Christopher (Chris) Stone, Sunday, 11-10-13 November 11, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: advocacy cheerleading, advocacy expectations, advocate organizations, Chinese lunar probe, Chinese space goals, Chinese space policy, Chinese view of space settlement, Christopher Stone, Cold War, NASA Chinese policy, national space programs, public attitude toward space, responsive space strategies, SLS, space advocacy, space deterrence., space frontier, space policy priorities, space strategic planning., space technology, space weapons, The Space Review
1 comment so far
Christopher (Chris) Stone, Sunday, 11-10-13
Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm
Guest: Christopher Stone. Topics: Space advocacy and National Security Space regarding Chinese and American perceptions on space deterrence. 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 Christopher (Chris) Stone to the program for a 1 hour 44 minute discussion on space advocacy and an analysis of his recent Space Review article, “Re-thinking the National Security Space Strategy: Chinese vs. American perceptions of space deterrence” which appeared on TSR November 4, 2013. You can read the article at www.thespacereview.com/article/2395/1. Don’t forget to read the comments associated with the article. During our first segment, we mostly talked about space advocacy issues. Chris was asked about advocacy groups both supporting and opposing SLS as an example of their possible effectiveness in influencing policy. As you will hear, it seems that the influence regardless of the position is marginal. Chris suggested that many advocacy groups are not that understanding as to who is in charge of space policy and how policy is made and how it works. He talked about policy coming from the congressional side, the White House, and industry. Often, both the Senate and House have at least a slightly different view of policy than the other policy participants. We also talked about unrealistic advocacy expectations and priorities.
In the second segment, we talked about the article written by our guest for TSR per the URL above. Chris provided his perspective on our space deterrence policy as well as his perspective on the Chinese program, plus he talked about the Chinese perspective based on his readings and work in the field. Listeners asked questions such as the Chinese view on space settlement and their lunar plans. Another listener asked about the policy prohibiting NASA from talking with their Chinese counterparts. Doug called to talk about ASAT tests and the vulnerability of LEO, MEO, and GEO satellites. This discussion took us to one about the goals of responsive space strategies. Christ talked about space weapons and possible conflicts in and around space resource utilization. He was asked about a possible China cislunar type of program and here he referred to a 2011 Chinese White Paper regarding space resources including space solar power. As the program drew to a close, Chris was asked about other national space programs and his perspective on them in contrast to his thoughts on the China policy. Don’t miss his closing comments.
Post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog per above. You can contact Chris through me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Brian Weeden, Wednesday, 10-23-13 October 23, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " Minitrack, "Gambling with a Space Fence: An analysis of the decision to shut down the Air Force Space Surveillance Fence, Brian Weeden, continuous wave radar, DOD budgets, GPS, Gravity the movie, Naval Research Lab, pulsed radar, S Band Space Fence, Secure World Foundation, sequestration, space debris, space fence, Space Security System, Space Track, stealth satellites, The Space Review, timemation, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy
1 comment so far
Brian Weeden, Wednesday, 10-23-13
Your Amazon Purchases Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)
Guest: Brian Weeden. USAF Space Fence for national security. 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 Brian Weeden back to the program to discuss the issue of the shutting down of the USAF Space Fence. Our discussion was based on Brian’s August 26, 2013 Space Review article, “Gambling with a Space Fence: An analysis of the decision to shut down the Air Force Space Surveillance Fence” at www.thespacereview.com/article/2357/1. During the first segment of our 1 hour 29 minute discussion, Brian provided us with a brief history of the Space Fence, what it has been used for, its technical characteristics, and it recent cancellation partially due to sequestration regarding its approximate $15 million annual budget expense. Brian also explained its capabilities in detecting spy satellites, space debris and other objects and the size of objects which it can detect. He discussed both continuous wave radar and pulsed radar, pointing out that the fence which dated from the late 1950′s, was uncued. Richard Easton called in as his father Roger was one of the developers for the space fence in January 1958. Richard contributed greatly to our discussion. Brian then talked about the probable replacement for the fence, an S Band fence which would result in higher frequencies enabling the detection of smaller objects, probably with a very high rate pulsed radar. Right now the S Band fence is estimated to cost about $1.8 billion but as you will hear, it may never be built. As to how our national security has been impacted without the fence operating, Brian said it was difficult to assess so listen carefully to his analysis. Brian also talked about challenging DOD budget issues, the difference in budget years with DOD as compared to the government as a whole, and again, sequestration.
In our second segment, Brian addressed several of the political issues surrounding the space fence issue. When asked how long it would take for the S Band system to become operational were it funded, he said around 2018. Two companies are competing to do it if and when the project is authorized and funded. We also talked about the U.S. sharing satellite tracking information with all satellite operators including private companies, thus using an international partnership to finance the space fence since it benefits everyone. As you will hear, there appears to be control and sensitivity issues which prevent the air force from going that route. Later I asked Brian about stealth satellites and then he took a listener question about the way space debris was portrayed in the movie Gravity. We spent some time discussing the impact of a movie like Gravity on the public regarding the space debris issue. As the program was ending, Brian said he was not that optimistic about a replacement fence and brought to our attention the need to upgrade computer systems that process the data. As you will hear, this is a substantial problem that is not being addressed.
Please post comments/questions on The Space Show blog. You can reach Brian through me or SWF.
OPEN LINES, Tuesday, 7-30-13 July 31, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " Rand Simberg, " SpaceX, human spaceflight, Microlaunchers, NASA Watch, NewSpace, NewSpace Conference 2013, Open Lines, Orion, Ozarka Aquapod water bottle, SLS, Space Elevator Conference, space policy, space settlement, space venture financing, suborbital space, Surrey Satellite, The Space Review, UND Space Studies
add a comment
OPEN LINES, Tuesday, 7-30-13
Your Amazon Purchases
Can Help Support The Space Show/OGLF (www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)
Guest: Open Lines with Dr. David Livingston. Topics: A variety of topics relating to space development & exploration. 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.
Our first segment of this 2 hour 14 minute Open Lines program started with a few of my suggested topics including a recent John Strickland Space Review article on SLS followed by a response from NASA which was published in the Huntsville Times as well as on NASA Watch. More about this later as a caller read the two articles, then called to discuss them. However, our first caller was Dr. Jurist who called to mention and congratulate the UND Space Studies Department for the award they received from NASA: The JSC Certificate of Appreciation for 25 years of outstanding leadership in the interdisciplinary leadership of space studies. During John’s call, I read the exact wording on the certificate and since John and I are both adjunct professors at UND SpSt, we had much to say about the program, faculty, subjects, students, founders, etc. It’s a fine program and it was an honor to let all of you know about this well deserved award and the UND Masters and PhD program in Space Studies. Next up was our friend Dr. Bryan Laubscher to discuss this year’s upcoming Space Elevator Conference to be held August 23-25 at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, WA. See http://www.isec.org/sec for more conference information, registration, the agenda, and logistics. We talked about new developments with the space elevator, and Bryan told us about two other projects, plus he mentioned launch loop for which you can get more information at www.launchloop.com. John in Ft. Worth called as he read the two articles on SLS and the NASA response that I mentioned at the first of our program. His bottom line observation on SLS did not change as he believes it’s a placeholder for both the space workforce and technology until better days favor the space industry. We had much to say about what John Strickland said in his July 15 TSR article and the NASA response by Dan Dumbacher per his July 29th article. You don’t want to miss this discussion.
In the second longer segment, Tim was first up to talk about Rand Simberg and his theories that space is not important and more risk is needed, not more risk averseness. Tim made comparisons to settlers coming to the New World and I challenged him on it but his bottom line is that most likely most of the population will not be interested in space or space settlement and eventually when technology advances and prices are significantly lower, private companies will take the lead into space. This of course only related to human spaceflight. Our next caller was Mr. Microlaunchers himself, Charles Pooley. Charles was again making the case for his approach to space through Microlaunchers (www.microlaunchers.com) when Dr. Jurist called in on the guest phone line to challenge Charles, especially about financing, time lines, ROI, etc. John kept pushing Charles for how he intended to go from A to B. It was a good discussion with John and Charles, one you will certainly want to hear. John from Ft. Worth called back to talk about a possible rocket shape modeled on the Aquapod water bottle used by Ozarka Water Company. When I told listeners how to see it on the web, Charles emailed back saying the design would not work for a rocket. Oh well, back to drinking the water from it, I guess. Our final call was from Jeff in Tucson who talked about his recent tour of Surrey Satellite when he was visiting in the UK. This is an extensive description with very good and important observations. Since Jeff has also visited SpaceX, we did some compare and contrast analysis between these two state of the art companies, one in the UK and one here in the states in S. California. Also, you will want to take note of Jeff’s keen observations regarding Surrey and what makes it tick, including the cost free relationship it has with the Surrey University and its undergraduate as well as graduate students, many of which eventually come to work for Surrey Satellite. Again, this is a very interesting discussion.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. If you want to email any of the callers, you can do so through email@example.com.
Dr. Nader Elhefnawy, Friday, 6-8-12 June 8, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Code of Conduct, Dr. Nader Elhefnawy, drones, Eureka Paradigm, Joint Vision 2020, military technical thrillers, Missile Defense, national defense, predictions, private space development., rocket technology, SDI, soft power, space age changes, space debris, space warfare, technology, The Space Review, weapons in space
add a comment
Dr. Nader Elhefnawy, Friday, 6-8-12
Guest: Dr. Nader Elhefnawy. Topics: Space warfare reality and hype. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Nader Elhefnawy back to the program to discuss his March 26, 2012 Space Review article, “Why we fall for the hype: contextualizing our thought on space warfare (www.thespacereview.com/article/2052/1).” This was about a two hour program with a break after the first hour. Dr. Elhefnawy also has two blogs which may interest you: http://naderelhefnawy.blogspot.com and http://raritania.blogspot.com. We started our discussion by talking about Dr. Elhefnawy’s interest in the subject, his previous Space Review articles on the subject, and the issue of making accurate predictions. Nader suggested that there is much hype driving the technology predictions suggesting a possible space warfare outcome that also drive political policy in some instances. He talked about how technology development in the 19th century had more impact in changing the world than modern era technology. Our guest cited examples of this throughout our discussion but one example we talked about more so than others dealt with the development of the telegraph. Dr. Elhefnawy suggested that most of the hyped space weapons systems are not doable in the first place. Another document he cited about this issue was the Joint Vision 2020 report (www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/joint_vision_2020.pdf). Nader talked about space weapon systems vulnerabilities and again said that the expectations and hype do not match reality. Several callers engaged with Nader on cause and reaction, SDI, missile defense, anti-satellite warfare, and the pre-positioning of weapons platforms in space.
In our second segment, I asked our guest how we in the public can best defend ourselves against hype, rhetoric, political agendas, and more given we do not have the expertise to always be able to pick up on the excessive claims and fears. As you will hear, we remain vulnerable to excessive hype not just on technology and space but on a wide range of things impacting our national and international policy. In this segment we did talk about technology being developed by China, inquiring if Nader thought this was all hype too. Nader cited some operational stats to drive home some of his points. Other issues and game changing technologies that came up in this segment included drones and the launch cost for space access. Nader also talked about the Eureka Paradigm and then he received a question from caller Mike about the European Code of Conduct that we have discussed many times on the show. Near the end, an interesting comparison was made with aerial warfare from 1914-1918. In just 7-11 years, aviation had advanced to fighting in the skies in WW1. More than fifty years after Sputnik, the point was made we are not even at the 1914 equivalent level for space warfare, thus supporting Dr. Elhefnawy’s premise that we fall for the hype in this matter.
Please post your questions/comments on The Space Show blog. If you want to email our guest, please do so through me and I will forward your note to him.
Stewart Money, Friday, 3-9-12 March 10, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: aerospace industry stakeholders, Air Force, Air Force EELV bulk buys., Arianne 5, commercial space, Congress, Deep Space Climate Observatory (DISCOVR), EELV, Falcon 9. , Falcon Heavy, foreign launchers, GAO, high value payloads, ITAR, NASA, OMB, rocket testing programs, SLS, space access costs, space opportunity cost, space policy, Space X, Stewart Money, The Space Review, Triana Satellite, United Launch Alliance (ULA)
1 comment so far
Stewart Money, Friday, 3-9-12
Guest: Stewart Money. Topics: We discussed EELV issues, the Air Force desire for a bulk buy of EELV services, Space X and more. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Stewart Money to the program to discuss his recent Space Review articles. The primary article he wrote which was the subject for today can be found at www.thespacereview.com/article/1990/. Stewart has Part 2 to this article coming up on The Space Review so be sure to look for it and read it when it is available. During our first segment, Stewart talked about ULA and the proposed bulk buy of ULA rockets for the Air Force and the rising prices for EELV launches. This block buy has been raised into question by many including the GAO study with the thought that it should be expanded to allow for additional purchases from competing companies such as Space X or Orbital. Google ULA Air Force bulk buy” for a list of news articles about this story. Stewart received many questions about this because Falcon 9 is not yet operational and Falcon Heavy has not been built. Stewart talked about this in the context of Air Force requirements for availability, reliability, and the launch cost. Our guest felt that since there was a gap of several years in the Air Force program, there should be time for Falcon 9 to prove itself without much of a downside to the Air Force or ULA if they needed to add in more EELV purchases due to any Space X problems that may arise. Part of our discussion centered on risk but as you will hear, Stewart was mostly focused on launch cost and believes that Space X will be a driving force to lower the cost of access to space. Near the end of this segment, the stored Triana Satellite came up (It is now named the Deep Space Climate Observatory or DISCOVR) and how the Air Force might launch it on the Falcon 9. During this segment, Stewart also referred to the Aerospace Corporation 3/7 Reliability Rule which says that if a failure occurs during the first three launches, the problem is probably a design issue. If failure occurs after the third successful launch but before the seventh, a production process issue is probable. Once a launch vehicle configuration launches successfully three times, its design has demonstrated maturity. If successfully launched seven times, the design & production process maturity are likely demonstrated. Check out this document for more detailed information on the 3/7 Reliability Rule: “Space Acquisitions: Uncertainties in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program Pose Management and Oversight Challenges” by the GAO at www.gao.gov/new.items/d081039.pdf.
In the second segment, we talked about the recent congressional testimony on the FY 13 budget with Congress and Administrator Bolden plus the testimony of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Stewart boiled the problems down to the cost of space access and remained with the theme of solving that problem for the balance of our discussion. We then talked more about testing, high priority payloads and normal payloads, how many flights would be needed for the Falcon 9 to fly a high priority payload and more. We also talked about the difference in theory with a yet to be proven, operational launch vehicle being considered real as compared to an actual operating and flying vehicle as many confuse the two, counting the first one as real with real pricing when it is not even operational.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog URL above. If you would like to email Mr. Money, you can use the address at the end of his Space Review articles.
Dr. Harley Thronson, Friday, 1-27-12 January 28, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Beyond LEO action plans, Cislunar development, Delta IV, Dr. Harley Thronson, Earth-Moon Libration Points, Future In-Space Operations (FISO) telecon, habitats, HSF, HSF design teams, HSF safety, Human spaceflight beyond LEO, ISS, ISS unused modules, life support, Mars, NASA's Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, new launch technology, orbital propellant depots, radiation, radiation shielding, Return to the Moon, rockets, SLS, space accident preparedness, space development compromises, The Space Review
add a comment
Dr. Harley Thronson, Friday, 1-27-12
Guest: Dr. Harley Thronson. Topics: “Accelerating the Future: The Importance of Human Achievements Beyond LEO Within a Decade.” You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Harley Thronson back to the show to discuss the existing and future planning for human spaceflight beyond LEO (BEO). We talked about two recent Space Review articles Dr. Thronson wrote which I believe you will find very interesting. (www.thespacereview.com/article/1985/1 and www.thespacereview.com/article/1756/1. In addition, Dr. Thronson discussed the Future In Space Telecon (FISO) series that he hosts every Wednesday afternoon at 3 PM EST. To learn more about FISO and get on their mailing list visit http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/fisowg.html and www.futureinspaceoperations.com. In our first segment, we discussed the FISO telecons, then we switched to what’s next for human spaceflight (HSF) after LEO or BEO (beyond Earth orbit). For this discussion, we referred to the two Space Review articles referenced above. As we learned, there is considerable thought being given within NASA and among others at to what is next after the ISS and how do we start preparing for it. Dr. Thronson talked about prioritizing what has to be done to move beyond the ISS and LEO. Also in the mix were mission and even hardware design compromises that may enhance our ability to be ready to fly sooner, not later. Those involved in this planning are of the opinion that we must compromise and also must fly soon, start something, otherwise we will lose opportunities and drive up costs even more than they will be. Much of this has to do with being able to capitalize on the existing ISS workforce and those who know how to do space stations and HSF. If we do not retain these people, then starting over again years later will be costly and will have a huge learning curve associated with it. The goal of planners and thinkers Dr. Thronson is working with is to be BEO by the end of the decade. We discussed where to go and here, our guest had much to say about Mars and the Moon, but said Earth-Moon libration points were best for starting out using a stepping stone approach. Much of the first segment went into detail about these subjects and issues.
In the second segment, we talked about crew safety, using previously built but never used ISS modules as the basis for a BEO station, and compromises that can get us going quicker, not later but not adversely impacting safety. Michael called in to talk about accidents and inevitable fatalities with HSF and the industry to properly handle them when/if they happen. Both Dr. Thronson and I had much to say about safety, accident management, and this subject. Another listener wanted to know when there would actually be work on BEO projects rather than just talking about them. Dr. Thronson had much about getting started, time lines, mission readiness and more.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above.
Dr. Louis Friedman, Monday, 1-9-12 January 10, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: advanced technology, China’s space policy., DARPA 100 Year Starship, Dr. Lou Friedman, human space exploration, interstellar propulsion, ITAR, James Webb Space Telescope, LightSail Program, Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment (LIFE), Mind Expansion, NASA Human Spaceflight Program, NASA science and robotic missions, Phobos-Grunt., Russian rockets, SLS, solar sails, space and engineering education, The Planetary Society, The Space Review
add a comment
Dr. Louis Friedman, Monday, 1-9-12
Guest: Dr. Lou Friedman. Topics: The Planetary Society LightSail Program, solar sails and more. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Louis Friedman back to the show to discuss solar sails and his recent articles in The Space Review titled “Mind Expansion,” Nov. 21, 2011 and “The Dangers of a Rocket To Nowhere,” May 23, 2011. We started our one hour discussion with Dr. Friedman talking about solar sails and recent Planetary Society solar sail missions. Dr. Friedman gave us the basics on solar sails and explained the interest and commitment to their demo solar sail efforts and the LightSail Program. Listeners asked technical questions about solar sails, the materials used, and the radiation degradation of the materials. We talked about using only sunlight for the solar sail energy, but in the future being able to use onboard lasers and even the light from distant stars. We talked about the Phobos-Grunt mission as The Planetary Society had an experiment onboard, the Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment (LIFE). Dr. Friedman described this microbial experiment and the titanium capsule it was in with the possibility of its being able to survive reentry and even being recovered though the odds are clearly against that happening. We talked liability issues regarding the debris, including LIFE, doing damage upon returning to Earth. Both Dr. Friedman and attorney Michael Listener who called in said that primary liability was with Russia based on the OST. The SLS came up as Dr. Friedman wrote about it in his above mentioned Space Review article. In talking about SLS, we spoke about mediocrity in space policy, specifically human spaceflight. I asked Dr. Friedman about the importance of connecting with the general public regarding HSF and how we could do a better job of it than what we are currently doing. I then asked Dr. Friedman to comment on his excellent “Mind Expansion” Space Review article which you can read at www.thespacereview.com/article/1973/1. We talked about the need to think big, issues facing space entrepreneurs, and a needed bridge between traditional commercial interests for entrepreneurs and thinking big and doing the new and innovative, especially if the business case is tentative or illusive. Listeners asked Dr. Friedman about today’s college students and if they were being trained to think big. As we closed in on the end of our hour discussion, I asked Lou if he thought space would be an issue in this year’s presidential campaign. He did not think it would be an issue. In our second segment which was to be Open Lines, I made an error in editing the show and lost the 50 minute segment. However, during this brief OL segment, I went over some of the key upcoming Space Show programs. Michael Listener called in to talk about the Chinese space policy. Not only did we addressChina and space, but I also brought into the mix some ofChina’s economic and banking issues which may impact their space progress. Terry Picket called in regarding my comment about asking for help in coming up with a new template for the email newsletter and my time zone comment. He offered us a time zone tool from the net and we talked about it and the various time zones across theUnited States includingAlaska andHawaii. I regret having accidentally cut this segment and I apologize to Michael, Terry and all of you for not being able to bring this segment to you. If you have questions/comments regarding the discussion with Dr. Friedman, please post them on The Space Show blog per the above URL.
Michael Listner, Monday, 1-2-12 January 2, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: arbitration agreements, Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty, Austrian domestic space law, benefit sharing, careers in space law, Chinese space policy, DOD space, Draft Treaty On The Prevention Of The Placement Of Weapons In Outer Space, ESA, European Code of Conduct For Outer Space Activities, FAA, Google Lunar X-Prize, Indian space policy, international treaties, ISS, launching country, Liability Convention, lunar artifacts, lunar mineral extraction, Michael Listner, Moon Treaty, NASA, New Space, Outer Space Treaty, Registration Convention, rogue nations, SLS, space law, space property rights, space weapons, The Space Review, The Threat Or Use Of Force Against Outer Space Objects (PPWT)., Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs), United Nations space treaties, voluntary agreement
Michael Listner, Monday, 1-2-12
Guest: Michael Listner. Topics: National and international space law issues including property rights, the Moon Treaty & more. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomes Michael Listner to the program to discuss national and international space law issues and related matters. We started out discussing the new Austrian domestic space law and inquiring of our guest why we should take note of this Austrian law here in the U.S. As you will hear from Mr. Listner, the new Austrian law relates specifically to the UN space treaties and plays a role in international space law. Our guest wrote a recent article on this subject in The Space Review on Dec. 12, 2011. You can read his article at www.thespacereview.com/article/1988/1. Another interesting article of his you might value is in DefensePolicy.org from July 7, 2011 and titled “TCBMs: A New Definition and New Role for Outer Space Security.” You can download it at www.defensepolicy.org/2011/michlis/tcbms-a-new-definition-and-new-role-for-outer-space-security. Our discussion then focused on launching country issues and liability, satellite operations in different countries and both the Liability and the Registration U.N. Conventions. This discussion led us to talking about the European Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities and Michael updated us on the status of this voluntary agreement, both on the international front as well as here in the U.S. Other issues discussed in this segment included space debris and the Draft Russian Chinese Treaty On The Prevention Of The Placement Of Weapons In Outer Space (PPWT). We also talked about the Chinese GPS system covering Asia, its military focus, and Chinese geo political intersects. Michael then introduced us to Transparency and Confidence Building Measures (TCBMs) as alternatives to treaties. This prompted several listener questions and comments about “so called” government transparency, the word of governments, and their effectiveness so far. This was an interesting discussion, especially when I asked our guest for his personal opinion on these types of agreements. Space tourism became a subject and we spent some time on the liability issues and the states that have passed liability protection laws for the space companies. Jack from Virginia was listening and provided us with important information about the Virginia law which he largely authored and which has become a model for the laws in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico. We spent the rest of the first segment talking about liability and space tourism issues. In the second segment, Helen asked if funding levels for NASA and space interests correlated to up’s and downs in space policy. As you will hear, most policy is driven by politics, not funding levels. There were lots of questions about the legality of the Moon Treaty and its applicability to commercial space, even Google Lunar X Prize contestants. We fielded questions on lunar mineral extractions as well as messing with Apollo artifacts on the Moon. We then jumped over to property rights and what this actually means regarding space issues. As we were nearing the end of our discussion, I asked Michael if space law was largely an academic field or if it was becoming a career choice field in terms of practical application. He said it was becoming more and more practical and more and more schools were offering commercial law classes. If you have comments or questions for Michael Listner, please post them on the blog URL above.