jump to navigation

The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14 October 13, 2014

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

The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14

Featuring Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2334-BWB-2014-10-12.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guests:  Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Our three guests reviewed the NRC “Pathways To Exploration HSF study.  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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

Welcome to this 2.5 hour Space Show Classroom discussion with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, & Dr. Jim Logan regarding the recently released NRC “Pathways To Exploration: Rationales And Approaches For A U.S. Program Of Human Space Exploration.”  You can download the report for free at  http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18801.  In addition, the project referred to in the last part of this discussion by Dan and Jim, the “Aquarius interplanetary HSF transport” paper can be freely downloaded at  http://www.spaceenterpriseinstitute.org/2014/07/aquarius-a-reusable-water-based-interplanetary-human-spaceflight-transport.  Please note that our panel members used cell phones which caused audio issues which you may hear during the discussion.  Finally, as this program will also be archived on both The Space Show and The Space Show Classroom blogs, there will be two papers uploaded to each blog, one by Dan Adamo & the other by caller Dr. James Dewar. I will mention both in the summary below.  In the first segment, our panel members opened with their perspective on the NRC Pathways HSF study.  While there were similarities in their perspectives, there were also noteworthy differences.  After this comprehensive introduction, I asked our panel members about the study and space settlement or pioneering.  Each panel member had much to say on the settlement issue, including the need to solve the gravity prescription for long duration HSF or settlement.  Our panel members  said that for the most part, space settlement was out of scope for this report.  In this part of the discussion much was said about microgravity issues & the need to do on orbit experiments to determine the HSF gravity prescription.  Deimos was discussed as an initial better choice that the surface of Mars re microgravity issues.  Our guests spoke to the need of a short arm centrifuge on the ISS.  Jim spoke to the specifics of such an experiment such as 1 G at the head., 2.5 g’s at the feet for two hours a day to see how it serves as a microgravity countermeasure.  Our panel members mentioned that there already was such a short arm centrifuge built years ago by NASA and Wiley, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/slsd/about/divisions/hacd/laboratories/short-arm_centrifuge_laboratory.html.  The guests talked about unknown human factor challenges for going to Mars and long duration spaceflight.  Jim provided us with interesting statistics on human spaceflight totals since the beginning in 1961.  The panel members had much to say about the budget issues discussed in the NRC study.  Another point brought up was the study’s assumption that if we are not going to the surface of Mars, why even do HSF?  Near the end of the first segment, listener Carl brought up the well known plans for Mars settlement with Elon Musk & SpaceX.  This sparked quite the discussion so don’t miss it.

In the second segment, our panel talked about the value of the Pathways study, international partnerships and what they saw as contradictory statements, especially regarding the mission cost impact of such partnerships.  John mentioned the study’s reference to NASA education & public outreach which he thought was more focused on STEM & the development of more engineers rather than on educating the general public to be more knowledgeable about science.  The panel members  noted that there was little attention paid to the societal impact of not even having a human spaceflight program.  Dan & Jim agreed on the importance of educational outreach and shared their experiences with us from the employment with NASA.  Adrian in San Diego sent in an email suggesting the panel was being pessimistic and that China would not overthink issues and just do missions without full disclosure.  All three panel members had much to say in response to Adrian’s charge of being pessimistic.  They talked about being reality based, not pessimistic & why it was so important to be reality based.  The panel hit back hard on the charge of being pessimistic.  Dan & Jim said to be other than realistic was reckless and irresponsible.  Jim also said that being called pessimistic suggested to him that reality had violated the person’s ideology.  Jim would be happy to debate the issues with anyone in open forum.  This discussion brought Jim and Dan to talking about their Aquarius project which you can download at the above URL.  They spent some time discussing the benefits of their approach, noting how it addresses & mitigates many of the problems associated with a HSF mission to Mars.  They also spoke to the need for nuclear propulsion and talked about using water as fuel and very high ISP ratings with high temperatures.  During this discussion, Dr. Jim Dewar called in to suggest their ISP ratings were low, he explained why, and he talked about starting small to start flying and then improving as you go.  We did not know it but we lost John from the connection but Jim, Dan, and Dr. Dewar spoke to the NERVA project, and specifics about nuclear propulsion.  This advanced nuclear propulsion discussion was close to a half an hour near the end of the program.  Dr. Dewar was a guest on the program in 2008 & 2009 regarding nuclear propulsion & its history. He also authored two books on the subject.  Use the GuestSearch tool on our website to find his interviews which I suggest you listen to if you have not already done so.  I will also upload to both blogs the paper Dr. Dewar referenced in his discussion.  After the nuclear discussion, Adrian sent in another email titled “rebuttal.”  He challenged the panel members to do the experiments, not just to talk about them.  Jim, Dan & I challenged Adrian for his solutions to doing many of the needed & essential experiments. All of the panel members supported doing the needed experiments & have said so for decades.  Getting funding for the experiments, NASA approval, etc. is a challenge.  I then challenged Adrian to come to The Space Show as a guest with his solutions for doing the essential work & experiments rather than his just talking about how badly they are needed per his second email.  I hope Adrian does have answers and will contact me about coming on the show to discuss them with us.  Jim & Dan each provided closing comments focusing back on the study report.  They thought the report was worth it from the taxpayer perspective and that it would be used for references.  Jim did think the report was not as good as other government studies he had seen because it was so speculative, something all three guests addressed in their opening remarks.  An 11th hour call came from SLS John to talk about the ISP formula & temperatures Dan and Jim used in their paper Aquarius paper.  Dan authorized me to upload to the blog his written comments on the NRC Pathways study so you will find that document on both blogs as well.

