jump to navigation

Erik Seedhouse, Monday, 11-24-14 November 25, 2014

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

Erik Seedhouse, Monday, 11-24-14


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 new book, “Bigelow Aerospace: Colonizing Space One Module at a Time” & much more.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://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 show to discuss his new book, “Bigelow Aerospace: Colonizing Space One Module at a Time.”  Remember, if you buy it on Amazon, use the OGLF/Space Show portal so Amazon will donate part of the purchase price to The Space Show.  Instructions are on all program archives on the website, the blog, and at http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org.  During the first segment of our 1 hour 52 minute discussion, Erik started out with a short summary of the recently concluded Next Giant Leap space conference held in Hawaii.  He concluded that it was an excellent conference with a focus on returning to the Moon and lunar missions.  Next, Erik turned his attention to his new book on Bigelow Aerospace by talking about the inflatable technology being used by Bigelow modules, especially the BA 330.  Erik was asked about station keeping with the BA 330 and suggested both a docking capability and propulsion mode.  I asked Erik what impressed him the most and also concerned him the most.  Regarding his concerns, he suggested the lunar landing capability of Bigelow, even citing Buzz Aldrin in support of his concerns.  Given Erik has now written books on both SpaceX and Bigelow, a listener asked him for comparisons with the two which Erik would not do.  Under pressure, he did say it might be easier to work at SpaceX than Bigelow.  Throughout the show, Erik mentioned that we need advanced propulsion to go to Mars and that it was unsafe to use chemical rockets.  When I challenged him on this, he held his ground citing radiation and other human factors risks as reasons why going to Mars with chemical rockets was too risky.

In the second segment, we talked about the Vectran material per Tony’s email.  Vectran is the material used for the Bigelow expandables (inflatables).  Dr. Doug from S. California called with multiple questions for Erik.  He inquired about a possible Bigelow inflatable greenhouse and wanted to know if Bigelow had identified a landing location on the Moon.  Doug also brought up a potential return to the Moon policy with the next president to be elected in the 2016 presidential election.  Neither Erik or I thought it was likely that a new president would focus on a return to the Moon space policy.  Doug commented on our comments later in the segment with an email which I read in full on air.  Let us know what you think with a comment on TSS blog.  Listeners asked about going to Mars rather than the Moon and Erik talked about going to the Moon as part of a Mars mission.  During the program, I asked Erik what it would take to move policy makers to establishing  a return to the Moon policy.  Erik talked about the need to sell the program and suggested it was as much PR as it was engineering.  Later in this segment, I told Erik I was appointing him the lunar space commander and what would he do to sell a return to the Moon policy with a new president.  He said he would probably play the scare card regarding China and their policy.  Later, he talked more about a scare policy over both Chinese and Russian space programs.  He cited examples for why we should be concerned about China.  Michael Listner emailed in to remind listeners that it was not a given that a private lunar mission would be approved & get the necessary launch and other licenses required for the mission.  Erik suggested using a foreign launcher but I reminded Erik that the American law requires a launch license and more regardless of where in the world the launch takes place if you are an American citizen or resident.  George and other listeners sent Erik email questions about the Chinese threat.  Near the end of the show, I asked Erick to give us an update on the Canadian space program.  In summary, we concluded that Mr. Bigelow is a space visionary and pioneer.  We are excited about the potential offered us by Bigelow Aerospace with private space stations, a lunar hab, and more.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above.  You can reach Erik Seedhouse through me.


1. DougSpace - December 9, 2014

B John. Why don’t you just take David up on his offer?

I agree with you that tethered rotation to 1 gee virtually eliminates the microgravity problem and many experts on the Show have said the same. I also agree with you that bulk shielding near astronauts significantly reduces radiation exposure (I believe to acceptable levels). Indeed, Logan and Adamo have stated that only 51 cm thick water shielding is acceptable for them.

So, accept David’s offer to be on the Show and I will call in offering support for your proposed technical solutions where we agree. If your positions make objective sense to me then I’ll support you regardless of whether you have the credentials or not.

So, do it. Come on the Show.

2. jimjxr - November 25, 2014

Agree with Doug regarding possible policy change after 2016, there would probably be another Augustine Committee and the finding would be the same as NRC report: SLS/Orion is going nowhere without a significant increase of NASA funding. But by then the commercial space capability would be radically different from 2009, a return to the moon based on public/private partnership and within existing NASA budget seems to be an easy way for the new president to leave his/her mark on history without paying anything extra.

DougSpace - December 9, 2014

Thanks Jim. I especially agree with the public-private path being a potentially easy political out for the next president. But it is not a guarantee that the president’s advisors will present this option to him/her. This is why I am working to try to reach the possible space advisors to the candidates.

I’m not as convinced about another Augustine-like commission. Something seems to be broken there. It is a three strikes and you’re out sort of thing. Bush Sr had his commission and nothing came of it. Bush Jr had his commission but eventually that path was found to be unaffordable. Obama had his commission and now it’s looking like we cannot afford the path that followed. So, at this point in time, I think that a lot of people could reasonably ask, “Is yet another commission really what we need? Or will it result in another point of dissatisfaction”? It is not obvious that another panel of distinguished elders is going to make the difference. And if the next panel concludes that the current path is unsustainable then we’re back to the same question of what should we do differently?

The problem is more fundamental that choosing the right destination or trying to come up with a compelling rationale. And even funding isn’t really the fundamental problem. NASA’s budget has gone up recently not down.

People are not dissatisfied with how the public-private programs are going. Those are considered very successful. The deep dissatisfaction comes down to the big government side of the HSF equation — and just about every part of it: Orion, the SLS, ARM, and a distant asteroid. Each are considered too expensive, too uncertain, and not meaningful enough.

I think that the real danger is that the proposed solution will be to have an ISS 2.0. Namely, an international space station at an EML point providing justification for frequent SLS flights and a jumping off point for countries to go to the Moon. This is, IMO, technically unnecessary (we don’t have to go to EML to get to the a Moon) and it would constrain space budgets indefinitely.

Rather, my hope is that the next administration and congress would build upon success by funding a follow-on to the current public-private programs by extending America’s commercial space to include the resources of the Moon. And in so doing to meet the resource, transportation, science, and diplomacy goals by letting the governments take advantage of those capabilities.

3. B John - November 25, 2014

You yourself is no formal authority on the subject, are you? You have no education in astronomy or space engineering, do you? You only refer to other authorities, just like I do. So your extremely one sided ranting on this topic is just tiresome to most of your listeners.

Microgravity is really very dangerous! No doubt about it.
But radial acceleration eliminates microgravity!
If the CAUSE of a problem is eliminated, do you seriously mean that the problem still remains anyway, without any cause??? Do you really need an “authority” to tell you yes or no on that question?

How do you imagine that the many extremely difficult medical and technical problems caused by microgravity, actually trade off compared to simply rotating the spacecraft to get rid of it all? I will ask you and your guests whenever I listen to your show live, if it is space itself which is dangerous, or if it instead it is microgravity which is dangerous. And I will refer to authorities, I’m not making this up. It is not any ideology of mine, it is simply an obvious conclusion. I will help you to become educated on this topic! So you can improve your space show.

The Space Show - November 25, 2014


Your response is absurd so this is my last exchange with you on the subject regardless of your posts. If you want to educate us all as you say and since you believe you have the answers, step up to plate and be a guest on The Space Show! Then you can have 90 minutes or so like other guests to educate us all. I notice you still refuse to comment, accept, reject, fly off the handle at my invitation to you to be a guest on the show. Why is that? Do you think you can educate people as you like to say from the sidelines and with people clearly knowing you won’t step up to the plate and be a guest and demonstrate your expertise for us all? Your choice. Either way is fine by me, I am not invested one way or the other in the outcome of your being on The Space Show as a guest. I will say given your behavior, you don’t bring much credibility to the table. You have to be smart enough to realize that. At least I hope you are smart enough to get that. Again, if you want to be on the show, let me know, I will send you the dates and times and work a show to your time zone. Come aboard, educate us all with your amazing expertise on the subject. One final comment, no other response is meaningful unless you come on the show or finally state why you won’t do it. And don’t go saying you won’t be treated well, etc. You know that is BS. The Space Show affords respect and quality but tough questions for all its guest and there is absolutely no litmus test for what you believe in or don’t believe in. Just send your resume & artificial gravity credentials, if any, and off we go. Actually, we need a one or two paragraph bio for the show, not really a full resume or CV. If you want to be on the show, I will set it up with you off line rather than through the blog. I am hoping you come on the program. We all are just waiting here to learn from you as you have suggested.


4. B John - November 25, 2014

Gaah, yet another artificial gravity (radial acceleration) denier on thespaceshow! What a surprise…

It is exactly like denying the possibility of high altitude (a few thousand feet) airflight on Earth because pilots cannot breathe there. How could you breathe without an oxygen atmosphere? How could you stand up without Earth gravity? David and most of his guests seem totally clueless to the simple technical solution to this their imaginary problem.

The Space Show - November 25, 2014


Not only do you not understand what guests have said and what I say regarding artificial or partial gravity, you purposely distort what is said about this subject. With all the hours of programming on this subject TSS has done over the years, your attitude and willingness to distort plus ignore amaze me. Nobody dismisses artificial gravity, all call for learning the gravity RX to make HSF safe, etc. All want the experiments done and want to see NASA and other space agencies take on the problems to get real resolutions. As for you, I will repeat my standing offer to you I made on air months ago which you have never bothered to answer. You are invited to be a guest on TSS to discuss your views on art. gravity. You need to send me your resume and credentials that show you are at least marginally qualified to discuss the topic on a 90 minute Space Show program. However, if all you want to do is be an advocate and promote your personal ideas without factual substance backing them or if you think you have factual substance, say that so we will be clear on who is talking and your expertise level on the subject. I told you I would adjust the time of the show to work for you in Sweden so time zone issues between California and your region will not be an issue. As I said, you never responded to my offer which I made multiple times on air and in private emails to you, all of which I have copies of and archives of the shows containing my verbal invitation to you. So put up or shut up as they say out here. Or just tell us you have no desire to be on the show and answer questions on the subject despite the fact that you know you have all the answers and expertise and we should just rely on what you have to say. Come on, be up front about it, OK? Remember, all Space Show guests are respected, treated very well on the show, and given ample opportunity to express themselves. None are given free rides on knowledge by the listeners or me so expect good, real, and fact based questions and the same for the discussion. We welcome you t on the show and will listen to what you have to say. Finally, you do yourself zero credit when you misrepresent what Space Show guests, listeners and I have said over the years regarding artificial gravity. You insult real leaders in the filed such as Logan, Adamo, Jurist, Carroll, and countless others that have talked about this topic on the show. Go back and listen to the archives. Use GuestSearch to locate artificial gravity and partial gravity discussions. Nobody is asking you to give up or change your ideas, only to be accurate in your description of others. And come on the show, let’s hear what you have to say. OK? David

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: