage-Tether-to-Orbit program. I’ll upload his two PDF documents to the blog, both of which explain in detail what he summarized on air. Doug was next to talk about Cislunar development around lunar ice at the poles, a moderate heavy lift such as the Falcon Heavy, propellant transfer and depots, and depot locations along with cargo transportation. Doug was asked about markets for his concept which he said might include satellite servicing. When asked about his time line in a “perfect world” supporting his concept, he suggested about 11-12 years. He also talked about a lunar settlement and his Lunar Cots Petition (www.ipetitions.com/petition/lcots). Andrew in Tucson was the next caller, encouraging people with ideas to assemble a garage type tool shop to learn to make simple parts of the hardware supporting their ideas. He talked about tools going back to WW2 & the ’60s as being valuable & important today. He explained why he was encouraging people to learn to do at least the basics of building their project components which would help obtain financing & spur the interest of others. He will soon have some of his videos on YouTube so search under his name for more on his idea, “Andrew Tubbiolo.” Jeff from Tucson called next to talk about taking a holistic view of space programs/projects such as SLS. He talked extensively about the need for solid rocket propellant per SLS & made the case for NASA being an integral part in our national security via its use of solids, space projects, etc. He stressed the holistic broader view over a more narrow view brought up by listener emails such as cost, economics, etc.
Our much shorter second segment started with a call from Armen who talked about the interstellar roadmap which could change the way space projects are financed. He talked about financing being the bottleneck for space projects, then explained how the Fed creates money, debt/credit relationships, and how something like QE3 could be replaced by putting the $40 billion in one month toward space companies per the roadmap. The roadmap by Star Voyager was discussed. You can obtain more information from the Leeward Space Foundation (www.leewardspacefoundation.org). For specifics, www.leewardspacefoundation.org/id32.html. Our caller then talked about the International Space Development Hub (ISDH) at www.isdhub.com. ISDHub has proposed NASA Ames transform Hangar One at Moffett Field from a parking space to a space business hub. For details, see www.isdhub.com/about-us.
Place your comments/questions on our blog. Let us know who you would like to hear as a guest on The Space Show. You can email the callers through me.
Here are the two tether articles referenced above and from the first caller discussion:
Stewart Money, Friday, 3-9-12 March 10, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: aerospace industry stakeholders, Air Force, Air Force EELV bulk buys., Arianne 5, commercial space, Congress, Deep Space Climate Observatory (DISCOVR), EELV, Falcon 9. , Falcon Heavy, foreign launchers, GAO, high value payloads, ITAR, NASA, OMB, rocket testing programs, SLS, space access costs, space opportunity cost, space policy, Space X, Stewart Money, The Space Review, Triana Satellite, United Launch Alliance (ULA)
1 comment so far
Stewart Money, Friday, 3-9-12
Guest: Stewart Money. Topics: We discussed EELV issues, the Air Force desire for a bulk buy of EELV services, Space X and more. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Stewart Money to the program to discuss his recent Space Review articles. The primary article he wrote which was the subject for today can be found at www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/. Stewart has Part 2 to this article coming up on The Space Review so be sure to look for it and read it when it is available. During our first segment, Stewart talked about ULA and the proposed bulk buy of ULA rockets for the Air Force and the rising prices for EELV launches. This block buy has been raised into question by many including the GAO study with the thought that it should be expanded to allow for additional purchases from competing companies such as Space X or Orbital. Google ULA Air Force bulk buy” for a list of news articles about this story. Stewart received many questions about this because Falcon 9 is not yet operational and Falcon Heavy has not been built. Stewart talked about this in the context of Air Force requirements for availability, reliability, and the launch cost. Our guest felt that since there was a gap of several years in the Air Force program, there should be time for Falcon 9 to prove itself without much of a downside to the Air Force or ULA if they needed to add in more EELV purchases due to any Space X problems that may arise. Part of our discussion centered on risk but as you will hear, Stewart was mostly focused on launch cost and believes that Space X will be a driving force to lower the cost of access to space. Near the end of this segment, the stored Triana Satellite came up (It is now named the Deep Space Climate Observatory or DISCOVR) and how the Air Force might launch it on the Falcon 9. During this segment, Stewart also referred to the Aerospace Corporation 3/7 Reliability Rule which says that if a failure occurs during the first three launches, the problem is probably a design issue. If failure occurs after the third successful launch but before the seventh, a production process issue is probable. Once a launch vehicle configuration launches successfully three times, its design has demonstrated maturity. If successfully launched seven times, the design & production process maturity are likely demonstrated. Check out this document for more detailed information on the 3/7 Reliability Rule: “Space Acquisitions: Uncertainties in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program Pose Management and Oversight Challenges” by the GAO at www.gao.gov/new.items/d081039.pdf.
In the second segment, we talked about the recent congressional testimony on the FY 13 budget with Congress and Administrator Bolden plus the testimony of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Stewart boiled the problems down to the cost of space access and remained with the theme of solving that problem for the balance of our discussion. We then talked more about testing, high priority payloads and normal payloads, how many flights would be needed for the Falcon 9 to fly a high priority payload and more. We also talked about the difference in theory with a yet to be proven, operational launch vehicle being considered real as compared to an actual operating and flying vehicle as many confuse the two, counting the first one as real with real pricing when it is not even operational.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog URL above. If you would like to email Mr. Money, you can use the address at the end of his Space Review articles.
Dr. Jeff Bell, Monday, 2-20-12 February 21, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " Phobos Grunt Mission, Anatoly Zak, Bob Zubrin, Chinese Space Program, Curiosity, Delta 2 program, Dr. Jeff Bell, Dragon, EELV, Falcon, human spaceflight, ISS, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), Kepler Space Telescope, Lavochkin, low cost space access, lunar settlement, Mars Polar Lander, MSL, NASA science missions, National Lab, NewSpace, Phobos 88, Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos), Russian management, Russian space industry, Sergei Korolev., Soyuz, Space Launch System (SLS)., Space X, Stratolaunch, ULA
Dr. Jeff Bell, Monday, 2-20-12
Guest: Dr. Jeff Bell. Topics: Dr. Bell’s assessment of NASA, the science missions, human spaceflight, the Russian space problems, & Phobos-Grunt conspiracy theories. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Jeff Bell back to the program for his assessment of space today in theUnited States, along with the problems facing the Russian space industry and the Phobos-Grunt conspiracy theories as to why the mission failed. Those familiar with Dr. Bell and his Space Show programs will not be disappointed as this two hour plus discussion is vintage Jeff Bell. Dr. Bell started with an assessment of the problems over the last year and half or so with the Russian space industry and its management. Jeff does a good job of summarizing their history of manufacturing, technology, and engineering problems going back to the time of Sergei Korolev. He also shares with us his experiences working with the Russians on the Phobos 88 mission. He said typical characteristics of Russian missions leading to problems include being too ambitious, costly for their budgets, and the labor allocated to the projects. He suggested that we in theU.S. do the same thing and cited MSL and Curiosity as an example. He had much to say about the early Soviet Venus probes and how their data was widely discounted outside of theSoviet Union. He then said Space X might be overextending and he cited several ongoing Space X projects which might distract from their primary mission at hand which is to get Falcon and Dragon operational. Listeners asked about the Russian problems driving customers away from doing business withRussia in favor of ULA in theU.S. Here, Dr. Bell had much to say about ULA pricing, overhead costs without NASA sharing them, and more. He also mentioned what was happening to Delta 2 given the GPS system needing larger rockets as an example of the impact of government policy/spending in space industries. Dr. Bell turned to the latest Phobos-Grunt conspiracy theories for the mission failure. At the end of this segment, Dr. Bell talked about the JWST & Curiosity in terms of overly complex and costly missions.
In the second segment, Jeff talked about the Newt space policy suggestions and the idea of the Moon as the 51st state. He had much to say about the ridicule in the media and was not surprised by it. He used this as an example to say reality “conflicts with the space cadet world view.” In talking about Mars missions, he said people had been conned by the Mars theory of life stories and promoters. He said that Mars and HSF were not worth it. Several listeners called in to debate Jeff on these comments but Jeff took no prisoners. He then talked about the ISS and its less than full utilization and that the entire idea of HSF had come and gone. At one point in response to a listener question/comment, Dr. Bell said that all Zubrin offered was a 60′s program! Jeff did have good things to say about the science and robotic missions, said our planet exploration would be with robots, not humans, and that we needed more missions like the Kepler Space Telescope. He repeated throughout the discussion that nothing useful has come form HSF nor would it. He offered that the basic technology was from the70′s and had not changed. He said overall interest in space had declined since Apollo. In his closing comments, he said he was still hopeful that NewSpace would decrease the launch costs as that would be a game changer.
If you have questions/comments for Dr. Jeff Bell, post them on The Space Show blog URL above.