jump to navigation

Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Friday, 11-20-15 November 19, 2015

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

Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist, Friday, 11-20-15

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2589-BWB-2015-11-20.mp3

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:  Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist; Topics:  Humans to Mars, exploring vs. pioneering & 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 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 Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, and Dan Adamo for a 1 hour 45 minute discussion about humans to Mars and a critique of the  “NASA’s Journey to Marts: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration (Oct. 2015).”  Please note that our program completed in one long segment without a break.  We started off by asking Dr. Logan to summarize the recent New World Space Conference he attended in Austin, Texas.  Jim pointed out that there were lots of young students there and they seemed eager to hear his message and did not consider him a Debbie Downer.  Jim is an evidence based guy when it comes to space policy and programs, he is also well grounded in the sciences and engineering so he does not typically hang out in the usual space cadet la la land of make believe.  We noted that older, more seasoned space cadets often dismiss those with similar messages based on evidence and fact,  but Jim was impressed by the willingness of the younger group to consider evidence and facts. The other guests plus myself had much to say about this particular issue, then we moved on to Dan who wanted to talk about the paper he has uploaded on TSS blog containing his analysis and comments re the NASA Journey to Mars Document. If you have not yet read it, please do so at this time.  For Dan and our guests, there were issues about a poorly defined definition for exploration vs. pioneering, confusing the two in the Journey to Mars document, the need for congressional action to change the mandate to pioneering, then asking for the rational for pioneering or Martian settlement. Much was said about there being no business case or rational case at all for humans to be on the surface of Mars.  This was an overriding theme for the entire discussion.  Our guests kept asking the question, “why are we doing it.?  This referred to humans on the surface of Mars for pioneering purposes.  Note the definitions Dan used for exploration and pioneering earlier in the show.  Note also the differences Dan suggested for exploration.  Our guests talked about the challenges that make Martian settlement or pioneering beyond our reach at this time.  Dr. Jurist brought up radiation and microgravity issues along with other human factor issues.  Dr. Logan supported what John was saying and called for the need to know the gravity prescription.  Without knowing it, we cannot possibly be serious about sending humans to mars.  Our guests talked about nuclear thermal propulsion and several times they referenced the Aquarius Concept (www.spaceenterpriseinstitute.org/tag/aquarius-concept).  Cognitive decline was also discussed as a leading challenge.  The matter of the Twin Study on the ISS with astronaut Scott Kelly came up.  Jim said a sample size of one does not help as it would only lead to insufficient information.  Our guests talked about radiation shielding, its cost, and added mass.  Dan mentioned a recent Aviation Week article from a September issues saying that nuclear propulsion may have a timeline for development around 2022-24.  John had much to say about this.  John also brought up the economy, potential interest rate rises and the impact on space and NASA. Jim said we needed a 10% growth rate for our interplanetary work.  We addressed the economic issues for several minutes as it was an important part of our discussion.  Later, I mentioned the recent interest I was seeing from Space Show listeners regarding the pioneering of Venus with some sort of settlement in the upper atmosphere. Our guests pointed out the pros and cons for this & we contrasted it with pioneering on the surface of Mars.  Joe sent in an email asking for the action plan or steps to be taken to pioneer Mars.  Don’t miss how our guests responded to Joe’s question.  This provided the opening for more discussion about cislunar development.  Here, our guests had much to say, including rescue opportunities, the lack of a redundant vehicle in contrast to even Apollo 8. Dan talked about this issue in technical terms so don’t miss it.  Near the end of the program, SLS came up but in the context of problems with it regarding mass, the stages, Orion, abort and rescue, black zones and more.  Don’t miss what Dan had to say about SLS and technical problems and issues.  The issues Dan raised are not the typical issues one hears discussed when talking SLS.

Please post your comments on TSS blog.  You can reach either of the three guests through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

 

                                                                                                    JTMcommentaryR1A

The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14 October 13, 2014

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

The NRC Pathways HSF Study Panel Discussion, Sunday, 10-12-14

Featuring Dr. Jim Logan, Dan Adamo, Dr. John Jurist

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2334-BWB-2014-10-12.mp3

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.

A Technical Note on Nuclear Rockets-1

PathwaysCommentaryR3

Drs. Jim Logan and John Jurist, Sunday, 7-13-14 July 14, 2014

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

Drs. Jim Logan and John Jurist, Sunday, 7-13-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2278-BWB-2014-07-13.mp3

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:  Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Jim Logan.  Topics:  EVAs, spacesuits, Moon, Mars, radiation, Aquarius HSF launch vehicle Space Enterprise Institute.  Please direct all comments & questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://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 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 &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 both Dr. John Jurist and Dr. Jim Logan back to the show to discuss spacewalks (EVAs), spacesuits, human missions to the Moon and Mars, to the Martian Moon Deimos, the newly created Space Enterprise Institute, & the new Aquarius Reusable Human Spaceflight water based launch vehicle.  During the first segment of our 2 hour 5 minute program, our guests started talking about EVAs.  Early in the discussion, Dr. Logan provided us with important & interesting statistics regarding EVAs, then we discussed the challenges with them and spacesuits.  We talked at length about the difference in EVAs and spacesuits for the Moon, LEO, asteroids, & Mars.  We also talked economics for spacesuits given the need for a specific spacesuit depending on the destination/mission.  We talked about new designs for one size fits all & for mitigating dust problems.  Jim talked about the medical complications regarding both lunar and Martian dust.  Our guests then suggested that EVAs will likely be phased out for robotic missions.  Doug asked several questions about this via email.  Also, Jim suggested that EVAs will evolve to the concept of Forward Deployed Humans in the Loop for Telerobotic Operations.  This concept was discussed several times throughout our program.

In our second segment, Jim started with an announcement about the Space Enterprise Institute (SEI).  When it goes live in the next week or so, I will announce it on the show so you can follow it  He explained SEI, its purpose & goals.  He then talked about the concept that both Jim and Dan Adamo have developed over the past few years, Aquarius which is a reusable water-based interplanetary HSF transport.  As soon as the SEI website is online, listeners will be able to download their peer reviewed paper for free.  During this segment, Jim talked about Aquarius, John added in some details, we talked about the need for nuclear electric propulsion and why, plus the role of water with this launcher.  Both our guests explained the advantages of Deimos for the early missions, plus the return shielding and reusability as the return goes to a lunar orbit using existing water.  Radiation shielding was talked about, including the needed water and needed Radiation Protection (RP) levels.  John pointed out one advantage of Aquarius was the use of an open loop life support system.  John in Ft. Worth called about the temperatures that Jim said were needed.  Jim explained the need for 3,000 degrees C.  Both guests offered closing comments about EVAs & the direction we might be heading toward the forward deployed humans concept.  Both guests said the telerobotic concepts discussed would reduce risks, timelines, & overall mission costs.

Post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach our two guests through me.

Space Show Webinar, Sunday, 5-25-14 May 24, 2014

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

Space Show Webinar, Sunday, 5-25-14

Partial Gravity, Tethers, Artificial Gravity

Joe Carroll, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2249-BWB-2014-05-25.mp3 — Audio only

http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow — Webinar Video

Guests:  Joe Carroll, Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Jim Logan.  Topics:  Partial/Artificial gravity, tethers, NASA, HSF & 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.  To see the video broadcast for this webinar, please go to http://vimeo.com/channels/thespaceshow.  Note that the audio only & video archive will be posted at the same time once the video is edited, processed, and uploaded to the Vimeo Space Show channel.  Joe Carroll has presentation material on The Space Show Blog which he referred to throughout our discussion so you may want to download the material or have it available to you when viewing the webinar.

We welcomed back to the program Joe Carroll to follow up on his May 2011 Space Show Classroom program on the same subject.  Our panel members included Dr. John Jurist and Dr. Jim Logan. All of us were part of the May 2011 program on this same topic.  During segment one of our 2 hour 10 minute webinar, Joe Carroll went over his background, interest, and experience in the subject dating back to 1981.  Joe discussed his recent work and updates including his concerns for the rotation rate, Coriolis effect & the absence of any substantial progress in the area.  He directed us to Slide 2 & the specific language used in the 201 US National Space Policy introduction.  Our guests talked about missed opportunities by NASA & others to do the essential research needed to confirm the gravity prescription for humans.  Our guests also talked about the amazing amount of unknowns regarding the effects of microgravity or Zero G on humans as we are a 1 G species.  The issue of space settlements came up & I asked our guests if we were jumping the gun pushing settlements when so much of the human factors work remains unresolved and even unknown.  Joe talked about two extremes in the approach to settlements.  He said one extreme was to simply prove issues by walking.  That is, just try it.  The other extreme was to do “endless research and studies,” a critique often mentioned by space advocates.  Jim pointed out that essentially knowing nothing about the Gravity Prescription despite 53 years of human spaceflight experience doesn’t rise to the definition of “endless research and studies.” Apollo was the walking theory for the most part.  Our guests then talked about NASA plans for an outpost as compared to a settlement, specifically for the Moon.  During this segment, we received several listener emails which the guests responded to.  During this time, Jim continued to state that it was essential that we know at least the basic outlines of the gravity prescription for humans for long duration interplanetary spaceflight.  Our guests talked about the ISS and the role it could play in supporting gravity research.  Joe continued to discuss more of his slides and our panel members had much to say about the discussion. Toni called at the end of the segment to ask about 1 RPM spin rate and mentioned that SpaceX said it wanted to go to Mars by 2020.  Here is the article Tony referenced:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2634046/Elon-Musk-says-SpaceX-making-progress-Mars-colony-2020-plans-sell-tickets-500-000.html.

In the second segment, we decided to hold the listener emails until the end of the broadcast to allow Joe time to finish his slides and state his conclusions.  We started off with Slides 6, 7 & 8.  Joe progressed to talk about the inflatable tunnel, some of the technical aspects including specs and diameters and why one was better than the others.  Joe continued taking us quickly through the slides but for those interested in the details, pay close attention to them or contact Joe as his email address is on his presentation material.  Joe spent some time this segment talking about doing Gemini-like tether experiments and he also referred us to Robert Walker’s work.  Robert is a Space Show guest from the UK who has done excellent work on the issue of partial gravity based on Joe’s work with tethers, etc.  Check out Robert’s paper at
http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/crew_tether_spin_for_artificial_gravity_on_way_to_iss_stunning_new_videos_space_show_webinar_on_sunday-137070.  Don’t miss the links to the tether spin videos in his paper.  The subject of rocket reusability came up and again, Joe and our guests had much to say about this so don’t miss it.  Also in this segment, there was more focus on spin rates.  Joe took us through is conclusion slide which is Slide 20.  He talked about the difficulty in selling space as the next stuff and said one never launches with cutting edge hardware.  We then fielded second segment listener emails on a variety of topics, then we talked about people wanting to go to Mars with the just do it concept mentioned in the first segment.  Several Dr. Zubrin comments were used as illustrations along with SpaceX plans to do Mars by 2020.  All of our guests said there was a significant difference in a short trip to the Moon with Apollo where the decision was made to take the risk for a few days but that going beyond LEO for a long trip to Mars for example was a totally different thing altogether.  Jim used long duration sailing voyages as an example of how the issues for the crew once the long duration trips were started turned out to be very vastly different than for short, easy, turnaround ‘sortie’ voyages. Once transoceanic voyages were attempted it didn’t take Captains, crews or their respective patrons long to realize long duration voyages came with radical new levels of complexity and increased human risk.  We talked more about tethers as well.  Jim made the point that the average time spent on the Moon per Apollo lunar moonwalker was only 2.06 days, a woefully inadequate time to ascertain increased risk.  Joe also talked about the possible study & use of 0.06 G as explained in Slide 8.  I asked each guest for their concluding remarks, starting with Dr. Logan.  His take away was that it is critical to know the gravity prescription. Dr. Jurist was next saying there was no useless research and that gravity research may very well benefit us here on Earth in ways we can’t even imagine at this time.  Joe summarized his concluding thoughts per his last slide, talked about his possible plans to be more proactive with his work and suggested easy experiments that could be done with a Dragon and the spent first stage even on an ISS mission.

Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above.  You can reach all of the guests through me but as stated earlier, Joe lists his email address on his presentation material.

