Charles (Charlie) Precourt, Friday, 8-7-15 August 8, 2015Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Beyond Low Earth Orbit, Charlie Precourt, five segment SRB, heavy lift, human spaceflight, ISP, Joint Strike Fighter, liquid rocket motors, Mars, Moon, Orbital ATK, Orion, rocket reliability, SLS, smaller launch vehicles, solid rocket boosters, space exploration benefits., Space Shuttle, space solar power infrastructure, technology challenges, tons to escape
add a comment
Charles (Charlie) Precourt, Friday, 8-7-15
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: Charlie Precourt. Topics: Human spaceflight, SLS-Orion, Mars, Moon, technology & 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 Charlie Precourt back to the show to discuss SLS-Orion progress and milestones, human spaceflight, technology advancement, & much more. During our one segment 63 minute discussion, I first asked out guest about the Orbital ATK merger and business under the combined companies. We soon shifted to the SLS-Orion discussion which included information on the 5 segment solid rocket booster (SRB), tonnage to escape which our guest explained, possible missions, and opportunities that will become available as a result of having this heavy lift rocket available for missions that need the lift & high energy capacity of SLS. We talked about shorter travel times, larger payload mass & volume, plus higher energy transfer orbits using SLS as compared to an EELV. Charlies was asked about SRB safety for human spaceflight. Don’t miss his comments on this issue. He talked at length about the benefits of marrying the SRB for lift out of a gravity well to liquids for propulsion once in space. Our guest provided statistics on SRB launches and uses to support what he was telling us. Charlie also talked about his Space Shuttle flight experience and the Shuttle’s SME, especially when there was an SME problem on one of his shuttle flights. We talked about going BLEO and he introduced us to the concept of One Space. As a result of listener questions, our guest talked about SLS costs, its design for multiple destinations and missions, and the launch “sweet spot” that it would fill. BJohn asked if there were uses for an SRB or solid rocket motor in space. Charlie said for liftoff from a gravity well, yes, but otherwise the SPI for a solid was likely too low for in-space propulsion. I asked our guest about Orbital ATK meeting the SLS -Orion milestones and upcoming flight testing. Jeff from Tucson called in about the use of modern technology including light weight epoxy material for SRBs & other spaceflight hardware. Near the end of the program, I asked Charlie about the justification for HSF to see what he had to say about it. Don’t miss his reply. We then talked about technology challenges in going to Mars, choices that were made to do the shuttle and ISS over deep space missions, and destinations that were still Earth dependent as compared to those being Earth independent such as Mars. Jack emailed in a question based on a show earlier in the week where the guest said that for putting SPS infrastructure in space, SLS was too sophisticated. What was needed was big rockets that had a 2% failure rate as that rocket would be lots cheaper than an SLS. Charlie did not specifically comment on SPS infrastructure but did take issue with the notion that it would be fine to have a rocket with a high failure rate to make it cheaper than something like SLS. Listen to how he explained this. Tell us what you think on TSS blog. As the show was about to end, a listener ask Charlie, based on his F15, Air Force, and test pilot experience, what he thought of the new F35 Joint Strike Fighter and the shortcomings of the new fighter that are reported in the press. Charlie had interesting comments about this so don’t miss them.
Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Charlie Precourt through The Space Show.
Dr. John Jurist Webinar, Sunday, 4-26-15 April 25, 2015Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " SpaceX, 2 stage vs. single stage, amateur rocketry, Atlas missile, basic rocket equation., BLE, Considerations in configuring launch systems, Dietrich Koelle, Dr. John Jurist, environmental issues, exhaust velocity, Falcon Heavy, gravity load, gravity loss, heavy lift, human payloads, hybrid fuel, ISP, LEO, liquids vs. solids, mass, mass ratio, NERVA, nuclear propulsion, payload shrouds, payloads, pressure fed systems, rocket fuel choices, Skylon, SLS, suborbital point to point transportation, turbo umps, ULA, vibration envelope
Dr. John Jurist Webinar, Sunday, 4-26-15
Selecting The Rocket Motor, Fuel, & Trade To Optimize The Mission
https://vimeo.com/126223310– Webinar video
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: Dr. John Jurist. Topics: Choices and consideration in configuring launch systems. 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.
Welcome to this two hour webinar regarding the choices and considerations that can be made in designing and configuring launch systems. TO VIEW THE WEBINAR VERSION OFTHIS PROGRAM, GO TO https://vimeo.com/126223310. Note that on the blog for this program are two Power Point presentations for your use. Dr. Jurist referred to both of them during the webinar, especially the presentation titled “Choices: Some Considerations in Configuring Launch Systems.” I urge you to follow along with them during the webinar. During the first segment, Dr. Jurist explained the target market for the webinar and his two presentations. He then talked about how hard it was to go to Mars and do other missions. Then he got to the point by saying in designing or configuring the launch system for a mission, you started with the payload requirements which then provide additional constraints once the payload has been defined. He also talked about the application of the basic rocket equation and explained the importance of exhaust velocity, the Delta-v, and the mass ratio. Listeners started asking questions so two stage compared to single stage was discussed. John pointed to the Choices presentation, slide 8. He talked about propellant and pressures, both in a pressure fed system and with a turbo pump system. Another listener asked about solids versus liquids, then Marshall called to talk about rocket g forces. Dr. Jurist talked about designing the rocket envelope environment to the payload specifications. He then brought in and discussed the vibration envelope. Helen asked how things would be different with a human payload rather than a satellite or cargo. Reliability was a big concern. Near the end of the segment, Dr. Jurist talked about payload mass in Leo and BLEO. Doug inquired about the gravity loss during the launch, then the segment ended talking about heavy lift, solids and proportional cost factors for SRBs.
In the second segment, Penny asked how the variable that had been discussed would change were one launch from the Moon or Mars. Adrian emailed in about the NERVA rocket and nuclear propulsion. Dr. Jurist used the German V2 as an example of launching from the Moon. Specific impulse and exhaust velocity came up again, then the focus turned to rocket motor cooling systems. Questions continued coming in asking about 3D printing of rocket motor parts to lower the cost and the use of hybrid rocket fuels with their advantages and disadvantages. Regulatory issues came up in this segment as did political issues, plus our guest got a question about amateur rocketry. A listener asked about environmental concerns over rocket fuel . Dr. Jurist directed the audience to the Choice presentation, slide 22, and talked about ways to possibly shed some weight such as dumping the payload shroud. Near the end, John got questions about the Falcon Heavy, Doug called in with questions about lunar lander economics and more. In closing, Dr. Jurist said “the fundamental theme of the presentation was the many variables that come into play in designing or configuring a space launch system, how the many variables are inter-related, and how every decision in the process constrains or narrows the remaining options.”
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can contact Dr. Jurist through me.
Keith Henson, Sunday, 12-2-12 December 3, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: chemical rockets, costs per Kwh, fossil fuels., fusion power, GEO satellites, hydrogen exhaust, ISP, Keith Henson, laser propulsion, laser rockets, microwave beaming energy, nuclear propulsion, powered sats, Reaction Engines, space solar power, space weapons, SSP economics, Thorium
Keith Henson, Sunday, 12-2-12
Dr. Jason Cassibry, Tuesday, 10-9-12 October 10, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: aerospace engineering, Alpha Centauri, boron, Cassini, Dr. Jason Cassibry, fusion energy, fusion propulsion, HE3, INSITU Resource Utilization, interstellar space flight, ISP, ITER, LEO, lithium deuteride fusion fuel, magnetic nozzle, Mars Missions, nuclear fear, nuclear propulsion, public policy, public science funding., thrust, Vasimr, Voyager mission, Z-Pinch
add a comment
Dr. Jason Cassibry, Tuesday, 10-9-12
Guest: Dr. Jason Cassibry. Topics: A technical description and the potential of fusion propulsion. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Jason Cassibry to the program to guide us in our discussion of the potential for fusion propulsion. At times, this was a very technical discussion. To assist in following it, I have uploaded to the blog his published paper delivered at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, “The Case and Development Path for Fusion Propulsion.” In addition, below are the URLs for several articles on fusion propulsion that Dr. Cassibry shared with us: www.uah.edu/news/items/10-research/2501-slapshot-to-deep-space#.UDrKn-iPVuY;
www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/the-big-machine-that-could-lead-to-fusion-powered-spaceships-9450996; http://io9.com/5921673/nuclear-slapshots-could-propel-a-spacecraft-to-mars-in-just-weeks; www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=23442 and http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/10/zpinch-nuclear-fusion-pulse-space.html. Dr. Cassibry started out by providing us with a working definition of fusion propulsion. We talked about nuclear propulsion as well and the overall state of development for fusion energy. I asked Dr. Cassibry if in their economic projections for fusion propulsion, they considered the political and policy impact on fossil fuel pricing and supply availability. As you will hear, generally such factors are not included in their studies though he concurred with me that such policies can strongly skew the economics one way or the other. Several calls came in on a wide ranging group of associated topics. We talked about the main fusion fuel, lithium deuteride, magnetic nozzles, and the use of a nuclear fission reactor to start the fusion propulsion unit. Z-Pinch technologies were defined and discussed. As the segment drew to a close, I asked about funding sources for this research and we learned that most all of the funding is from public sources.
In our second segment, more listeners called in regarding insitu resource usage, nuclear propulsion to start the fusion unit, and the power consumed for all of this. We talked about using fusion propulsion for a Mars mission and what it did for travel times. Jason also put forth a suggested time line and path to follow to operation in perhaps 25 years, depending on funding. More calls came in with fuel questions, vibration impact, G force acceleration, thrust, and more. Another topic discussed was fusion propulsion for the launch vehicle. We then compared some real mission travel times such as Cassini, Voyager, and New Horizons, asking what the transit times would have been like using fusion propulsion. As we were ending the program, I asked about the students entering aerospace engineering at UAH, both the undergrad and graduate level, plus the gender mix of the students. There appears to be strong demand by the students to study these fields at all levels. In conclusion, Jason suggested that we could look for breakeven with fusion in about ten years, maybe less.
If you have comments/questions, please post them on The Space Show blog. Dr. Cassibry’s faculty page at UAH is www.mae.uah.edu/faculty/cassibry.shtml.
Dr. James Dewar, Sunday, 2-12-12 February 12, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " nuclear propulsion to LEO, " Saturn V, "The Nuclear Rocket: Making Our Planet Green, air launch, C5A, Dr. James (Jim) Dewar, Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), heavy lift, high explosive (HE), highly enhanced uranium (HEU), hydrogen fuel, ion energy, ISP, NASA, NERVA, nuclear reprocessing, nuclear rocket economics, nuclear rocket testing, nuclear thermal rocket (NRT), nuclear thermal rocket test stands, Peaceful and Prosperous, Plutonium, Project Bifrost, public private partnerships, pulse cooling, reentry vehicle (RV), solid core, space policy, Thorium, Tungsten fuel, U233, U235, U239, Vasimr
Dr. James Dewar, Sunday, 2-12-12
NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS
Guest: Dr. James (Jim) A. Dewar. Topics: Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR), changing paradigms to use the NTR from Earth launch, nuclear economics. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. We welcomed Dr. Dewar back to The Space Show to further discuss the Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) and his paradigm changing approach to use the NTR to launch from Earth rather than using it only in space. During this nearly 2.5 hour discussion, Dr. Dewar makes the case for the NTR based on probable economics, the previous history associated with NERVA, and the assumed benefits flowing to private companies engaged in public private partnerships along the lines Dr. Dewar described. In the first segment, Dr. Dewar started out describing the existing barriers to using the NTR to LEO rather than only in space, plus he referred us to his 29 page introductory paper which is available on The Space Show blog for your download and review. During this segment, we fielded many listener emails and calls wanting to discuss the NTR ISP, possible fuels, testing, and legal issues impacting the use of the nuclear rocket. Michael called and talked about the discussions for a new treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and how that would adversely impact using the NTR. Dr. Dewar talked about treaty issues over the years and suggested that treaties are not that easy to establish in this era while suggesting that they could also be modified. Near the end of the first segment, questions about thorium came up as did questions about additional commercial uses for the nuclear engine here on Earth.
In the second longer segment, we talked about winning over the public and the media. Charles Pooley called in with a set of questions and we talked about reentry vehicles, highly enriched uranium, and more. Jim described a Titan missile accident in Arkansas as an example of the safety controls even in a very large explosion. Another listener asked about cooling and Jim told us about pulse cooling. Dr. Dewar’s air launch idea was brought up again by another caller andMarshall sent in an email inquiring about the nuclear engine replacing coal in our terrestrial power plants to make electricity. I asked Dr. Dewar about risk assessment for the nuclear rocket and reprocessing given terrorism, etc. He said the reprocessed material would be carefully guarded but also weighed against the environmental risks associated with burying waste, burning it, or even dumping waste in the ocean. Dr. Dewar was asked about using the nuclear rocket only in space rather than attempting to use it to launch from Earth. He compared using it only in space to the Pony Express. Don’t miss his full response in replying to this question. Later in this segment, I asked Jim for his first step in advancing the NTR. He said the first step was to get people talking about the subject. Tom called in and also wondered how to get people to rally to the cause. Near the end of the program, Jim talked some more about potential economic benefits along with secondary commercial products such as heat pipes. As our program was ending ion engines came up as did Vasimr.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact Dr. Dewar, send your note to me for forwarding.
To download and read Dr. Dewar’s paper, see below:
A Technical and Economic Introduction to Nuclear Rockets
Dr. Steve Howe, Tuesday, 1-24-12 January 25, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: "Earthrise" by Dr. Howe., Center for Space Nuclear Research (CSNR), comparison of nuclear to chemical rocket, CSNR Summer Fellowship Program, DOE National Laboratory, Dr. Steven Howe, electric thruster, Fission Surface Power (FSP), ground test, Hbar Technologies, ISP, LLC, Los Alamos National Laboratory, lunar nuclear rocket, Mars Architectural Team Study 2--6-2007, Mars Hopper, Mars Missions, Nevada Test Site, nuclear electric propulsion, nuclear habitats, nuclear rocket compared to heavy lift rocket, nuclear rocket space vision, nuclear rockets, Nuclear Thermal Mars Sample Mission, nuclear thermal propulsion, Plutonium, Project Bifrost, radioisotope power, space nuclear power, Thorium, thrust to weight ratios, Tungsten fuel, U-233, Universities Space Research Association, uranium, Vasimr, Y-12
Dr. Steve Howe, Tuesday, 1-24-12
Guest: Dr. Steven Howe. Topics: space nuclear power for power & propulsion systems, & radioisotope power generators. You are invited to comment, ask questions, & discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, & any discussion must be relevant & applicable to Space Show programming. Transcripts of Space Show programs are not permitted without prior written consent from The Space Show (even if for personal use) & are a violation of the Space Show copyright. You will want to follow the websites along with our guest: http://csnr.usra.edu/index.html & www.usra.edu. If you are interested in the CSNR 2012 Summer Fellowship Program, you can learn more & apply no later than March 9, 2012 from CSNR at http://csnr.usra.edu/2012_summer_app2.html. We welcomed Dr. Howe to the program to discuss space nuclear power. We started out with an overview of both the Center for Space Nuclear Research & the Universities Space Research Association. Dr. Howe then told us that they were working on nuclear rockets with the Aerojet Corporation, focusing on a new fuel form away from based on tungsten. During our discussion, he had much to say about this fuel, its advantages, & its testing. He also talked about ISP & thrust to weight ratios. He was asked about testing & we learned they plan on doing ground tests at the Nevada Test Site. Listen to why their tests will be different from earlier nuclear rocket engine tests & how they are expelling the exhaust into the ground. You will hear There is no radiation, only hydrogen which bleeds into the rock strata. We also talked about public concern for nuclear power in space, then we shifted our focus to a nuclear rocket mission to Mars. Dr. Howe told us about the three year Mars mission but also said with a nuclear rocket a one year mission would be possible. We also talked about the costs for developing the nuclear rocket as well as the possibility of other countries doing it before the U.S. Next, we talked about the use of uranium & even the possibility of thorium, including why thorium is not useful for weapons. One listener question asked about the Mars Direct method & insitu resource utilization. Dr. Howe supported the use of insitu but suggested it for later trips as it might be too risky for the initial trips. He then described their Mars Hopper project which will certainly interest us all. As this segment ended, we talked about using the nuclear rocket for going to the Moon & for a lunar & even Martian habitat.
As we started our second segment, Dr. Howe was asked if QuickLaunch could be useful. Dr. Dewar sent in a clarification note about U-233 as a byproduct of thorium & why its a problem for weapons. In talking about a lunar habitat, Dr. Howe told us about the NASA Fission Surface Power Program (FSP). We also talked about using the new tungsten fuel for habitats. He told us about the Nuclear Thermal Mars Sample Mission Study that compared the nuclear rocket to Delta IV launches. Listeners asked about Vasimr & our guest was asked to clarify for us the differences between nuclear electric propulsion & nuclear thermal propulsion & why the latter is preferable. Dr. Dewar sent in another note to talk about Y-12. Later, much was said about plutonium & its pending shortage. Make sure you hear what Dr. Howe had to say about this looming shortage. Near the end, Dr. Howe mentioned his efforts with Hbar Technologies, LLC, suggesting that possibly using these nuclear advancements for medicine, specifically cancer, might be a driver for space applications. As we concluded, Dr. Howe told us about his books on Kindle & the consolidated all in one book, “Earth Rise.” Here is the Amazon URL & remember, if you buy it using this URL, Amazon contributes to The Space Show: www.amazon.com/Earth-Rise-ebook/dp/B005LD3LYS/ref=onegialeafou-20.
Post your comments/questions on the blog URL above.