jump to navigation

Joe Carroll, Monday, 11-2-15 November 2, 2015

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

Joe Carroll, Monday, 11-2-15

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2576-BWB-2015-11-02.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

Guest: Joe Carroll. Topics: Artificial gravity, what’s next for human spaceflight? 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 to the program Joe Carroll to update us on his work with artificial and partial gravity, plus his thoughtful considerations for what comes next for human spaceflight. I have uploaded three papers of Joe to The Space Show blog for today’s program. He does refer to these papers and presentations during the show so be sure to follow along by viewing them on the blog. During the first segment of our 1 hour 41 minute program, Joe said he preferred using the term partial gravity to artificial gravity. He talked 1 g issues, tests that can be done on the ground and the need to learn about gravity limitations for humans through ISS research. Centrifuge spin rates were a significant discussion topic in this segment. Here, he referred us to Appendix A page 8 for a two page discussion on early research on this subject. See his paper titled “Partial Gravity Biology Research Paper for Space 2015 Final” on TSS blog. Joe referred several times to the Twins & one year cosmonaut/astronaut study underway on the ISS, plus the Gemini 7 mission which answered several important microgravity questions. Later, Joe suggested we look at the chart on the third slide of his Power Point where he showed the gravity factor of major bodies in our solar system. This is an interesting discussion, don’t miss it. It also pointed to the importance of knowing the gravity prescription for Moon-Mars as it covers most of the solar system gravity ranges. Doug sent in an email about spin rates as high as 24 rpm. Don’t miss how Joe responded to Doug who then sent in a clarification email about upright exercise in a short-arm centrifuge. Again, don’t miss Joe’s reply. At this point, Joe started raising questions about why Mars, asking what were the economic reasons. He referenced our National Space Policy from 2010. Joe suggested the direction of the manned program was confusing at best. He talked about the remaining residual from the Apollo momentum and the Outer Space Treaty impact on future human spaceflight. BJohn emailed in about artificial gravity experiments with cubesats.

In the second segment, Tim asked several questions including one about using weighted clothing to offset microgravity. The subject of radiation exposure came up and here, Joe talked about the side effects of “fixes” which may cause even more problems than just the original problem being mitigated. He again referenced the Twin and cosmonaut/astronaut studies on the ISS now underway. Doug called regarding my earlier comments where I reference a past show in which many listeners did not think we needed to know the gravity prescription. Doug corrected what I said about his position but Joe thought there were solid advantages to know the gravity RX and to do so in LEO. You will find this discussion to be very interesting. In the latter part of this segment, we talked about being serious about humans going BLEO if we are not serious about finding out the gravity RX for humans. Safety came up and here Joe had much to say about the approaches regarding Orion and Dragon. Jack emailed in about our lack of seriousness on HSF BELO since we are not trying to learn the human gravity RX for long duration spaceflight or settlement. Joe went so far as to suggest convening a panel discussion to open up the discussion channels on what should be next for HSF. He listed potential participants but also invited listeners to send in to me or post on the blog their suggestions for participants. He said this was the perfect time for such a discussion as we entered the last year of the current administration. Doug sent in the final email saying that the challenge was more about how we go about deciding who’s vision gets the funding, suggesting this challenge took precedent over figuring out the next vision for HSF.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. You can reach Joe through me.  The papers Joe referenced can be found below.

Ted Hall’s webpage, www.artificial-gravity.com.  His presentations are below:

Partial Gravity Biology Research Paper for Space 2015 Final

Partial Gravity Biology Research Presentation for Space 2015

Design Concepts for a Manned Partial Gravity Research Facility 2010IAC rev 2014July11

Dan Adamo, Sunday, 6-7-15 June 6, 2015

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

Dan Adamo, Sunday, 6-7-15

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2488-BWB-2015-06-07.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

Guest:  Dan Adamo.  Topics: Mars human spaceflight, robotic exploration, space policy, heavy lift economics, 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 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 Dan Adamo to the show for this 2 hour 36 minute comprehensive discussion regarding HSF to Mars, the Second Mars Affordability and Sustainability Workshop report and much more.  During the first segment of our program, Dan started out by telling us the process used to engage him reviewing said report and writing his critique of it which is on The Space Show blog (https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com). Topics discussed in this segment included the use of Low Latency Telepresence (LLT) as compared to High Latency Telepresence (HLT), the absence of human factors and aerospace medical personnel in attendance and said issues missing from the workshop report.  Dan said the key missing information included radiation as well as microgravity concerns.  Dan then questioned the existence of a compelling rational for humans going to Mars.  This became a recurring discussion topic throughout today’s program.  Space settlement came up & so did a possible space race with China.  The subject of a rescue mission came up but there was a detailed rescue mission discussion near the end of the program in the second segment.  Dan was asked about the minimum crew size to operate an LLT program from Deimos or in orbit around Mars.  Several emails were sent in including one by Dr. Jurist addressing high acceleration upon return from Mars.  Dan then suggested the stepping stone approach, starting with cis-lunar space.  Doug sent in questions about heavy lift versus using already large commercial rockets.  Dan and Doug discussed this, then later in the second segment, Doug asked more questions on this topic.  For now they talked about going to Deimos with a Falcon Heavy.  Dan pointed out the need for many more launches and rendezvous missions as compared to one or two SLS type rocket launch.  He questioned if we can’t afford SLS launches, how do we afford even more launches and rendezvous missions.  Marshal emailed us wanting to know about the possibility of lava tube plans .  BJohn asked this guest about a possible Mars cycler & then we moved to the second segment.

In the second segment, I asked Dan what he thought the impact on space policy might be vis a vis the workshop being discussed on this program.  Don’t miss his reply.  Doug asked a question inquiring if for the same cost it would take to send humans to either Deimos or to the Martian surface, one could send many high-latency rovers to multiple locations far from each other to give the rovers many chances to discover evidence for life in different types of places?  This brought us several exchanges comparing LLT with HLT, heavy lift versus smaller rockets and more.  Doug and Dan has several exchanges during this segment, especially when the topic of rescue missions came up.  Ted in Boston asked about the rational for going to Mars, referenced the recent program with Dr. Zubrin, and the payoff or benefits for a human Mars mission.  Dan had much to say about this so don’t miss it.  John from Ft. Worth called to say we were not yet technically ready for Mars and we should use the stepping stone method and focus in cis-lunar development and exploration.  As an example, Dan & John talked about the need to know the actual gravity RX for humans. Dan said we should have a short arm centrifuge on the ISS helping to figure this out but that there was no policy to do that.  We turned to the topic of rescue and I told listeners what I found out about who pays for rescues when I did some quick and dirty research on this a few weeks ago.  The issue of rescue and how it might happen on a Mars mission or even in cis-lunar space came up with many listener emails including several by Doug putting forth various rescue scenarios.  For the most part, since we have no launch on demand, no rockets, pads or hardware sitting around ready to be used at a moments notice and we have to contend with launch windows, it does not seem feasible that a Mars rescue mission could be implemented, possibly not even a lunar rescue mission.  Doug suggested a scenario where multiple ships left for Mars at the same time and then if one got in trouble, the others could rescue the problem ship.  Dan talked about the physics and mass of what would be needed to do that. You decide if it might be feasible for such a rescue scenario to be implemented. Let us know your thoughts on the blog.  If the rescue party is already on Mars, rescue will be unlikely given the state of the art today.  Michael Listner suggested the absence of a realistic rescue plan may hinder the issuing of a launch license.  In his closing comments, Dan focused on the workshop critique saying that the sponsors would have been better served if participation had been opened up and had including human factors and aerospace medicine professionals.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach Dan Adamo through me.

AffordingMarsIIcommentaryR1