Marcia Smith, Friday, 3-13-15 March 14, 2015Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: Cislunar space development, Commercial Crew, Continuing Resolution, Discover Mission Class D, discretionary budget, EELV, Europa, human spaceflight, international cooperation for space programs, James Webb Space Telescope, LEO infrastructure, Lockheed Jupiter Program, Marcia Smith, Mars 2020, NASA Earth Science., NASA educational outreach, NASA FY 2015 budget, NASA FY 2016 budget, nuclear thermal rocket, Orion, planetary science, private sector space investment, rocket reusability, sequestration, SLS, SLS motivators, space debris, targeted sequestration cuts, ten year budgeting process, U.S. congress, ULA
Marcia Smith, Friday, 3-13-15
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: Marcia Smith. Topics: NASA budgets and their process, specific NASA programs, U.S. congress and 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 Marcia Smith back to the program to discuss the proposed NASA FY 16 budget and process, sequestration, specific NASA projects and more. During our one segment 69 minute discussion, Ms. Smith started out by stating that the proposed 2016 FY NASA budget was bigger than the 2015 NASA budget by about $500 million! Ms. Smith continued saying the trend was upward with continued strong support for SLS, Orion, and even Europa. Also, NASA remains largely bipartisan in its congressional support. I asked our guest about the coming sequestration for 2016-2021 and here, uncertainty prevails. We also learned that there would be more flexibility for targeted sequestration cuts than there were the first time. Sequestration has a focus towards two categories, security and non-security projects and expenditures. Bob in Tucson sent in our first email to inquire about a possible “war” within the NASA planetary science and human spaceflight directorates. A question came in regarding congressional motivators with a focus on SLS motivators. Among the SLS motivators mentioned by our guest were national prestige, global leadership, preserving and growing our industrial base, and keeping people employed. Jerry emailed in asking about NASA educational outreach and support in the proposed FY 16 budget. Our first caller was Michael Listner who wanted to expand on earlier comments about the private sector and NASA, specifically government programs. Marcia and Michael had an interesting discussion focusing on these issues. Both cited examples including ULA, the EELV program, and the concept of “skin in the game plus the opportunity for a private sector company to fail and maybe needing a government bailout if all our eggs were in that one private sector basket. The new Lockheed Jupiter commercial cargo space tug program was mentioned and Michael said it might be useful for removal of some space debris. The subject of building LEO infrastructure came up multiple times during our discussion, especially the issue of who or what entity would pay for its development. Government or the private sector? BJohn asked Marcia email questions about reusability thus providing NASA with more “bang for the buck” so to speak. I asked Marcia several questions about the discretionary part of our budget, we talked more about the Europa mission and the best way to influence congressional space policy makers. Our guest had some very interesting things to say about this so don’t miss the discussion. Near the end of the program, I asked if there was any serious effort to move to ten year funding for space and other very long projects given the likelihood of a program not lasting ten years due to congressional changes and program cuts. Marcia did mention that the shuttle and ISS programs survived so it was possible for a program to last a long time. She also did not think there would be ten year funding as congress would not give up its continue oversight responsibilities for such a long term obligation. Peter in San Diego asked about the 2016 elections and if we were likely to see a radical shift in space policy. Donald in Los Angeles asked if the one party congress would get the budget done or if we were likely to see a CR at the end of September. BJohn sent in another email asking about possible congressional motivators to be even more supportive of space than they have been given their $500 million budget increase. Beverly asked Marcia about international cooperation with space projects. Marcia said she was a strong supporter of international cooperation. She also provided us with a few of her excellent reasons for supporting international cooperation. Before the program ended, we came back to the issue of LEO infrastructure and cislunar development. Given the private sector’s reluctance to invest in these areas so far, a natural conclusion would be that the private or commercial markets are not yet developed.
Please post your comments on TSS blog above. Visit Marcia’s site, www.spacepolicyonline.com for the latest in space new and policy developments. You can reach Ms. Smith through her website or me.
Open Lines, Sunday, 1-25-15 January 26, 2015Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " Returning to the Moon, Al Worden interview, archaeological excavation models for Mars, Dr. David Livingston, Dr. Doug Plata, inflatable habitats, John Logsdon new space book, Mars colonization, Mars Return Option, Michael Listner, Nixon space policy, nuclear thermal rocket, one way trips to Mars, Open Lines, permanent base on the Moon, radiation, radioactive debris threat to satellites, spaceflight to Mars compared to submarines, SpaceX satellite constellation plan, SpaceX vs. Air Force settlement, UFO files
Open Lines, Sunday, 1-25-15
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: Open Lines with Dr. David Livingston. Topics: We discussed a wide range of space topics from Mars colonization to radiation issues, UFO files, the SpaceX-AF litigation, the Nixon space policy and 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.
Welcome to our Open Lines program. During the first segment of our two hour seven minute program, we took several calls starting with John in Florida who wanted to talk about early Mars colonization, one way Mars trips and similar topics. He wondered about buried Martian ruins deep under the ground and I drew an analogy to archaeological digs here on Earth in finding towns and early civilizations buried on top of one another far below the surface of the Earth. John from Ft. Worth called in to talk about the Al Worden interview in which Al did not think there was any reason for returning to the Moon. You can read the Worden interview at http://www.dw.de/apollo-15-command-module-pilot-alfred-m-worden-nasa-took-a-step-backwards/a-18211468. I also asked John about the release of thousands of UFO documents, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/01/19/air-force-ufo-files/21985651. John and I then returned to discuss more about the Worden interview, his comments on the shuttle, the ISS, Saturn V and more.
In the second segment, Michael Listner called to update us on the settlement of the SpaceX Air Force litigation. Michael summarized the mediation and the settlement details for us. Dr. Doug from S. California called to talk about a variety of topics including radiation. He referred to an Al Globus article regarding his view on shielding requirements. You can read Al’s article here: http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RadiationPaper2014.pdf. Doug also talked about a permanent base on the Moon and his Mars Return Option. Dwayne was the next caller and he spoke of John Logsdon’s upcoming book on Apollo and the Nixon space policy. He talked about all the budget cuts and slashes back then and how they negatively impacted the program. Dwayne also talked about the nuclear thermal rocket and the fact that it can’t go active until it out of Earth orbit. Adrian sent in an email about radiation debris putting satellites at risk. Here is the older NY Times article he sent me: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/26/world/radioactive-debris-in-space-threatens-satellites-in-use.html. Tim called to debunk the Mars crew living in a tuna can analogy and instead wanted to compare it to submarines. He got some pushback on his submarine analogy. Earlier, Jon from NJ had sent in a note about the SpaceX satellite plans & what this may mean for SpaceX.
Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog. You can reach any of the participants through me.
Tabitha Smith, Gwyn Rosaire, Project Bifrost, Sunday, 12-16-12 December 16, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: B4 core, chemical rockets, DARPAs 100 Year Starship Program, fission, Fukushima, fusion propulsion, graphite nuclear rocket fuel, Gwyn Rosaire, HSF to Mars, Icarus Interstellar, ITAR, NASA Marshall Decade Module 2 fusion project, nuclear economics, nuclear propulsion mission, nuclear space technologies, nuclear thermal rocket, Project Bifrost, Russian nuclear propulsion program, Saturn V rocket, Tabitha Smith, tungsten nuclear rocket fuel, White House nuclear rocket policy., Y-12 research
1 comment so far
Tabitha Smith, Gwyn Rosaire, Project Bifrost, Sunday, 12-16-12
Guests: Tabitha Smith, Gwyn Rosaire. Topics: Nuclear propulsion, Project Bifrost, Icarus Interstellar. 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. We welcomed Tabitha Smith and Gwyn Rosaire to our program to discuss Project Bifrost and nuclear space propulsion. For more information and to contact our guests, visit www.icarusinterstellar.org/projects/project-bifrost. If you are interested in joining Project Bifrost, or have suggestions, please use the “here” email link on the webpage. During our first segment, Ms. Smith started by giving us the origin and meaning of the project name, Bifrost (pronounced BEEFROST). This discussion included Icarus Interstellar and mention of the Darpa 100 Year Starship Program (100YSS). I asked Gwyn about our technical status in having a nuclear thermal rocket and he said we had more of an economic problem with nuclear propulsion than a technical problems. We talked about the lack of a mission for a nuclear rocket and that such a mission would be generated from the White House on down. Nuclear fuel was a topic as new research is focusing on tungsten fuels rather than graphite though our caller Dr. Jim Dewar suggested new opportunities existed with modern graphite fuels. Other listeners emailed in both questions and comments about fuel. Another topic included a discussion about a much larger payload to Mars with a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) than a chemical rocket so I asked our guests about economic trades as to what would eventually be less costly, multiple chemical rocket launches or the use of a NTR. Using the Saturn V for our chemical rocket, We carried our analysis to the point of including additional launches to cover for a launch failure and also the human factors side in that a shorter trip means less radiation for the astronauts, thus less shielding and potentially less mass. I think you will find this discussion and analysis most interesting, including the NRC equation for astronaut exposure to radiation. In Dr. Dewar’s call, he also talked about the B4 core concept & the progress made with NERVA. We got emails from Bruce in Canada plus other listeners advocating private sector development, a change in ITAR, and the radiation policy changing after Fukushima per this article, www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_UN_approves_radiation_advice_1012121.html, and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
In our second segment, Michael called in to ask about Russian outreach and the Russian nuclear propulsion program. We then asked our guests for the future Project Bifrost plans. We learned of several major issues. One issue centered on U.S. export control. Our guests also noted that the Russian economy was actually gaining in strength and this might cause them to think its better to go it alone than team up with a weak international partner. Other listener emails inquired about time lines for operation. It was suggested that about ten years would be needed for the NTR if all goes well. As for more routine Mars flights, it was suggested that it would take about twenty years after the first human flights to Mars to really have the program operational. We talked about the private sector and our guests suggested that the private sector will play a strong role in developing and using nuclear propulsion. Moving on, the second project our guests mentioned had to do with ablation technology using NASA Ames facilities. The third and final project mentioned was at Huntsville, the Decade Module 2 fusion project at Marshall. During both the first & second segments, our guests talked about Jupiter radiation and magnetic shielding. John asked about this when he called in the second segment. Doug inquired about Dr. Zubrin’s Mars plans & possible trajectories that could be used with the pros and cons for each. Bruce inquired about fuel vibration problems, then Tim called wanting to know about tours at the Marshall facility & the level of power needed for interstellar travel. As we were ending, our guests said we needed breakthrough propulsion or new physics for interstellar travel. Both our guests left us with important closing comments relevant to Project Bifrost & nuclear propulsion for our future with space development. Don’t miss what each had to say as we brought our discussion to a close.
Post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. You can email our guests through me or through the above website URL for Bifrost.
Les Johnson, Sunday, 7-8-12 July 9, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: " NASA Advanced Concepts Office, "Going Interstellar: Build Starships Now!, alien life, antimatter, DragonCon, Faster than light travel (FTL), Fission Fragment Rocket, fusion energy, Higgs boson, human spaceflight, interstellar flight, Les Johnson, new physics, nuclear thermal rocket, Orion nuclear propulsion concept, physics, robotic missions, science fiction and space, solar sail technology, tethers
1 comment so far
Les Johnson, Sunday, 7-8-12
Guest: Les Johnson. Topics: “Going Interstellar: Build Starships Now!,” and interstellar propulsion & advanced propulsion concepts. 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 started our discussion by talking about interstellar travel, his new book, “Going Interstellar,” and advanced concepts, both for NASA and outside the NASA mindset. Please remember that if you purchase this book from Amazon using this link, Amazon will make a contribution to The Space Show/OGLF: www.amazon.com/Going-Interstellar-Johnson/dp/1451637780/ref=onegiantlea20. Les told us that both he and his co-editor, Jack McDevitt, had very little trouble getting the authors to contribute to the book which consists of a series of short stories from well known science fiction authors plus scientists. There is a focus on the plausible and grounded physics so that the sci-fi is rooted in actual physics. Les took several phone calls wanting to know about advanced concepts and propulsion at NASA and in general outside of NASA. We spoke about many concepts including solar sail technology, nuclear electric propulsion, the fission fragment rocket, faster than light (FTL) travel, antimatter, & the types of possible starships that might be used, plus the time intervals to travel from point A to point B. We talked about the challenges from the laws of physics, political leadership, funding, & timelines. Les said that barring the discovery of new physics which he is not optimistic about at this time, he does not think FTL travel will be possible. When I asked about the discovery of Higgs-boson as an example of discovering new things, he talked about the discovery of that which is predictive as compared to something entirely new and unknown. Other topics in this segment included artistic license in sci-fi writing, the role of physics & the imagination, & even questioning the possible role of ET in contributing to advanced propulsion concepts.
In our second segment, Marshall was our first caller & we talked about the French nuclear program, fusion, & the large ITER reactor program. Les went over many of the fusion energy challenges & we talked about some fuel issues. Les then told us about some of the future books he is working on & then he had more to say about solar sail technology which is his preference at this time for robotic interstellar missions. We took a call about the huge Atlanta, GA sci-fi conference, DragonCon ( http://dragoncon.org) as Les will be a featured speaker there this year. As the program was ending, we talked about HSF NASA infrastructure, the Von Braun model for spaceflight, and more about the specific stories in his book.
If you have questions/comments for our guest, please post them on The Space Show blog. Check out his websites at www.lesjohnsonauthor.com and www.amazon.com/Les-Johnson/e/B002OUOYZQ/ref=onegiantlea20.
James (Jim) Bickford, Friday, 2-24-12 February 25, 2012Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: antigravity, antimatter, antimatter ISP, antimatter theoretical limit for speed, antiparticles for space missions, antiproton storage and propulsion, Apollo, cosmic rays, dark matter, flux, fundamental science research, fusion energy, galactic cosmic ray flux., James (Jim) Bickford, Jupiter for antimatter, NIAC, nuclear thermal rocket, positrons, radiation belts, Saturn's rings, solar flares, Space Shuttle, Star Trek
add a comment
James (Jim) Bickford, Friday, 2-24-12
Guest: James (Jim) Bickford. Topics: Antimatter for space 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 Jim Bickford to the program to discuss antimatter for space propulsion. In our first segment, Mr. Bickford started our discussion with an introduction to antimatter basics. While we referenced Star Trek in the discussion, Mr. Bickford was quick to point out that reality was quite different from the sci fi classic though he was a fan of Star Trek. Along with the Apollo program, both played a role in his having his interest in antimatter. In this introduction, I asked Mr. Bickford about antimatter as a weapon but he said it would not be practical. One of the points stressed by Jim during the entire program was just how little antimatter material there is and how long term the R&D program would be.. He said there is very little in nature and the quantities made worldwide were extremely small, measuring in nanograms produced a year. Our guest compared antimatter to chemical propulsion and nuclear thermal rockets (NTR). While the NTR is substantially better than chemical propulsion, antimatter propulsion would be orders of magnitude better than the NTR. We then talked about supplies of antimatter off Earth and he said the most promosing place was in the rings of Saturn. He also mentioned solar flares from the sun in the positrons and back on Earth he talked about cosmic rays as well as some material in thunderstorms & ligtening. Mr. Bickford also discussed what an antimatter spaceship would probably be like. He discussed fuel tank requirements, containment, even plasma fileds around the spaceship using an electromagnetic field extending out around the spaceship as the containment device. We talked about the research needed, the steps involved, and the funding. Our guest repeated many times that antimatter research is high risk in the sense of obtaining success. As the segment was ending, we talked about antimatter research in the medical field against cancer tumors.
In our second segment, we talked more about tax payer funded antimatter research and Jim took us through a value stream analysis which was most interesting. We talked about student interest in antimatter and both the direct and indirect benefits from technology research and development. We then talked about the specifics of antimatter for space development starting with defining the requirements and eventually being able to do a demo. A caller asked if the research had a billion dollars for many years would there be a breakthrough in the 20-30 year time period. You might be surprised by his answer. We also talked about a paper and a Power Point poster that he has used regarding his antimatter research. Both the poster and the paper will be uploaded to The Space Show blog with Mr. Bickford’s permission. We talked about antimatter and Jupiter based on the poster . Another question came in about antimatter propulsion being useful for launch from Earth. This prompted our guest to talk about the antimatter theoretical limit for both ISP and faster than light speed. As we were talking about the antimatter development process, I asked about the role of luck or serendipity in discovering breakthroughs. You might be surprised by this answer as well. In ending our discussion, Jim repeated that antimatter was only at the fundamental research stage and very long term, perhaps even further out than a century but very promosing nonetheless.
Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog URL.
The two papers discussed on the show can be found below: