jump to navigation

Alan Boyle, Tuesday, 2-25-14 February 26, 2014

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

Alan Boyle, Tuesday, 2-25-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2199-BWB-2014-02-25.mp3

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

If you are listening to archives & rating programs on live365.com,  email me the reasons for your rating to help improve the show.

Guest:  Alan Boyle.  Topics:  Alan discussed a wide range of topics including HSF, suborbital flights, science, Mars & 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.   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.  Note that there was scattered phone line noise from time to time during our discussion.

We welcomed Alan Boyle back to the show for this 1 hour 42 minute discussion on numerous space news items & topics.  During our first segment, Alan talked about the “two year rule” which suggests space tourism & suborbital commercial flights are just two years away.  Throughout the program Alan kept suggesting that 2014 might be the end of the two year rule!   Alan gave us an overview of the spaceflight companies building vehicles.  Our next topic was the Yamato Meteorite, a Mars meteorite that may indicate past life on Mars.  He compared this to the 1996 meteorite announcement and said that some of the Yamato team members were the same as those addressing the 1996 “discovery” (www.nbcnews.com/#/science/space/tiny-blobs-tunnels-meteorite-revive-debate-over-life-mars-n38431).  In talking about Mars, I brought up the Viking experiments by Dr. Gil Levin , then a listener emailed in a question about the UK Tom Bower book on Branson, “Behind the Mask.”  Georgia followed with a question about the forthcoming NASA commercial crew down select, then I asked Alan for his view of SLS.  Alan said it definitely had a role to play.  Allison called from her car to inquire about private space stations & microgravity issues.

In the second segment, we discussed Planet Labs & their recent launch of cubesats from the ISS.  Alan also explained how the cubesats were launched from the station, plus since he had seen some of their images, we got a report on image quality.  Todd emailed in a additional question about cislunar transportation/lunar settlements.  Alan had several questions pertaining to what would actually be done in a lunar settlement.  Elon Musk & his Mars plans came up and we spent a few minutes talking about that subject.  Alan said the biggest dud story of 2013 in his opinion was Comet Ison.  John called from Ft. Worth & I queried him again on SLS but he actually wanted to discuss Mars & present day capabilities.  He then talked about the need for advanced propulsion for Mars flights.  He said he would back off his SLS support had there been plans for a second generation shuttle, depots or something that would be a real program.  He said SLS was a real program & any program was better than no program.  Alan then said he was looking forward to 2015 with New Horizons, Dawn, & SpaceShip2.  He also mentioned the ESA Rosetta mission,  then as the show was ending, he was asked about the Chinese lunar rover.  The final question from Sara was about the value & importance of human spaceflight.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above.  Follow Alan on www.facebook.com/NBCNewsScience and www.nbcnews.com/id/3033063.

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 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

.

Dr. James (Jim) Wertz, Monday, 2-11-13 February 12, 2013

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

Dr. James (Jim) Wertz, Monday, 2-11-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1948-BWB-2013-02-11.mp3

Guest:  Dr. James (Jim) Wertz:  Topics:  Methods for dramatically reducing space mission costs, schedules, & launches.  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. Jim Wertz, President of Microcosm, back to the show to discuss various methods & tools for reducing total space mission costs.  Our guest talked about successful programs and tools that have so far contributed to total mission cost reduction.  In the first segment of our 1 hour 33 minute program, Dr. Wertz started by defining what he meant by reinventing space.  He said this refers to a dramatic reduction in total space mission costs by a factor of 2::10 for schedule related reductions and 2-5 times for space access related costs.  Early on he was asked about reducing costs by increasing the launch rate, a common argument heard in various sectors of the space industry.  His response might surprise you.  Dr. Wertz cited examples to support his comments, specifically Surrey Satellite in the UK (SSTL) as they have been reducing costs successfully for 25 years.  He said modern technology must be used. He also pointed us to his Reinventing Space Project with the USC Astronautics Department.  Also, he pointed us to these websites for more information, www.smad.com/ie/ieframessr2.html and www.smad.com/ReinventingSpace.html.  Dr. Wertz mentioned disaggregation regarding the military using smaller spacecraft and different orbits.  He was asked about cubesats and cubesat launchers, the Scorpius launch vehicle, and NanoEye.  Jim offered sequestration and budgetary comments and pointed out the difficulty in mission planning and more when the nation continues to operate on CR rather than a budget.  He talked about the potential seriousness of the sequestration cuts.  In response to questions about the private sector and SAA type agreements, he pointed out that they exclude the smaller, more creative and innovative cutting edge companies as they are often unable to contribute the required financial portion of the agreement.  Jim pointed out that the goal was to reduce total mission costs, not just launch costs. He said that the launch cost was not always the most costly component of the mission.  As the segment ended, he talked about emergency response and the need for a rapid response, something that is today unavailable.

    In the second segment, we talked about the Cassini Resource Exchange as an effective policy that reduced mission costs and enabled an on time project.  Don’t miss the details about this program.  He again talked about SSTL and pointed out that their attitude is what makes them special & so good.  SSTL has pride in reducing mission costs. We don’t have such pride.  Dr. Wertz talked about Trading on Requirements and why it is risky.  During the first segment, fuel depots were offered up as a possible way to reduce mission costs but Dr. Wertz put them in the marginal category. During this segment, listeners had lots of questions about fuel depots.  In fact, it was as if they cared more about their vision and beliefs regarding fuel depots than the overall message Dr. Wertz was putting out. Clearly fuel depots have the attention of space enthusiasts & sectors of the industry no matter what.  A listener also asked about advanced propulsion concepts as represented by several companies pushing very advanced designs.  Dr. Wertz mentioned that the amateur satellite network could be used to reduce mission costs and talked about the success of AMSAT.  More listener questions came in regarding fuel depots, by far the most common discussion and question topic of the day.  Jim talked about future programs that may offer economies of scale such as SSP.  The last questions came in from Tim regarding our discussion of using pressure fed systems over the use of systems with a turbo pump.  He also wanted to know about rocket reusability.  Jim’s answers may again surprise you.

     Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above.  You can email Dr. Wertz through me using drspace@thespaceshow.com.

John Batchelor Show, “Hotel Mars,” Wednesday, 2-8-12 February 9, 2012

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

John Batchelor Show, “Hotel Mars,” Wednesday, 2-8-12

John Batchelor, Dr. Rorbert Zubrin, Dr. David Livingston

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1708-BWB-2012-02-08.mp3

Guests: John Batchelor, Dr. Robert (Bob) Zubrin, Dr. David Livingston. Topics: Manned Mars exploration, prizes, NASA, Private Sector.  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. This program is archived on The Space Show website, podcasting, and blog sites with permission from John Batchelor. Please visit the John Batchelor Show website for more information about this fine program, www.johnbatchelorshow.com.  The topics in this 11 minute plus segment focused on Dr. Zubrin’s recent article published in the National Review (www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/289775) titled “The Mars Prize” and dated Feb. 1, 2012.  During our Hotel Mars segment, Dr. Zubrin explained the rational behind his Mars Prize idea, he discussed the economics of it and how it would drive the necessary technology advances needed for a human Mars mission.  When asked about fuel depots, he said they were a stupid idea and he explained why. He also said the prize was independent of what he thought or approved of as the winning approach may very well include the use of orbiting fuel depots were it the best of the competition.  He went on to say that prizes do not tell people how to do the project.  Dr. Zubrin talked about who most likely would compete and he named the current billionaire space entrepreneurs but said others would emerge.  There was a discussion about making the prize international and we discussed potential ITAR and U.S. taxpayer funding issues.  In response to another question from Mr. Batchelor, he said those competing could very well contract to use NASA talent and skills, but they were free to bring on board such expertise from other sources.  He also said NASA would likely be a customer for the proven technology from the winner and the company having successfully implement the human Mars mission. Please post your comments/questions about this segment to The Space Show blog.  If you want to contact either Dr. Zubrin or John Batchelor, send your note to me and I will forward it for you.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers