Dr. Madhu Thangavelu, Friday, 6-7-13 June 8, 2013
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: 3D Printing of Food, Concept and Synthesis Studio, Curiosity Rover, deep space communications., disruptive technologies., Dr. Madhu Thangavelu, human space flight, incomplete space architecture, Inspiration Mars, ISS, LCROSS Impact, Mars, NASA asteroid capture, NERVA, nuclear electric propulsion, Philosophy of Idea Creation, robotics, space debris, space Kool Aid thinking, space nutrition, space physiology degradation, space political will, space radiation, space story telling, student space inspiration, synthetic mind, unrealizable space visions, USC Dept. of Astronautical Engineering
add a comment
Dr. Madhu Thangavelu, Friday, 6-7-13
Guest: Dr. Madhu Thangavelu. Topics: space architecture visionary design, Human Spaceflight (HSF) to Mars, radiation, much 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.
We welcomed back Dr. Madhu Thangavelu for a 1 hour 45 minute discussion on a wide ranging set of topics from space visionary concepts to HSF to Mars, radiation and other issues, fantasy vs. reality thinking, and the synthetic mind. Madhu provided us with these links relevant to our discussion: 1. AIAA talk slides:
https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/LA/Lists/Presentations/DispForm.aspx?ID=6
; 2. AIAA Space Architecture panel video on YouTube : www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig3FzB0bQnA, 3. USC Space Concepts Studio website :
http://denecs.usc.edu/hosted/ASTE/527_20111
, 4. latest USC Eng. magazine carries an article, p16-17:
http://viterbistorage.usc.edu/Public/USCVITERBIMAG.pdf
. In our first segment, Madhu opened up by talking about students and space inspiration. Based on his own USC teaching experience, he said students were fired up. Our guest was asked to compare robotic missions to HSF missions and Madhu spent some time on this discussion. He also talked about the NASA plan to capture an asteroid, referring to this as a possible wild goose chase. He talked about the ISS and using it more and more to accomplish important space goal. Madhu received several questions about Tito’s Inspiration Mars flyby mission. Here, he had much to say, especially about radiation, deep space communications, food & nutrition, and even physiology degradation. We talked about using nuclear propulsion for such a mission & he suggested a better mission profile using two Falcon rockets.
In the second segment, Paul asked about using nuclear electric propulsion as compared to the two Falcon rocket idea. Madhu talked about the nuclear propulsion history with NERVA & the use of nuclear fuel on many of our robotic missions. Michael called in and said there was no real political will for nuclear so it probably would not happen anytime soon. Later, Madhu was asked many specific radiation questions regarding the Mars flight. Madhu suggested possible mitigation strategies, including his favorite, self cellular repair. Allison emailed in to inquire about his Studio students and how he holds the line from reality thinking as compared to Kool Aid thinking. Madhu talked extensively about this issue, discussed the philosophy of idea generation, visionary thinking with some fantasy while at the same time being grounded in engineering, physics, financial and other subcomponents of the concept. Don’t miss this important discussion. We also talked about disruptive technologies. At the end, we talked about the synthetic mind.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can contact Madhu through me.
Michael Listner, Monday, 5-6-13 May 6, 2013
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: Apollo artifacts, cubesat issues, GEO debris, ITAR, LEO debris, liability, liability limitations, Michael Listner, national security issues, Outer Space Treaty, PPWT, Project Azorian., space debris, space debris mitigation, space debris policy issues, space salvage, space weapons, technical issues, Transparency Confidence Measures (TCM)
9 comments
Michael Listner, Monday, 5-6-13
Guest: Michael Listner. Topics: Space debris issues and ideas for solutions. 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 Michael Listner back to the program to discuss space debris and Apollo artifact issues along with his ideas for possible solutions to the debris problem. On The Space Show blog, you will find three of Michael’s Space Review articles on the subject plus his Power Point slide presentation at the end of the blog summary statement. In addition, Michael had an article in the current Space Review on the preservation of Apollo historic sites. For this article, see www.thespacereview.com/article/2290/1. In the first segment of our 1 hour 44 minute show, Michael offered us his definition of space debris and pointed us to his slides which I urge you to have available when listening to this show. Again, his slide presentation is uploaded to the blog for this program and is the last item of the uploads. He summarized the space debris issue as both legal and thorny! After defining debris and the issues using the first few of his slides, he talked about other issues including ITAR, property rights, technical, and even national security issues. Listeners asked him several questions, mostly focused on LEO as that is the most crowded region at this time and the priority for debris mitigation. CubeSat issues came up given the potential debris problem should the cubesats manifest in the quantity talked about and planned. We talked policy issues and different strategies as suggested by China and Russia. We also talked about weapons issues and dual use for the military as well as for civilian use. Michael went over Transparency Confidence Measures (TCMs) instead of new treaties and mentioned the proposed Russian/Chinese treaty, PPWT, which does not have wide support in the UN. Late in the segment, Michael talked about the OST and the definition of a space object. We also talked about space salvage compared to ocean salvage. He told us to check out Project Azorian www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb305) (but did not tell us what this was.
In our second segment, Michael wanted to focus on solutions & he offered us some of his ideas on the subject. Still referring to his PPT slides. One suggestion was to offer limited liability to third parties or those working to mitigate a debris issue, similar to what many of the commercial spaceports are doing with the suborbital spaceship companies and manufacturers. He talked quite a bit about the proposed Swiss concept for debris mitigation which he liked very much. Michael wrote another Space Review article on this concept last year which you can read at
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2032/1
. Toward the end of the program, we talked about the need to preserve the Apollo landing sites as historical sites and some of the issues and challenged faced in doing so.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. Michael can also be contacted at michael.listner at spacesafetymagazine dot com.
Legal issues surrounding space debris remediation
Addressing the challenges of space debris, part 1: defining space debris
Addressing the challenges of space debris, part 2: liability
Dr. James (Jim) Wertz, Monday, 2-11-13 February 12, 2013
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: " SpaceX, advanced technology propulsion design, AMSAT, Cassini Resource Exchange, cubesat launcher, cubesats, Dr. James Wertz, drones, interplanetary missions, ISS, launch vehicle reusability, low cost space launch systems, Microcosm, military disaggregation, NASA, on orbit servicing, orbiting fuel depots, orbits, pressure fed systems, Reinventing Space, Reinventing Space Conference, Scorpius launch vehicle, sequestration, SmallSat., space debris, space mission planning, SSP, Surrey Satellite, Trading on Requirements, turbo pump, USC Astronautics
1 comment so far
Dr. James (Jim) Wertz, Monday, 2-11-13
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.
Zac Manchester, Tuesday, 2-5-13 February 6, 2013
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: Cal Poly, cell phone electronics, consumer electronics, Cornell University, crow-source funding, cubesat ground station, CubeSat Mission Design, cubesat peapod, cubesats, ham radio bands, ITAR, KickSat, Kickstarter., launch vehicles, Lorentz Adjusted Orbit, NASA Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (/ELaNa), Open Source, payload integration, secondary payloads, solar sail., space debris, Sprite ChipSats, Zac Manchester
add a comment
Zac Manchester, Tuesday, 2-5-13
Guest: Zac Manchester. Topics: Zac’s KickSat project, cubesats, crowd-funding, & 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.
We welcomed Zac Manchester to the program to discuss his KickSat CubeSat open source mission using 200 Sprite ChipSats. You can learn more by visiting www.kicksat.net, www.spacecraftresearch.com and
. From these websites you can visit the KickSat wiki as well as the KickSat blog. We started our discussion with Zac Manchester with his providing us with an overview of his KickSat project and Kickstarter as a tool to fund some types of space ventures. Zac talked about launches being provided by the NASA Educational Launch of Nanosatellites (/ELaNa) program plus the lack of traditional financing which caused Zac to give Kickstarter a try. The KickSat team started out wanting to raise $30,000 but instead raised nearly $75,000. He had much to say throughout both segments regarding crowd-funding and the use of Kickstarter. Zac also described the cubesats and the Sprite ChipSats. He talked about the importance of reducing the size of the unit and what this meant for mission design, propulsion, technology advancement, lower launch costs, and more. Several listeners emailed him questions including space debris questions since the 200 Sprite ChipSats would have a short life expectancy and then return to Earth. He said all would burn up in the atmosphere but he also talked about future missions where the units would float back to Earth as would a piece of paper. Technology advancement for this to happen must take place but he said it was certainly plausible. Other issues discussed in our first segment included secondary payments and payload integration. Regarding payload integration, he said their project goes to Cal Poly for peapod integration and then to the Cape from Cal Poly for vehicle integration. Cal Poly does the peapod integration for academic cubesat projects. A listener saw the project plans on one of the websites and inquired about making the hardware or buying a kit from Zac’s group. As you will hear, the project is open source and people are encouraged to buy the off the shelf parts and make their own unit. Zac mentioned several online stores where the parts could be bought. We talked about the difficulty in getting a launch for a stand alone cubesat someone might build.
In the second segment, we took a call from Charles Pooley who talked about building a small launchers to get away from secondary payloads and potential launch delays we he said were the barriers to this industry. Check out www.microlaunchers.com for more on the Pooley idea. Zac then told us about the March 16 workshop at the Hacker Dojo in Silicon Valley on how to set up KickSat ground stations. Zac described the ground station using Ham bands and suggested the cost would be around $200.00. Another listener asked Zac for his background & how he got interested in space & a cubesat project. Zac had much to say about the academic research that inspired him as both a Cornell undergrad and masters student.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can contact Zac through his project websites and blog.
Alan Steinberg, Friday, 2-1-13 February 2, 2013
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: "Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding, "Weapons in Space: The Need to Protect Space Assets, ABM, Alan Steinberg, ASAT, ASTROPOLITICS, beamed energy, cyber warfare, Dept. of Defense space, enforcement., international space law, NASA, PPWT, public opinion, self-defense, space advocacy, space debris, space weapons, U.N. Charter, U.N. treaties
2 comments
Alan Steinberg, Friday, 2-1-13
Guest: Alan Steinberg. Topics; Protecting our space assets, weapons in space, space policy and public opinion. 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 Alan Steinberg to the program to discuss both is latest Astropolitics article, “Weapons in Space: The Need to Protect Space Assets,” and his 2011 Space Policy article, , “Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding.” Both of these articles are available for purchase by using Google the full title of the article. During the first half of the program, we focused on Alan’s Astropolitics article. As you will hear, the issue of protecting our space assets is not an easy one to address or solve. Furthermore, as Alan and listeners suggested, the response the U.S. might make to an attack on space assets is unclear, especially if the attacking party or nation had an excuse, said it was an accident, or denied intentionally doing the deed. Alan and listener Michael defined the term space weapon and Michael provided us with the PPWT proposed treaty language defining space weapons. Alan had much to say about protecting space assets and weapons in space in the context of the U.N. treaties. We talked about U.S. as well as international enforcement here and in other countries. Space debris was discussed, especially in light of the difficulty in diplomatic action leading to tangible action against a debris causing country or party. Also discussed was government being responsible for commercial space assets under its flag.
In the second segment, we mostly talked about Alan’s 2011 Space Policy article, “Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding,” although many listeners via email and the phone kept returning to the space weapons topic. Alan took lots of questions about the role and impact on policy of space advocacy and as you will hear, its not easy or clear to pin down. Alan had much to say on how best to influence members of congress but was clear in pointing out that space advocacy does not have the numbers of the larger and more powerful lobbying groups that are far more effective in influencing policy than is the space community. Another of his points focused in on the significant influence of the aerospace industry as compared to space advocates and enthusiasts. We also learned from his concluding paragraph that when researching this issue, “research on what influences space policy attitudes and even space policy public opinion is in short supply.” In addition, we learned that while Americans like our space program and NASA, they don’t have a good understanding of it, the actual amount of funding NASA gets in relationship to the budget, and that their liking of the space program simply does not translate to more funding and more programs.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact Alan Steinberg, you can do so through drspace@thespaceshow.com.
Jim Keravala, Shackleton Energy Co., Friday, 12-14-12 December 15, 2012
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: benefit sharing, capital markets, Cislunar space, energy crisis, Geostationary, global economy, infrastructure investment, insitu resource usage, ISS, ITAR, Jim Keravala, Kessler limits, LEO, Moon, Propellant Depots, public/private partnerships, Shackleton Energy Company, Shackleton Energy timelines, Shackleton industrial astronauts, space debris, space finance, SSP, Surrey Satellite, technology transfer, U.S. economy, water ice at lunar poles
add a comment
Jim Keravala, Shackleton Energy Co., Friday, 12-14-12
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 Jim Keravala to the program to talk with us about the Cislunar development plans for Shackleton Energy. To learn more, visit their website at www.shackletonenergy.com. Jim started our discussion with an overview of Shackleton Energy and their Cislunar development plan. As you will hear throughout our discussion, the plan involves the propellant depots near the ISS and in other locations, water ice development at the lunar north and south pole, the use of insitu resources and eventually Shackleton industrial astronauts. Our guest spent most of the first segment describing the plan, the various stages of development, the use of robotic technology leading up to human spaceflight and benefit sharing ideas. He talked about being able to solve or at least significantly contribute to solutions to our global energy usage problems which he said would be around 30 terawatt hours(TWh). He talked about the viability of SSP at that point based on the cislunar Shackleton Energy development program. Jim also mentioned the risk of reaching the Kessler limits regarding space debris. Ben sent in an email asking Jim for his thoughts on benefit sharing, a subject put forth on The Space Show by recent guest Dr. Edythe Weeks. Jim was supportive of benefit sharing through technology exchanges and transfers as well as in helping under developed nations build an industry to allow them to compete and have a presence in the expanding space industry. He cited his work with Surrey Satellite Company and their African space development program as an example, plus he talked about sharing to make sure everyone benefitted from space development which could significantly improve life in these countries. We talked about government corruption problems and ITAR as issues that might get in the way of benefit sharing, but Jim was steadfast in the need to reach out to third world countries to engage them in space development for the commercial and industrial benefits.
Michael Listner, Tuesday, 11-27-12 November 28, 2012
Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.Tags: Apollo landing site preservation, Austria space law, benefit sharing, Code of Conduct, commercial space, CubeSat, delineation of outer space, EnviSat., ITAR, Law of the Sea Treaty, limited liability laws, Michael Listner, Moon Treaty, Outer Space Treaty, space debris, space law 2012, space policy, space property rights, suborbital space, TCBMs
1 comment so far
Michael Listner, Tuesday, 11-27-12
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 & 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 Michael Listner back to the show to do our first ever annual review of space law issues. Michael had several topics to discuss including the Code of Contact, Transparency & Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs), Cube sat regulation, ITAR, Planetary resources & space property rights, Space debris with an emphasis on EnviSat, Austria’s space law in particular the launch of Austria’s first satellite in December, Commercial space in particular limited liability laws, Delineation of air space & outer space, the Moon Treaty & the ascension of Turkey & Saudi Arabia, Rules of Arbitration, & the preservation of Apollo landing sites. We started with two main space law issues of 2012, the European Code of Conduct & TCBMs. Michael did a good job explaining the history of these items, where are today with them & what is likely to happen with them in 2013. We also talked about space taking on the role of being normal & we both pointed out ways in which it interacts with regular law even if consumers are behind a firewall & have no awareness of space law issues. Our discussion turned toward benefit sharing & this took us into an extensive Moon Treaty discussion. I urge people not blow off what to many of us are radical departures from how we have been conducting space affairs & how we want to see commercial space evolve. There are longer term potential risks given trends in benefit sharing, more countries signing on to the Moon Treaty, & even listener feedback I get right here on The Space Show. Michael urged us to pay attention if other nations sign the Moon Treaty, particularly if Russia or China agree to it. Michael talked about legal theories that can make the Moon Treaty enforceable given it is a legal treaty, even if the U.S. & others do not sign it. Again, I urge our audience to not discount this potential longer term risk.
