jump to navigation

Dr. Frank Martin, Tuesday, 9-23-14 September 24, 2014

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

Dr. Frank Martin, Tuesday, 9-23-14


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. Frank Martin.  Topic:  The NRC “Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration” report.  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 Dr. Frank Martin to the program to discus the NRC human spaceflight study along with all aspects of human spaceflight including various destinations and missions.  During the first segment of our 1 hour 39 minute show, Dr. Martin introduced us to the NRC Pathways study which you can download for free by using Google.  He suggested it was a dose of reality as well as optimism.  He said the study was very clear in saying “show me the money” for those wanting to do humans to Mars missions now or fairly soon and then explained some of the high costs and trades involved in these missions.  One of his overriding themes throughout our discussion was the need to manage a very large mass in LEO in order to accomplish the goals of long duration human space mission.  During our segment, we kept coming back to the need to manage a large mass in LEO and how this translated to costs as well as the need for technology advancement.  Both myself and listeners asked our guest about doing human missions cheaper by using the private sector.  This subject kept coming up during both segments of the program.  We also addressed the rational for human spaceflight.  In addition, the issue of walking away from HSF was looked at for the US as a nation as that is an option. The report attempted to address this and related issues.   Joe sent in an email about the mice on the ISS and using them to determine the gravity RX for HSF.  He sent us several additional emails on this subject as well.  This prompted comments about the need to use the ISS for research in support of long duration HSF missions.  Dr. Martin said Mars was an horizon goal.  In this context, he talked about only a few other possible destinations near us, either the Moon or an asteroid.  He then proceeded to address the issue of managing the risk for a Mars mission.  Beverly asked a budget question and taking the lead from the most recent Mike Griffin interview, she asked Frank if it really was just a choice to be constrained by budget issues.  While Frank agreed it was a choice, he said there were very good ways and choices to spend taxpayer money so he did not see significantly more money for space in the future.  Another listener talked about nuclear propulsion which also crossed into the second segment.  Near the end of the first segment, we got a call from a New Zealand listener.  During his call, the idea of the Buzz Aldrin Mars cycler came up and there was a question or two about fuel depots.

In the second segment, I asked Dr. Martin why the study took 18 months, then SLS John called the program.  John wanted to talk nuclear propulsion thinking it would be a cost saver but what was not known was the accurate cost of the R&D program or the cost for jumping through political hurdles.  John suggested a new administration would make a difference and I challenged that.  I asked Frank given all his years of space industry experience if it was reasonable to expect big changes in space policy due to a change in administrations.  Don’t miss Frank’s reply.  Dwayne called back to question the HSF rational. One of the points made by Dwayne was that cooperation with the Russians on the ISS does not modify Russia’s behavior other than for space.

Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog.  You can reach Dr. Frank Martin through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com.

Dr. Nader Elhefnawy, Friday, 6-8-12 June 8, 2012

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

Dr. Nader Elhefnawy, Friday, 6-8-12


Guest:  Dr. Nader Elhefnawy.  Topics:  Space warfare reality and hype.  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. Nader Elhefnawy back to the program to discuss his March 26, 2012 Space Review article, “Why we fall for the hype: contextualizing our thought on space warfare (www.thespacereview.com/article/2052/1).”  This was about a two hour program with a break after the first hour.  Dr. Elhefnawy also has two blogs which may interest you: http://naderelhefnawy.blogspot.com and http://raritania.blogspot.com.  We started our discussion by talking about Dr. Elhefnawy’s interest in the subject, his previous Space Review articles on the subject, and the issue of making accurate predictions.  Nader suggested that there is much hype driving the technology predictions suggesting a possible space warfare outcome that also drive political policy in some instances.  He talked about how technology development in the 19th century had more impact in changing the world than modern era technology.  Our guest cited examples of this throughout our discussion but one example we talked about more so than others dealt with the development of the telegraph.  Dr. Elhefnawy suggested that most of the hyped space weapons systems are not doable in the first place.  Another document he cited about this issue was the Joint Vision 2020 report (www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/joint_vision_2020.pdf).  Nader talked about space weapon systems vulnerabilities and again said that the expectations and hype do not match reality.  Several callers engaged with Nader on cause and reaction, SDI, missile defense, anti-satellite warfare, and the pre-positioning of weapons platforms in space.

In our second segment, I asked our guest how we in the public can best defend ourselves against hype, rhetoric, political agendas, and more given we do not have the expertise to always be able to pick up on the excessive claims and fears.  As you will hear, we remain vulnerable to excessive hype not just on technology and space but on a wide range of things impacting our national and international policy.  In this segment we did talk about technology being developed by China, inquiring if Nader thought this was all hype too.  Nader cited some operational stats to drive home some of his points.  Other issues and game changing technologies that came up in this segment included drones and the launch cost for space access. Nader also talked about the Eureka Paradigm and then he received a question from caller Mike about the European Code of Conduct that we have discussed many times on the show.  Near the end, an interesting comparison was made with aerial warfare from 1914-1918.  In just 7-11 years, aviation had advanced to fighting in the skies in WW1.  More than fifty years after Sputnik, the point was made we are not even at the 1914 equivalent level for space warfare, thus supporting Dr. Elhefnawy’s premise that we fall for the hype in this matter.

Please post your questions/comments on The Space Show blog.  If you want to email our guest, please do so through me and I will forward your note to him.