Please post comments/questions on The Space Show blog.  You can reach the panel members through me.

A Technical Note on Nuclear Rockets-1

PathwaysCommentaryR3

Anatoly Zak, Tuesday, 10-7-14 October 8, 2014

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

Anatoly Zak, Tuesday, 10-7-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2331-BWB-2014-10-07.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest:  Anatoly Zak.  Topics:  Russian space program & 2nd edition of his book, “Russia In Space: The Past Explained, The Future Explored.”  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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.  We welcomed Anatoly Zak back to the program to provide updates regarding the Russian space program & to talk about the release of the second edition of his book, “Russia In Space: The Past Explained, The Future Explored.”  Remember, if you buy it through Amazon, use the OGLF Amazon portal so Amazon will contribute to TSS/OGLF.  Instructions are on all archives, the blog, our website and http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org.  We welcomed Anatoly Zak back to the show for this 90 plus minute discussion. In the first segment, Anatoly said the Russian program was at a crossroads wanting to develop new systems for the lunar mission & BLEO, building a new launch site ,Vostochny, while maintaining existing programs including the ISS.  He talked about programs falling behind schedule, proposed timelines followed by delays.  I asked him about the Russian tax system. Anatoly told us it was a flat tax system but that it was driven by their natural resources, especially energy.  In response to many questions, we learned that the Russian program has some struggles that make it similar to what is happening with NASA.  Anatoly talked about the new rocket Angara.  The Angara 5 is supposed to have its test flight on Dec. 25.  He also said there was a super SLS type rocket being planned but specifics were unknown at this time.  When asked for the biggest challenge to the Russian space program, he said it was the budget.  A listener asked about a possible joint China-Russian lunar or Mars program.  Anatoly suggested that were something like that to happen, China would probably be  behind it.  We talked some about the second printing of his book, “Russia In Space: The Past Explained, The Future Explored.”  Another listener wanted to know the origins of the Russian program.  We talked politics, sanctions, and the ISS relationship with NASA.  Returning their Proton rocket to flight was mentioned & Anatoly talked at length about their quality control problems.  SLS John called to talk about Russian nuclear propulsion.  The last caller of the segment, Richard Easton, talked about Russian GPS, GLONASS, timing & the early days with the Russian navy.

In the second segment, Anatoly talked about the Russian planetary program including EXOMARS with ESA for searching for life on Mars, their proposed HSF lunar program plus other missions on the planning table.  In response to a question, he did say their was lots of competition between the planetary side and HSF.  Roger wanted to know about becoming a cosmonaut, & Barbara wanted to know about space tourism to the Moon.  For the balance of the year, Anatoly said eyes were on the Dec. 25th test flight for the new Angara 5 heavy rocket.  Re the ISS, he expected it to remain as it is today.

Please post comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Anatoly through me or his website, http://www.russianspaceweb.com.

Dr. Frank Martin, Tuesday, 9-23-14 September 24, 2014

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

Dr. Frank Martin, Tuesday, 9-23-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2323-BWB-2014-09-23.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest:  Dr. Frank Martin.  Topic:  The NRC “Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration” report.  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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Dr. Frank Martin to the program to discus the NRC human spaceflight study along with all aspects of human spaceflight including various destinations and missions.  During the first segment of our 1 hour 39 minute show, Dr. Martin introduced us to the NRC Pathways study which you can download for free by using Google.  He suggested it was a dose of reality as well as optimism.  He said the study was very clear in saying “show me the money” for those wanting to do humans to Mars missions now or fairly soon and then explained some of the high costs and trades involved in these missions.  One of his overriding themes throughout our discussion was the need to manage a very large mass in LEO in order to accomplish the goals of long duration human space mission.  During our segment, we kept coming back to the need to manage a large mass in LEO and how this translated to costs as well as the need for technology advancement.  Both myself and listeners asked our guest about doing human missions cheaper by using the private sector.  This subject kept coming up during both segments of the program.  We also addressed the rational for human spaceflight.  In addition, the issue of walking away from HSF was looked at for the US as a nation as that is an option. The report attempted to address this and related issues.   Joe sent in an email about the mice on the ISS and using them to determine the gravity RX for HSF.  He sent us several additional emails on this subject as well.  This prompted comments about the need to use the ISS for research in support of long duration HSF missions.  Dr. Martin said Mars was an horizon goal.  In this context, he talked about only a few other possible destinations near us, either the Moon or an asteroid.  He then proceeded to address the issue of managing the risk for a Mars mission.  Beverly asked a budget question and taking the lead from the most recent Mike Griffin interview, she asked Frank if it really was just a choice to be constrained by budget issues.  While Frank agreed it was a choice, he said there were very good ways and choices to spend taxpayer money so he did not see significantly more money for space in the future.  Another listener talked about nuclear propulsion which also crossed into the second segment.  Near the end of the first segment, we got a call from a New Zealand listener.  During his call, the idea of the Buzz Aldrin Mars cycler came up and there was a question or two about fuel depots.

In the second segment, I asked Dr. Martin why the study took 18 months, then SLS John called the program.  John wanted to talk nuclear propulsion thinking it would be a cost saver but what was not known was the accurate cost of the R&D program or the cost for jumping through political hurdles.  John suggested a new administration would make a difference and I challenged that.  I asked Frank given all his years of space industry experience if it was reasonable to expect big changes in space policy due to a change in administrations.  Don’t miss Frank’s reply.  Dwayne called back to question the HSF rational. One of the points made by Dwayne was that cooperation with the Russians on the ISS does not modify Russia’s behavior other than for space.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach Dr. Frank Martin through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Dr. Mike Griffin, Tuesday, 9-16-14 September 17, 2014

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

Dr. Mike Griffin, Tuesday, 9-16-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2317-BWB-2014-09-16.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest:  Dr. Mike Griffin.  Topics: Human spaceflight policy, political choices, space technology, Mars, Moon, Asteroids 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. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed back to the program Dr. Mike Griffin.  During the first segment of our 90 minute discussion, Mike talked about human spaceflight (HSF) and the commercial space market.  He said exploration would be a government project or at least with government in the lead, especially if the commercial market was not there.  He threw water on the argument that our space policy was budget driven.  Instead, he talked about it being based on choices we make. It was not and is not about the money.  His comments throughout or discussion on this topic supported his argument.  He even said the cost of space for the U.S. taxpayer was around 15 cents/day.  This discussion evolved to one on the importance of leadership which we agreed was in short supply today.  Included in this discussion was Mike’s vision for our space policy & program, plus he explained its importance and value to our nation both today and for the future.  He spoke to the issue of what society wants and the choices it makes that shape our future.  Space should be part of our national policy debate and hopefully such a debate would enable quality choices to be made that keep us on the leadership edge with all nations.   Mike was asked who he thought would be next on the Moon and he said China.  We also talked about the private sector taking us back to the Moon with HSF.  He said that the private sector could do this, capital was not an issue, but for the private sector to do it there needs to be a closing of the business case which he did not see at this time.  SLS John called in & asked about space advocacy diversity which he said seemed to be at war with NASA & whatever the program of record might be.  Mike had much to say about this, especially about inefficiencies in government organizations and projects.  He also said if the private venture or industry cannot make money, then it should be a federal project. Many times during our discussion he said that there are things that a society should do just because they are hard & they don’t have to look good on the balance sheet.  John also asked about the RD-180 engine, Mike offered us his conclusion as to why we should be a new version of the RD-180 so that we do not continue being dependent on Russia for space related hardware, etc.  Later, he was asked about cislunar space development which he said should be a public enterprise.  He cited many examples and models supporting the public development of this important space infrastructure.  SLS was discussed.  Mike very clearly articulated the case for SLS today and again repeated that SLS future missions are about choices, not the budget.  Don’t miss his comments.  As the segment ended, Randy emailed a question asking for the rational & silver bullet for HSF.  In my opinion, Mike gave an excellent response to this question so don’t miss it.

In the second segment, Mike got some questions about NASA doing more R&D and even forming a NACA-like division or program.  We talked about NASA R&D, the need for a NACA-like program and more.  Dave, our caller, commented on leadership, then Bill in Denver emailed in a question about using fuel depots and smaller launch vehicles rather than heavy lift vehicles like SLS.  Again, Mike had much to say about heavy lift, including that while possible to do smaller vehicle launches., the numbers don’t pan out for efficiency.  You need to listen to this full discussion which also addressed some bogus assumptions regarding inefficient heavy lift decision making.  Nuclear propulsion and Vasimr came up, , then we again focused on vision that takes on big challenges because we can!  More was said on lunar colonies evolving to longer BLEO missions plus cislunar commerce, especially cislunar cargo missions.  Another listener asked about being dependent on the Russians for HSF to the ISS and if shuttle was retired too early.  Mike talked about having wanted to fly shuttle at a minimum rate annually until a new vehicle was operational.  We talked about the role of the congress and White House as compared to the role of the NASA Administrator.  Later, we talked about the role of public support and individuals petitioning congress on space policy.  Listen to his story about the Hubble repair mission.  I even asked if poorly written and fantasy driven letters to informed staffers helped or hurt the cause.  Listen for Mike’s response. In summary, Mike said his wish was that people would share is view that there are important things for society to do but that don’t look good on a balance sheet.  In the end, he said he was optimistic that his positive views on space would prevail and that when policy makers realized that China was going to put people on the Moon and what that would mean for the US, it would not be allowed to happen.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above.

Erik Seedhouse, Monday, 9-15-14 September 16, 2014

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

Erik Seedhouse, Monday, 9-15-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2316-BWB-2014-09-15.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guest:  Erik Seedhouse.  Topics:  Erik’s latest book, “Beyond Human: Engineering Our Future Evolution,” & human modification for long duration 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 & 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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed Erik Seedhouse back to the program to discuss his latest book “Beyond Human: Engineering Our Future Evolution.”  During the first segment of our 90 minute program, Erik talked about long duration spaceflight and critical issues in radiation and microgravity that he believes may force changes or modifications in humans in order to survive the trips and live on Mars or another celestial location.  He also talked about changes here on Earth such as advances in bioprinting, especially for organs.  Our guest spent lots of time on the radiation challenges, shielding, and the need for possible genetic modification.  Another point he made was for nuclear propulsion to cut the travel time to Mars and other locals down and make the voyage safer.  His favorite advanced propulsion system was Vasimr.  Dr. Rowe called in and brought up his concerns with the cardiovascular  (CV) system in space, a subject Bill has talked about on many Space Show programs.  Erik’s research did not focus on the CV system so he was unable to comment on what Dr. Rowe was discussing.  Next, Erik spoke about muscle atrophy and other microgravity challenges and suggested human modification would address those areas as well.  He also talked about animal and human cloning, then a listener brought up a subject from our recent open lines program re pregnancy, childbirth, and kids in space.  Erik suggested there might be sterilization as a requirement or abortive medication on board.  I commented that this would cause a firestorm with the public, especially on publicly financed missions.

In our second segment, our lead off topic was a Posthuman/Transhuman future.  Erik cited examples and also used the classic movie Gattaca as an example.  Listener Paul sent in an email about the ethics behind what Erik was talking about.  Erik was asked about the lifespan of humans that might live on Mars or the Moon, then Ben asked if long duration spaceflight and humans in space were an economic driver for human genetic engineering.  Erik said no, that it was a very small part of the industry with organ printing as one of the major drivers.  Todd inquired about exercise and this led Erik to talk about genetic screening to select the most qualified people for the spaceflight missions.  As we neared the end of the show, Erik told us about his next book about expeditions, then he talked about Virgin Galactic and XCOR.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach Erik through me. Also, when buying the book, use the Amazon OGLF portal so Amazon will contribute to The Space Show.

Drs. Jim Logan and John Jurist, Sunday, 7-13-14 July 14, 2014

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

Drs. Jim Logan and John Jurist, Sunday, 7-13-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2278-BWB-2014-07-13.mp3

Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)

 

If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show

Guests:  Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Jim Logan.  Topics:  EVAs, spacesuits, Moon, Mars, radiation, Aquarius HSF launch vehicle Space Enterprise Institute.  Please direct all comments & questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments & 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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com &rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed both Dr. John Jurist and Dr. Jim Logan back to the show to discuss spacewalks (EVAs), spacesuits, human missions to the Moon and Mars, to the Martian Moon Deimos, the newly created Space Enterprise Institute, & the new Aquarius Reusable Human Spaceflight water based launch vehicle.  During the first segment of our 2 hour 5 minute program, our guests started talking about EVAs.  Early in the discussion, Dr. Logan provided us with important & interesting statistics regarding EVAs, then we discussed the challenges with them and spacesuits.  We talked at length about the difference in EVAs and spacesuits for the Moon, LEO, asteroids, & Mars.  We also talked economics for spacesuits given the need for a specific spacesuit depending on the destination/mission.  We talked about new designs for one size fits all & for mitigating dust problems.  Jim talked about the medical complications regarding both lunar and Martian dust.  Our guests then suggested that EVAs will likely be phased out for robotic missions.  Doug asked several questions about this via email.  Also, Jim suggested that EVAs will evolve to the concept of Forward Deployed Humans in the Loop for Telerobotic Operations.  This concept was discussed several times throughout our program.

In our second segment, Jim started with an announcement about the Space Enterprise Institute (SEI).  When it goes live in the next week or so, I will announce it on the show so you can follow it  He explained SEI, its purpose & goals.  He then talked about the concept that both Jim and Dan Adamo have developed over the past few years, Aquarius which is a reusable water-based interplanetary HSF transport.  As soon as the SEI website is online, listeners will be able to download their peer reviewed paper for free.  During this segment, Jim talked about Aquarius, John added in some details, we talked about the need for nuclear electric propulsion and why, plus the role of water with this launcher.  Both our guests explained the advantages of Deimos for the early missions, plus the return shielding and reusability as the return goes to a lunar orbit using existing water.  Radiation shielding was talked about, including the needed water and needed Radiation Protection (RP) levels.  John pointed out one advantage of Aquarius was the use of an open loop life support system.  John in Ft. Worth called about the temperatures that Jim said were needed.  Jim explained the need for 3,000 degrees C.  Both guests offered closing comments about EVAs & the direction we might be heading toward the forward deployed humans concept.  Both guests said the telerobotic concepts discussed would reduce risks, timelines, & overall mission costs.

Post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach our two guests through me.

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

Dr. James (Jim) Benford, Friday, 9-27-13 September 28, 2013

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

Dr. James (Jim) Benford, Friday, 9-27-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2094-BWB-2013-09-27.mp3

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

Guest:  Dr. James (Jim) Benford.  Topics:  Sailships, “Starship Century,” interstellar travel, Fermi Paradox & 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 Dr. James (Jim) Benford to the program to discuss his book (he was the co-editor) “Starship Century,” and his chapter, Sailships, plus his editing of the book.  During our first segment of this 1 hour 26 minute discussion, Dr. Benford introduced us to Microwave Power Beaming, sailships, solar sails, terrestrial beamed power, in-space beamed power and more.  We talked about microwave beaming as a possible space weapon, the storage of beamed energy, and the use of the millimeter band width for beamed power.  Also in our first segment, we talked about possible time lines for development for interstellar travel.  In this discussion, our guest used Alpha Centauri B as a reference point.  Propulsion in general was discussed with a thumbs down for chemical rockets for doing anything like what we were talking about in this segment.  Listeners asked questions as to why interstellar travel was important at this time given it is so far into the future.

In our second segment, we talked about his goals in editing the book and the fact that if it is bought through the book’s website, www.starshipcentury.com, the proceeds are donated to legitimate interstellar organizations and research.   Jim listed several of the organizations being considered for receiving such proceeds and interestingly, most if not all have been guests on The Space Show over the years.  Dr. Benford mentioned conferences and the Arthur C. Clarke Center at UCSD.  We then talked about the Fermi Paradox and factor L as to the probabilities of finding intelligent life someplace other than Earth.  Faster Than Light Travel was a discussion topic, Jim was asked what his non-space friends thought of his microwave beam power work and interstellar travel.  A listener asked about students in these subject, particularly in the UK and the US.

If you have comments or questions, post them on The Space Show blog.  You can reach Dr. Benford through his website, www.jamesbenford.com.

Dr. Dennis Bushnell, Tuesday, 7-23-13 July 24, 2013

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

Dr. Dennis Bushnell, Tuesday, 7-23-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2055-BWB-2013-07-23.mp3

 

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

Guest:  Dr. Dennis Bushnell.   Topics:  We discussed Dr. Bushnell’s paper, TRL for space development & how best to move forward with civil space.  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 to the program Dr. Dennis Bushnell, the NASA Langley Research Center Chief Scientist.  Dr. Bushnell discussed his paper, “Advanced-to-Revolutionary Space Technology Options-The Responsibly Imaginable.” which can be downloaded at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011698_2013011376.pdf.  In the first segment of our 1 hour 26 minute show, Dr. Bushnell summarized the findings in his paper and talked about how we are still building on technologies from the 50′s and 60′s that were based on “living better with chemistry” and ICBMs.  We began talking about advanced propulsion including nuclear, but our guest made it clear throughout our discussion that what was needed was a reduction in the cost of space access by a magnitude of 10, not by two which is what is happening with new commercial rockets coming on line.  In fact, later in the show when discussing commercial space, Dr. Bushnell was clear that to close a commercial space business plan the reduction in launch costs by a factor of ten was absolutely essential!  I asked our guest to tell us where the bottlenecks were and he said it was in the culture & big cultural changes were required to move forward.  He also talked about the need to experiment and try lots of options and ideas, to triage them, down select, fly them, and choose the best based on the engineering process he described.  We talked about the low technology readiness level (TRL) of many of today’s space ideas and technologies, that we have become focused on instant or near instant gratification but that the process he was talking about would extend over a 25 year period.  Given this, his paper is a frank and factual discussion of many of our space industry segments, a no nonsense, no Kool Aid TRL analysis of much of what we talk about and say we can now do in space or will be doing in the near term.  Safety was discussed, including microgravity, radiation, plus a mention of unknowns regarding what we already know about gut bacteria exposed to radiation given our limited amount of research on this topic to date. A listener asked him about physics as a main reason for space exploration and contrasted that to settlement as the main reason for HSF. Another listener asked him about his mentioning USAF comments that indicated space was a mature and declining industry.  We began talking about commercial space, but we talked about it through the second segment as well.  In this segment, Dennis talked about how we have created economic growth in the past but now we have not only the challenge of economic growth but sustainable jobs and sustaining our standard of living.  Terraforming Mars was discussed as part of our discussion about Inspiration Mars and Mars One HSF missions to Mars.  As this segment ended, a listener asked him about suborbital space and citizen science projects.

In the second segment, John Hunt called in to talk about the high cost of many advanced space technologies, plus he wanted updates on LENR (this used to be called cold fusion).  Dr. Bushnell had much to say about LENR and it potential, we talked about Rossi, and the NASA work being done to better understand LENR effects. With an understanding of it, funding would not be as big a problem as it is today.  He also said LENR had the potential to be transmutational.  Our guest suggested that for more information, we visit the Larsen LENR slideshow:  www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/slideshows.  Again, he pointed to cultural issues as major stumbling blocks to this research.  In returning to the focus of his paper, he said there was no shortage of ideas but the culture was preventing them from being tried, tested, and exploited.  Rocket reusability was brought up, our guest mentioned the SpaceX Grasshopper work, and he was asked about SLS and fuel depots.  I asked about BLEO issues and radiation.  In response to another question, he said that were he the space guru, he would focus on “energy” and structural materials. You will want to hear this discussion. Later, Tim called from Huntsville about radiation and HSF to Mars, as well as the economics of the Big Dumb Booster.  I asked Dennis about the target audience for his paper and he said it was meant for NASA and the world since space fairing is a world endeavor. He again talked about potential revolutionary technologies which are needed and which would benefit all of us.  He repeated that we must do the difficult and take the risk and invest.  We also need to look forward with multiyear planning.  Near the end of the program, Dennis was asked about space elevators which he was not enthusiastic about.  Again, he repeated that we needed to make investments to raise our TRL levels.  At the end, I asked why space does not rise to importance in presidential campaigns & elections.  He said space was very good as an Earth utility but beyond that, there was no clear basis for most of it and that was the problem. Don’t miss his comments on this topic.  Our final topic was his assessment of commercial space given his years spent working on it with NASA including budgets into the hundreds of millions to find a way to close a commercial space business case for commercializing the ISS and other things.  This is a very important short discussion, don’t miss it.

Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog.  You can email Dr. Bushnell through me or you can find his address using the NASA email locator.

Dave Ketchledge, Sunday, 7-13-13 July 8, 2013

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

Dave Ketchledge, Sunday, 7-13-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2043-BWB-2013-07-07.mp3

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

Guest:  Dave Ketchledge.  Topics:  Mars Lander Choices.  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.  For those of you interested in the opportunity to submit feedback on the NRC congressionally mandated Human Spaceflight Study, please go to www.nationalacademies.org/humanspaceflight.   Please remember that your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm).

We welcomed Dave Ketchledge back to the program to discuss Mars precision human spaceflight lander choices.  During the first segment of our 2 hour 13 minute discussion, we covered Dave’s basic thesis and analysis regarding landing large payloads on Mars and the need for very accurate and precise landings for the human spacecraft.  While at times the first segment was technical and perhaps complicated, it provided the necessary groundwork and foundation for our discussion during the second half of the program. During the first part, Dave explained the need for a precision human landing on Mars, the difficulties in doing that, the pros and cons of the various shapes to use for the human spacecraft, and why the Pershing 2 missile nosecone offered the best shape and design.  Dave cited his references for his analysis and conclusions.

In the second segment, we started with a listener question about the origin of the DC-X vehicle design as it was related to the analysis, conclusions, and explanations Dave provided earlier in the discussion.  Dave continued his comparison and analysis of the three potential vehicle designs, then I asked a series of questions sent in by listener Curt from the recently held Humans to Mars conference regarding issues in landing a large payload on Mars.  Dave also spoke about heavy lift and the need for an SLS type vehicle, speaking to the additional needs for using smaller launches. These needs include planning on replacement launches and payloads which must be figured into the costs as all the advance launches of supplies & materials to Mars will be mission critical launches.  The crew should be the last launch to the planet. Listeners both emailed in questions for Dave and additional listener phone calls were received.  Dave continued to reference the NASA Mars Design Study, work done by JPL, Dr. Robert Manning, and others. We talked about the Mars One program & how it might land its human crew on Mars.  We also talked about HSF to Mars policy &the absence of political leadership for a human mission to Mars.  Dave addressed media issues but largely stayed with the shape of the human spaceflight spaceship, the need for a precision landing, and what might work best.

Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above.  You can email Dave at the address he provided on air at the end of the show.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 71 other followers