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

Advertisements

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

Dr. Haym Benaroya, Friday, 1-9-15 January 10, 2015

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

Dr. Haym Benaroya, Friday, 1-9-15

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2390-BWB-2015-01-09.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:  Dr. Haym Benaroya.  Topics: Reality check for lunar settlement construction & habitat.  Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, https://thespaceshow.wordpress.com.  Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed back Professor Haym Benaroya to take us through the steps necessary to establish a lunar settlement, the challenges, our initial TRL and more.  During the first segment of our 97 minute program, Dr. Benaroya advocated for the Moon before Mars and stated his reasons which he repeated several times during the interview.  We talked about the size of the launch vehicle needed for establishing a lunar outpost and then launch costs came up, especially with regards to the proposed Falcon Heavy.  Our guest was asked about one way lunar missions which he did not think possible anytime soon and here he referenced the history of psychological problems encountered by many in spaceflight.  At this point, let me say that we received a few cell phone calls with unacceptable audio on their phone.  Since Dr. Benaroya could get most of what the caller was saying (I could not), I tolerated the poor quality calls for as long as possible and then terminated them.  Listeners, please, use a quality phone line to call the show.  If your call is garbled, I will disconnect you.  Doug called from S. California to talk about consumables being the largest part of the mass. He talked about reducing the mass by using lunar water, recycling, etc.  Dr. Benaroya explained that would not happen right away so for the early stages of an outpost, mass from Earth will be the name of the game. Other topics in this segment included the use of lunar robotics, TRLs today and for the future, & incremental engineering. Dr. Bill Rowe called to talk about medical issues such a heart attack in space, mall absorption of drugs in the GI system, & the need for subcutaneous pharmaceutical administration in space.  Lunar dust was an issue & John from Ft. Worth called to ask our guest to talk about the dust & why it was so challenging to deal with re astronauts and equipment.

In the second segment, we talked about the role of structural and civil engineers, how they go about defining the environment they will be working with and more.  All of this was in response to the question of how does one actually go about building a lunar outpost given one does not exist.  Haym talked about radiation, microgravity and the likelihood that the first crews would be there for six month and return and live in a pressurized cylinder of some sort.  Lunar manufacturing was a discussion topic as was ISRU, 3D printing & the maintenance and repair of lunar equipment.  Haym responded to a question about possible Moon-Mars synergy.  Doug email in questions about inflatable structures and Haym talked about the need to make them rigid.  Doug also asked about duplicating 1/6th g here on Earth and the use of a short arm centrifuge.  Near the end of the show, Haym said the barriers were really political decisions, not the engineering, physics, medical, etc.  He also said it would a long time to build out a lunar outpost and we should be patient.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above.

Dr. Dorit Donoviel, Dr. Eugene de Juan, Jr., Sunday, 11-23-14 November 24, 2014

Posted by The Space Show in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

Dr. Dorit Donoviel, Dr. Eugene de Juan, Jr., Sunday, 11-23-14

http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/2361-BWB-2014-11-23.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. Dorit Donoviel, Dr. Eugene, de Juan, Jr.  Topics:  Microgravity effects on optic nerve, NSRBI Vision for Mars Challenge, vision issues for long duration 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 http://www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.  For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience.

We welcomed our guests Dr. Dorit Donoviel & Dr. Eugene de Juan, Jr. to discuss the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) “Vision for Mars Challenge: A Unique Opportunity for Ophthalmology Companies.”  Read about this project at http://www.nsbri.org/newsflash/indivArticle.asp?id=454&articleID=212.  For additional information on the grants, visit http://www.smartcap.org.  I would also like to thank Kacey White for her hard work with both guests and TSS in making this program possible.  During the first segment of our 97 minute discussion, Dr. Donoviel started us off with background information for the Vision for Mars Challenge, then Dr. de Juan discussed the nature of the eye problems and the effects of low gravity on the optic nerve.  As you will hear from our guests, the Vision for Mars Challenge will award to small companies a grant of $100,000 to “to help identify and advance medical technologies for ocular health in space through collaboration and funding support.”  After this introductory part of our discussion, our guests went into detail about the medical issues relating to optic nerve changes, pressures, fluid balance and more and what this does to vision.  Our guests were asked how these vision issues might impact a crew on Mars or on the way to Mars but unfortunately not much information is known at this time. Also, we do not know the needed level of gravity to offset the optic nerve, fluid and pressure changes.  Our guests mentioned the upcoming year long crew visit to the ISS and that eye issues will be monitored so that accurate data on vision problems can be collected.  Dr. de Juan did go into many of the medical issues contributing to the vision problem including intraocular pressure and fluid balances.  In addition, we spoke about possible countermeasures.  Both artificial gravity with a short arm centrifuge and mechanical intervention via a certain type of pressure garment were discussed.  Medical intervention was also discussed, then BJohn suggested spinning the spaceship would be more cost effective that other types of countermeasures.  Our guests disagreed, saying medical countermeasures would be designed for patients on Earth as well as astronauts so the market size of potential beneficiaries worldwide would be huge as compared to just a handful of astronauts on a spinning spaceship.  Engineering problems were also cited as a severe cost driver in terms of creating artificial gravity for the crew.  Marshall called to ask about Lasik surgery.  Our guests were then asked about gender & other differences.  Don’t miss these discussions.

In the second segment, Dr. Doug was our first caller.  Doug had multiple questions as usual but first he wanted to know if astronauts could be selected for the longer space missions who had a lengthy stay on the ISS and did not show optic nerve changes or adverse effects.  Our guest thought this would be impractical given around 70% of all astronauts show some vision impact from being in space.  Prisms were talked about as part of mitigation in the form glasses with a variable prescription.  We talked about focus issues in space and on a submarine given my comments about wearing prisms glasses.  Doug’s additional questions dealt with doing a lumbar puncture in space as well as GCRs.  Doug and other listeners via email asked our guests if the vision problems were a show stopper for long duration spaceflight missions.  Don’t miss what Dorit & Gene had to say about this.  Near the end of the program, we talked about the impact of space medicine research on Earth medical problems.  The resulting discussion was most interesting, especially given the examples cited by Dorit via ultrasound in space.  The subject of aerospace medicine medical school programs came up and here Dorit explained the innovative program at Baylor’s Center for Space Medicine.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can contact our guests through me.

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