The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14 October 13, 2014Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Apollo, asteroids, budget issues, Dan Adamo, Deimos., Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Horizon Goal, human spaceflight rational, international cooperation, Mars, microgravity, Moon, NASA, NERVA, NRC's "Pathways To Exploration" study, nuclear propulsion, Off-Ramps, pioneering, private sector, risk averse, risk factors, short arm centrifuge, short arm centrifuge for ISS study, space settlement, the Moon
The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14
Featuring Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist
Your Amazon Purchases Helps Support TSS/OGLF (see www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm)
If you rate shows on live365.com, email me your rating reasons to help improve the show
Guests: Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist. Topics: Our three guests reviewed the NRC “Pathways To Exploration HSF study. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, 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.
Welcome to this 2.5 hour Space Show Classroom discussion with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, & Dr. Jim Logan regarding the recently released NRC “Pathways To Exploration: Rationales And Approaches For A U.S. Program Of Human Space Exploration.” You can download the report for free at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18801. In addition, the project referred to in the last part of this discussion by Dan and Jim, the “Aquarius interplanetary HSF transport” paper can be freely downloaded at http://www.spaceenterpriseinstitute.org/2014/07/aquarius-a-reusable-water-based-interplanetary-human-spaceflight-transport. Please note that our panel members used cell phones which caused audio issues which you may hear during the discussion. Finally, as this program will also be archived on both The Space Show and The Space Show Classroom blogs, there will be two papers uploaded to each blog, one by Dan Adamo & the other by caller Dr. James Dewar. I will mention both in the summary below. In the first segment, our panel members opened with their perspective on the NRC Pathways HSF study. While there were similarities in their perspectives, there were also noteworthy differences. After this comprehensive introduction, I asked our panel members about the study and space settlement or pioneering. Each panel member had much to say on the settlement issue, including the need to solve the gravity prescription for long duration HSF or settlement. Our panel members said that for the most part, space settlement was out of scope for this report. In this part of the discussion much was said about microgravity issues & the need to do on orbit experiments to determine the HSF gravity prescription. Deimos was discussed as an initial better choice that the surface of Mars re microgravity issues. Our guests spoke to the need of a short arm centrifuge on the ISS. Jim spoke to the specifics of such an experiment such as 1 G at the head., 2.5 g’s at the feet for two hours a day to see how it serves as a microgravity countermeasure. Our panel members mentioned that there already was such a short arm centrifuge built years ago by NASA and Wiley, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/slsd/about/divisions/hacd/laboratories/short-arm_centrifuge_laboratory.html. The guests talked about unknown human factor challenges for going to Mars and long duration spaceflight. Jim provided us with interesting statistics on human spaceflight totals since the beginning in 1961. The panel members had much to say about the budget issues discussed in the NRC study. Another point brought up was the study’s assumption that if we are not going to the surface of Mars, why even do HSF? Near the end of the first segment, listener Carl brought up the well known plans for Mars settlement with Elon Musk & SpaceX. This sparked quite the discussion so don’t miss it.
In the second segment, our panel talked about the value of the Pathways study, international partnerships and what they saw as contradictory statements, especially regarding the mission cost impact of such partnerships. John mentioned the study’s reference to NASA education & public outreach which he thought was more focused on STEM & the development of more engineers rather than on educating the general public to be more knowledgeable about science. The panel members noted that there was little attention paid to the societal impact of not even having a human spaceflight program. Dan & Jim agreed on the importance of educational outreach and shared their experiences with us from the employment with NASA. Adrian in San Diego sent in an email suggesting the panel was being pessimistic and that China would not overthink issues and just do missions without full disclosure. All three panel members had much to say in response to Adrian’s charge of being pessimistic. They talked about being reality based, not pessimistic & why it was so important to be reality based. The panel hit back hard on the charge of being pessimistic. Dan & Jim said to be other than realistic was reckless and irresponsible. Jim also said that being called pessimistic suggested to him that reality had violated the person’s ideology. Jim would be happy to debate the issues with anyone in open forum. This discussion brought Jim and Dan to talking about their Aquarius project which you can download at the above URL. They spent some time discussing the benefits of their approach, noting how it addresses & mitigates many of the problems associated with a HSF mission to Mars. They also spoke to the need for nuclear propulsion and talked about using water as fuel and very high ISP ratings with high temperatures. During this discussion, Dr. Jim Dewar called in to suggest their ISP ratings were low, he explained why, and he talked about starting small to start flying and then improving as you go. We did not know it but we lost John from the connection but Jim, Dan, and Dr. Dewar spoke to the NERVA project, and specifics about nuclear propulsion. This advanced nuclear propulsion discussion was close to a half an hour near the end of the program. Dr. Dewar was a guest on the program in 2008 & 2009 regarding nuclear propulsion & its history. He also authored two books on the subject. Use the GuestSearch tool on our website to find his interviews which I suggest you listen to if you have not already done so. I will also upload to both blogs the paper Dr. Dewar referenced in his discussion. After the nuclear discussion, Adrian sent in another email titled “rebuttal.” He challenged the panel members to do the experiments, not just to talk about them. Jim, Dan & I challenged Adrian for his solutions to doing many of the needed & essential experiments. All of the panel members supported doing the needed experiments & have said so for decades. Getting funding for the experiments, NASA approval, etc. is a challenge. I then challenged Adrian to come to The Space Show as a guest with his solutions for doing the essential work & experiments rather than his just talking about how badly they are needed per his second email. I hope Adrian does have answers and will contact me about coming on the show to discuss them with us. Jim & Dan each provided closing comments focusing back on the study report. They thought the report was worth it from the taxpayer perspective and that it would be used for references. Jim did think the report was not as good as other government studies he had seen because it was so speculative, something all three guests addressed in their opening remarks. An 11th hour call came from SLS John to talk about the ISP formula & temperatures Dan and Jim used in their paper Aquarius paper. Dan authorized me to upload to the blog his written comments on the NRC Pathways study so you will find that document on both blogs as well.
Please post comments/questions on The Space Show blog. You can reach the panel members through me.
Dan Adamo, Tuesday, 9-14-14 September 10, 2014Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " SpaceX, "Range Safety Implications For Brownsville, Brownsville EIR Statement, Brownsville lunar & Martian window, Dan Adamo, debris, dollars to pound to orbit, FAA, Falcon 9. , Falcon Heavy, GEO launches, ground tracks, HSF launches, ISS as a destination, ISS inclination, launch destruct system, launch performance, orbital dynamics primer, possible Georgia spaceport, range safety & nominal ground track., range safety @ McGregor, range safety standards, reusability economics, reusability., Russian range safety issues, Space Enterprise Institute, Texas Gulf Coast launches, Texas launch site, Texas Launches to Earth Orbit
Dan Adamo, Tuesday, 9-14-14
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: Dan Adamo. Topic: Range safety issues at the proposed Brownsville, Texas spaceport plus 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 back to the show Dan Adamo to discuss his paper, “Range Safety Implications for Brownsville, Texas Launches To Earth Orbit.” You can freely download the paper by registering for at http://www.spaceenterpriseinstitute.org. During the first segment of our 2 hour program, Dan started out telling us why he did the calculations and wrote this paper. Next and for the balance of the discussion, we talked about range safety issues, the enforcing organization which is the FAA, the Brownsville EIR, SpaceX launches & how they might work given the range safety constraints that may be applied to this launch site. As you will hear, Brownsville is a completely new launch site with zero history or data behind it so as Dan said, it might have been very easy to overlook or even defer the analysis regarding range safety issues. Also note that Dan said range safety issues are not concerned with the normal or the nominal ground track. The range safety rules consider what may go wrong and who might be impacted by a failed launch, even if it might be rare that such an incident would happen. In response to email questions, Dan said that range safety issues apply to the launch regardless of destination though clearly they can limit the choice of destination as in the case of limitations from Brownsville to the ISS. Dan does a good job of explaining this in the first segment and throughout our discussion. He also addressed listener questions regarding a possible difference in the range safety rules for cargo/satellite launches & human launches. Another issue that came up questioned if FAA range safety rules would be applicable to a private spaceport in the same way for a government launch center like the Cape, KSC, or Vandenberg. Dan said yes and explained the reasoning behind range safety rules. Joe emailed in about range safety for Russian launches, then as the segment ended, our guest addressed launching from other parts of the Texas Gulf Coast which he said presented similar constraints as Brownsville.
In the second segment, Alan asked Dan if he would write a simple primer for orbital dynamics to help the untrained person understand the issues better. Dan will be considering doing that. The question came up if SpaceX rockets would be required to use explosives on board for a destruct command or if the termination of thrust in a problem launch could be handled by other means. Dan got specific questions about the EIR and a possible Falcon Heavy launch as well as Falcon 9 launches. As we neared the end of the show, the subject of reusability came up and then the sparks flew as listeners did not like what Dan said and which I supported. For the most part, the controversy arose because Dan suggested that some customers may not want to pay for the launches of others through reusability and in fact may need more lift from the rocket or more fuel on board their satellite. Reusability requires putting extra mass for hardware and fuel on the rocket, not the customer’s payload. He noted that several Falcon 9 launches had already been made without the reusable hardware. I supported this economically & suggested that as we move toward a fully commercial launch market, customers will buy the launch that meets their needs. Some may be OK with the lower launch costs and less payload capacity while others may need all the fuel they can get on their satellite or all the launch power they can get to put their heavy payload into the right orbit. I made an analogy to the trucking industry where people rent or buy the type and size of truck they need to get the job done & suggested this would emerge for our launch industry in the future. Listeners objected, remained focused only on lower launch costs & not customer requirements. Several listeners sent in strongly worded emails of disagreement with Dan and me for our comments. Both Dan and I said over and over again we supported SpaceX in its reusability work and were glad they were doing this work. We only suggested that the economic of it were still unknown but that would likely change fair soon given the success SpaceX is having with its R&D for reusability. Still, this did not set well with some listeners.
If you have questions/comments please post them on TSS blog above. Even your critical emails but remember our rules for civility. Ideas are fair game, w e do not permit character assassination or name calling. If you want to disagree with Dan, do so with civility. Also, if you do want to disagree, brings facts to the discussion as that is always better than just ideas without supporting information to backup the ideas. You can email Dan Adamo through me. Be sure to download his paper and read it.
Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13 November 19, 2013Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: celestial sphere, chemical rockets, Cislunar transportation, cryogenic fuels, Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Earth departure windows, Earth reentry speed from Mars, Elliptical Earth Parking Orbit (EEPO), Ephemerides, equatorial launch, Grail mission, human spaceflight, inclination, Inspiration Mars, interplanetary payload, kinetic energy., LEO, locus of possible injection points., long way trajectory, Mangalyaan, Maven, nuclear propulsion, Oberth effect, orbit plane change, orbiting fuel depots, prograde orbit, radiation, reusable space infrastructure, short way trajectory, The Space Show Classroom, TMI geometric constraints, trajectory challenges for orbiting infrastructure in support of Earth to Mars departures, trans-Mars Injection (TMI), Van Allen Belts, v_infinity vs. departure date
THE SPACE SHOW CLASSROOM
Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13
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, 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 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 https://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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dan’s charts and graphs are here: MultipleMarsDeparturesR1
To best follow tonight’s discussion, refer to; ReuseForMars
Space Show Webinar with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 11-25-12 November 24, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: antipode, BLEO, boiloff, capture, commercial space, cryogenic fuel transfer, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, EML1, EML2, Falcon Heavy, Flexible Path, flight trajectory analysis, HALO orbit, heavy lift, human spaceflight, INSITU Resource Utilization, Lagrange points, Lunar farside, lunar flyby, lunar space elevator., lunar water, Mars, Moon, Neo, orbital planning and analysis., Orion, payloads to LEO, Propellant Depots, SLS, Stepping Stones, Trans-lunar insertion
add a comment
Space Show Webinar with Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Sunday, 11-25-12
Video Stream: http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow
Note that you must have the QuickTime player to play this movie if you intend to download it. You can watch it from the above URL without the QT player.