Partial Gravity IAC2010 Presentation revised 2014May22

DesignConceptsForAMannedArtificialGravityResearchFacilityForIAC2010Sept14 rev 2014May22

Golden Oldie Replay, Classroom Art. Gravity Show, 2-14-14 February 14, 2014

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

Golden Oldie Replay, Classroom Art. Gravity Show, 2-14-14

Featuring Drs. Jurist & Logan, Joe Carroll from May 3, 2011

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2187-BWB-2014-02-14.mp3

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

Guests:  Classroom:  Dr. David Livingston, Joe Carroll, Dr. John Jurist, Dr. Jim Logan.  Topics:  Manned artificial gravity research station in LEO.  Please note that this program originally aired as a Space Show Classroom program May 3, 2011.  This replay is being brought to you today as a result of the interest expressed in the subject during the Open Lines program of Feb. 2, 2014.  As this is a Golden Oldie replay, there is no live participation with this program.  If you have questions or comments for the co-hosts or Mr. Carroll, post them on The Space Show blog for this entry.  In addition, when the original Classroom program first aired, Mr. Carroll provided presentation material. You can see this material by going to http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/lesson-three-presentation-material-5-3-11 and clicking on the two items available for review and download.  Also, the summary below is the unedited summary from the May 3, 2011 Classroom program which is posted both on The Space Show website archives for that date as well as on The Space Show Classroom archives for that date (http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com).

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.

This two hour plus Classroom program was continuous without a break.  For this program, refer to the Power Point presentation by Joe, “Design Concepts for a Manned Artificial Gravity Research Facility.”  Mr. Carroll took us through this presentation slide by slide, plus he responded to listener and co-host questions throughout the program.  You can find this presentation plus his longer IAC Conference paper on The Space Show Classroom blog under Presentation Materials for our Classroom program for May 3, 2011.  Rather than writing a summary of this program, let me say that Mr. Carroll has given considerable thought to the engineering and human factors/human physiology issues regarding an artificial gravity research station in LEO.  Listener questions addressed technical issues relating to spin, center of mass/gravity, hits by orbital debris items and more.  Throughout this Classroom discussion, Joe took us into the technology, operations, and why’s regarding his artificial gravity research station.  Many issues were discussed including but not limited to Mars & lunar gravity, .06 G, spin rates, the Coriolis effect, the Gemini experiments, a Moon/Mars Dumbbell Concept, Airbeam tunnels, radial structure lengths, and much more.  Toward the end of the program, we discussed the economics, costs, and who might pay for and deploy such a station.  You will hear Joe talk about the present economic, cost, and R&D uncertainties for such a project, but you will also hear him talk about the commercial potentials, who should be given “free” access to the research station and why, the use of it with Space X as well as Bigelow, and why not doing it as a NASA project makes sense though he advocated NASA as a customer.  At the very end, I asked Joe about building some small models to help those of us who are not engineers in understanding and even visualizing his concept.  He liked that idea, talked about larger models of the size of a Boeing 737 cabin (he used this cabin size throughout his discussion and presentation), and possibly locating it at a company such as Space X.  As we concluded our discussion, all of us said that after 50 years of human spaceflight, to not be able to answer any of the questions regarding the issues discussed in this program was criminal. Furthermore, as you will hear Dr. Logan and the others say, you can determine the credibility of a human space program by the speed and determination of the commitment to understanding the necessary gravity needs for people, plants, and animals in space.  If there is no commitment to understanding these issues, the program is more likely a rhetoric only program.

Post your comments & questions on TSS blog URL above.  All participants can be emailed through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

The Space Show Classroom with Drs. Jurist & Logan, Monday, 1-6-14 January 7, 2014

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

The Space Show Classroom with Drs. Jurist & Logan, Monday, 1-6-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2159-BWB-2014-01-06.mp3

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

Guests: Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  Space advocacy magical/fantasy thinking, radiation, rockets, HSF & 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 www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.

We welcomed back Drs. Jurist and Logan to this CLASSROOM program which addressed many issues of the 2 hours 1 minute broadcast.  We started out with Dr. Logan discussing fantasy or magical thinking going back to the influence of a 2001 Space Odyssey movie poster had on him.  From there, Jim went into a discussion about Constellation, then the Space Shuttle as examples of what he was talking about and as to how programs and faulty ideas grow and multiply.  He also talked about life science challenges.  A listener asked him about space politics, then Dr. Jurist offered additional examples with a focus on air launch.  Our guests then discussed thinking based on agendas and ideology.  One of the keys suggested for breaking out of this magical thinking mode involved surrounding yourself with really smart people.  Later, I offered my perspective on that given my own experiences early on in Space Show time and before.   Both Jim and John said a few times that one needs to know his or her limitations.  Our guests then talked due diligence with assumption building, fact checking, disclosures, and more.  I relayed my own wake -up call experience due to Al Zaehringer who was on the show several times years ago before he passed on.  Before the segment ended, Jim told us a story about the Wright Brothers and their Wright Flyer experience.  In our second segment, John Hunt called in to talk about Jim’s Space Shuttle comments.  This was a lengthy discussion with John, Jim, & John Jurist.  Jim talked about advantages with Saturn V including economic advantages over shuttle to LEO.  Subjects of reusability came up along with issues of getting a specific payload to orbit which our guests suggested advocacy often glosses over with facts and trades for payload mass fractions involved in reusability.  Dr. Logan brought up and discussed what he called NASA Brinkmanship Strategy.  Jim then talked about the reality of sending payloads to the ISS using shuttle.   Trent in Australia sent a message about magical thinking with Mars One.  Our last caller was Alan from St. Louis who said John and Jim were too negative in their discussion.  Alan then talked about using smaller rockets over heavy lift and was working to make the case that we have to work with what we have.  He also talked about evolving up from smaller, not starting off with the biggest.  Each of us responded to Alan.  It’s a discussion you do not want to miss.

Please post your comments/questions on either or both The Space Show Blog above or The Space Show Classroom blog, http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com.  You can reach all of the participants including the callers through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Classroom with Drs. John Jurist & Jim Logan, Tuesday, 12-17-13 December 16, 2013

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

Classroom with Drs. John Jurist & Jim Logan, Tuesday, 12-17-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2145-BWB-2013-12-17.mp3

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

Guests:  Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics: This was a Classroom show on radiation issues for deep space travel, Mars and Moon settlements.  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.

We welcomed Dr. Jim Logan and Dr. John Jurist to this special 2.5 hour Space Show classroom in-depth discussion on space radiation. We focused our discussion on deep space, Mars, the Moon and BLEO missions. Note that on both The Space Show blog (see above) and The Space Show Classroom blog (http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com),  Dr. Jurist has a Power Point presentation on radiation.  During the program, our guests referred to specific slides that you will want to check out.  In our first segment, Dr. Logan started out by telling us about his interest in the subject, why he has been writing a paper on the subject for publication, and how this Classroom show came about.  He cited our short duration spaceflight experience, the Apollo missions, Space Shuttle flights, and then how things started to change when we had six month ISS visits.  Dr. Logan also made it clear that space was not a benign emptiness type of environment.  He said the reality was that interplanetary space was a sea of disruptive ionizing radiation wrecking havoc on biologic systems.  We moved forward in our discussion from that point.  We talked about the findings of the MSL RAD instrument regarding radiation on the way to Mars and on the surface of Mars.  Both John and Jim spent some time putting the RAD numbers through analysis to let us know what this means for human missions to Mars.  We talked shielding, possible materials, passive and active.  We talked extensively about water and the use of hydrogen as well for shielding.  Our guests addressed the two types of radiation, the GCR (galactic cosmic rays) and the CME/solar flare.  Here, John suggested listeners look at his slide 13 as we talked about protons and neutrons.  Jim said there was no magic bullet and talked about shielding effects of Earth’s atmosphere.  Pay attention here as Jim introduced us to the  RP scale.  For being on the surface, he said nothing less than RP100 would suffice.  For the vehicle, an RP5 was required.  John introduced us to career limits for radiation for men and women astronauts of different age but the career limits are for LEO and not BLEO.  BLEO limits are expected to be more restrictive when made public in April 2014.  Earth Mars transit times were discussed, especially in the context of Brian’s email that suggested a 180 day transit time.  Both our guests said that was unlikely with chemical propulsion and all of us again stressed the need for nuclear thermal propulsion.  Microgravity was talked about, especially in the context of side effects due to the radiation environment.  Jim then brought up the EVA subject and spacesuits.  Briefly, Jim said that quite possibly the ISS construction represented the zenith of EVAs which may become a thing of the past.  Don’t miss why he said this plus his description of serious spacesuit limitations.  We talked about life support to Mars and here Jim suggested we should use Open Loop! Again, listen to the rational behind this recommendation.  Don’t miss what our guests said about theories & movies making it sound easy to go to Mars and that the radiation would be nothing more than just a few more cigarette packs a year.  Our last topic addressed informed consent issues.

In the second segment, I asked our guests for a readiness timetable were there sufficient funding and technology advancements.  I also inquired if Russia, China, and others assessed the radiation risks in a similar way to the U.S.  We then talked about radiation and space pregnancy, fetus development, birth, and informed consent for the fetus, a baby, and a child under 18.  Ethical issues regarding child birth and space pregnancy were talked about as well.  Curt had sent in email questions which our guests answered, especially about drinking irradiated water and microgravity DNA damage & what this may mean for radiation effects.  Next, I asked Jim and John to tell us their 2-5 steps for the start of designing a Mars human mission.  Jim went first and listed Day 1 and Day 2 activities, John listed his top three priorities which were different than those suggested by Jim.  Don’t miss this discussion as its very instructive as to how to do or at least start mission planning for a human mission BLEO.  Roger sent in a question asking if the crew should be senior citizens since they have more resistance to radiation.  Don’t miss what our guests said about this idea.  It may surprise you.  Our next topic was would going to Deimos be easier.  Yes, it would but it would be a very different kind of human  mission.  Jim had some great comments about Mars gravity.  Briefly, he said it was the “best.” Later, when asked to compare the Moon and Mars, our guests said lunar radiation was worse than Mars.  Also, the Mars atmosphere does provide limited shielding while there is no such thing on the Moon.  Jim had earlier talked about a sphere being the perfect shape for an interplanetary spaceship.  Shelia emailed in wanting to know if heavy lift made a difference and if the sphere was so good, why were capsules being used? Don’t miss the response.  We then talked about the complexities of rendezvous and docking, especially in the context of fewer launches (heavy lift) as compared to many more launches (smaller rockets).  Near the end, I asked our guests if either thought our nation, the public, NASA, our leaders and politicians were sufficiently motivated to do a human Mars mission.  Jim did not think so and had much more to say in reply to this question.  John was more pessimistic.  Both thought it was more likely that the private sector would mount a human Mars mission rather than our seeing a government mission, but raising the needed capital might turn out to be a show stopper.  The three of us then talked about what it was like growing up in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s as compared to today.  John and I (John is a bit more than 2 years older than me) were probably more harsh than Jim in our assessment of today, but we all realize that the younger generations will be taking us to space, building the next smartphone and more. I talked about my visits to Google, Apple, SpaceX, etc. and the excitement in the air in belonging in their work forces which does not seem to exist with NASA. This opened the door for Jim to put it on the line about his NASA experiences and the potential opportunities providing NASA can somehow reorganize.  He did not think the type of reorganization he was talking about would happen.  Both our guests left us with excellent takeaway points and concluding pearls of wisdom.

Please post your comments/questions on the blogs. You can reach either of our guests through me.

                                                  Radiation Biophysics and Human Spaceflight

Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13 November 19, 2013

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

THE SPACE SHOW CLASSROOM

Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist, Tuesday, 11-19-13

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2125-BWB-2013-11-19.mp3

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

Guests:  Dan Adamo, Dr. Jim Logan, Dr. John Jurist.  Topics:  “Trajectory Challenges Faced By Orbiting Infrastructure Supporting Multiple Earth Departures For Mars.”  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, 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 drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Dan’s charts and graphs are here:  MultipleMarsDeparturesR1

To best follow tonight’s discussion, refer to;  ReuseForMars