The Space Show
The Space Show
The Space Show focuses on timely and important issues influencing the development of outer-space commerce, space tourism,space exploration and space development. The Space Show is committed to facilitating our becoming a space-faring nation and society with a growing and self-sustaining space-faring economy. The Space Show also focuses on other related subjects of interest to us all.
Station feed:  Created by: David Livingston |
Created on: 12 May 2005 Language: English |
| << < 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 > >> | |
| Add this to another station |
The John Batchelor Show "Hotel Mars," Wednesday, 10-10-12 (6.33MB; download) -- Guests: John Batchelor, Dr. David Livingston: Topics: SpaceX Falcon 9 launch of Dragon to resupply ISS. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Written 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. This program is archived on The Space Show website, podcasting, and blog sites with permission from John Batchelor. Please visit the John Batchelor Show website for more information about this fine program, www.johnbatchelorshow.com. During our 11.5 minute discussion, John and I discussed the Oct. 7, 2012 Falcon 9 launch of the Dragon to resupply the ISS. There was also a secondary payload onboard, a commercial B2B Orbcomm satellite that did not reach its proper orbit. We discussed the launch, the loss of power for Engine 1, why the second stage was not restarted, the successful birthing of Dragon to the ISS, and more. We talked about what the success of this resupply mission to the ISS means and what might be some of the concerns regarding the secondary payload issues. Please post any comments/questions you might have about this discussion on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact John Batchelor about this program, please do so through me. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:05:48 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Jason Cassibry, Tuesday, 10-9-12 (53.93MB; download) -- 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, http://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.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:54:49 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Catharine Conley, Monday, 10-8-12 (44.26MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Catharine Conley. Topics: NASA & international planetary protection policy, methodology, & applications. You are invited to comment, ask questions, & discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. We welcomed Dr. Catharine Conley, NASA's Planetary Protection Officer to the show for a comprehensive discussion on the subject of planetary protection. Planetary Protection is concerned with preventing the transfer of life between planetary bodies. For more information, visit the NASA Planetary Protection website at http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov. Dr. Conley started our discussion with the definition of planetary protection, followed by a brief history dating back to the Apollo missions & planetary quarantine. Dr. Conley talked extensively about microbes & their survival. One of the points she made in response to a question was just how friendly the very cold temperatures of space could be for microbes. On the other hand, radiation & the UV light are the enemies of microbial survival. We talked about a Mars sample return mission, what safety precautions would be taken, & then our guest was asked about using the ISS or the Moon as a quarantine lab to protect Earth. You will hear why this is not a good idea & later when asked about using a Bigelow habitat as a planetary protection lab since it would not be a government lab, our guest applied the same reasoning. Dr. Conley talked about the Viking missions as the most stringent ever for planetary protection. In terms of the methodology, we talked about how a mission is prepared for planetary protection, the probability of contamination, & I asked about cost-benefit analysis & the value of added costs & more time for planetary protection if the probability of contamination was so low. As you will hear, building in planetary protection starting with the concept stage is not a significant contributor to costs as its usually less than 1% of mission costs. We also talked about protocols for a NEO mission, the New Horizons mission on the way to Pluto, & missions to other planets & flyby missions. Next, our guest addressed issues with Mars Science Lab & Curiosity. Near the end of the first segment, we talked about international protocols, Article 9 of the OST, & the international COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy. Dr. Conley talked about international space agency adherence to the policy, country by country. Viruses & extra-terrestrial life possibilities brought us to the close of this segment. In our second segment, Dr. Conley talked about the need for public awareness & educational outreach regarding planetary protection. Listeners asked about human flights to Mars, even one way flights. Don't miss this discussion. Did you know that it is very likely that humans will be restricted as to where they can go on Mars based on planetary protection policy? Or, by the time we send humans to Mars, we will have learned enough about Mars so that the human part regarding planetary protection will not prove to be much of a threat or risk. We talked about terreforming, what to do with a crew member death on Mars & being able to bury the body, then we talked about planetary protection policy among the NASA centers. Near the end, our guest was asked about the Phobos-Grunt mission & the Russian adherence to planetary protection policies. We inquired about Mars meteorites here on Earth & future missions being worked on with the planetary protection office including two Mars missions & the concept of a Europa mission. Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact Dr. Conley, send your note to me & I will forward it to her. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 09 Oct 2012 16:48:40 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Open Lines, Sunday, 10-7-12 (69.52MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. David Livingston. Topics: Open Lines discussion on various space topics per the choice of the listeners calling today's show. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. Welcome to today's two hour 15 minute Open Lines discussion. The program was in three segments but as we focused on just a few topics for the entire discussion, this summary will not be divided by segments. I started the discussion by describing upcoming Space Show programs, then putting out a few discussion topics. As it turned out, the dominant topic discussed by the listeners had to do with astronaut safety and the recent program with guest Rand Simberg from Monday, Oct. 1, 2012. Rand talked about our being too risk averse, the need for more lives to be at risk to do valuable space missions, etc. You can hear his program at http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1863-BWB-2012-10-01.mp3. Several callers took issue with much of what Rand said and for the most part thought that space missions were valued and that human spaceflight was already risky. Listeners went back and forth on this topic across all segments of the program, talking about shuttle accident rates, proposed accident rates for Constellation, Orion, Dragon, and more. Some listeners even talked about aviation safety rates, military jets, and the track records of the Atlas 5, Delta IV, and Arianne V rockets. For part of this discussion, we also talked about the liability limitation laws passed in spaceport states including California which recently signed into law its version of law. We talked about what this might mean for the industry, for spaceflight participants, and even if the would hold up in an accident.
As part of the HSF safety discussions, we also talked about launch abort and escape systems. We took a call at the first of the second segment from Charles in Oregon who wanted to talk about the lunar space elevator, SLS and propellant depots, our second most talked about topic for the day. Charles is a strong proponent of the lunar space elevator and depots, but others called in from the skeptical side of things which was my position. At times the discussion switched to the space elevator here on Earth but everybody agreed that the lunar space elevator was much more doable. I kept challenging Charles and proponents of this and the depots to show me the complete and thorough financial analysis and trades for these missions with assumptions as that would be the only way to know if these concepts had legs to stand on. If Charles does get me some of this documentation and its viable, I will use it in a future Space Show program. Tim in Huntsville wanted to know my thoughts on various alternative launch systems & my preferences for which type of space missions. There were other topics scattered throughout our program including the 23 mile skydive by Felix Baumgartner with Red Bull scheduled for Oct. 8th, fusion propulsion, and the SpaceX launch going to the ISS later today. If you want to email any of the callers to this program, send your note to me and I will forward it for you. Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog URL above.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sun, 07 Oct 2012 23:40:25 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Walt Anderson, Friday, 10-5-12 (54.64MB; download) -- Guest: Walter (Walt) Anderson. Topics: Walt rejoins the space community after seven plus years & talks about it all! You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. NOTE: Walt's comments and opinions are his and his alone, some may be controversial, & some of you may be offended. As I said at the end of the program & on various blog posts during the week before this program, The Space Show believes Mr. Anderson has as much right to speak freely on The Space Show as any other guest. We strongly believe in second chances for people and new beginnings. We are an educational program and we air all sides of complicated issues & do not shy away from controversy. Walt Anderson is not an exception to Space Show policy. On a personal note, I wish Walt great success in his new ventures and in fulfilling his deep commitment to expanding space for the benefit of us all. All listeners are encouraged & welcome to post comments about this program on The Space Show blog with civility being the only requirement for your comments. During the first segment of our discussion, I asked Walt to tell us how the space industry has changed during his absence from the business. Walt talked about many changes for the better, noting the change in government policy which is now supportive of the private space industry. A listener asked him about his thoughts on NewSpace being ready for prime time investment. Walt had much to say on this topic & specifically mentioned three prime areas including resource usage & asteroid mining/capture, SSP, & space habitats. From this discussion, Walt talked about management team importance & quality. Walt was asked about technology changes & his getting up to speed with new technology. He had interesting things to say so don't miss it. Next, our discussion took a different turn as Ben asked about movie & TV prison stereotypes, prison friends, running the "biz" from prison, etc. Walt spoke openly and directly in response to Ben's questions. He also had much to say about prisoner treatment in our federal prison system. Carl emailed in to ask Walt about federal liens against him & what happens to any new monies raised for new business ventures. Does the government seize such funds raised? Walt openly addressed these concerns. In our second segment, Trent from Down Under asked about the upcoming SpaceX mission to the ISS and Nanoracks. From here we started talking about MirCorp & the efforts to privately buy Mir, Walt's role in that, what happened with NASA, Dan Goldin, even Dennis Tito. Walt discussed the electrostatic tether project & what happened just a day too late. Rick Tumlinson called & also talked about Mir, Dennis Tito, & this early commercial attempt to buy the Mir Space Station. At my request, Rick told us about his new Earthlight Institute project. Near the end, Walt was asked about suborbital space developments & citizen science projects. Final discussion topics included his preference for either human spaceflight or commercial robotic missions, asteroid and lunar mining, & NASA budget issues. Walt left us with a set of thoughtful concluding comments so make sure you hear them. Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show Blog. If you want to email Walt, do so through me & I will forward your note to him. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 06 Oct 2012 00:59:07 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
The John Batchelor Show "Hotel Mars," Wednesday, 10-3-12 (6.22MB; download) -- Guests: John Batchelor, Dr. Dorothy Oehler, Dr. David Livingston: Topics: Mars Curiosity, Mars water & sediments, Gale Crater. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments, questions, and any discussion must be relevant and applicable to Space Show programming. Written 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. This program is archived on The Space Show website, podcasting, and blog sites with permission from John Batchelor. Please visit the John Batchelor Show website for more information about this fine program, www.johnbatchelorshow.com. During our 11.5 minute discussion, Dr. Oehler, John, and I talked about the recent NASA announcement confirming an ancient streambed in Gale Crater and the high probability of flowing water in ancient Martian time. We talked about the possibility of competing theories to the ancient streambed conclusion, the absence of plate tectonics on Mars, rounded Martian pebbles, possible habitation, and much more. Please post any comments/questions you might have about this discussion on The Space Show blog. If you want to contact John Batchelor or Dr. Dorothy Oehler about this program, please do so through me. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:26:25 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
John Powell, Tuesday, 10-2-12 (61.72MB; download) -- Guest: John Powell. Topics: JP Aerospace updates re PongSats, Airship to orbit, orbital physics for a balloon. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. Please visit the JP Aerospace website to follow along with us and for more information: www.jpaerospace.com. We welcomed back John Powell for updates regarding JP Aerospace. John started off with information about his recently concluded six high altitude balloon flights. He also talked about advertising programs, TV commercials, and his successfully completed Kickstarter program. Other programs mentioned in this segment included the new JP MiniCubes and information about his Airship to Orbit (ATO) program. Listeners asked John about the package of information they received after a flight, plus his plans to 140,000 feet and then from 140,000 feet to orbit. He talked about the Ascender and even registered a listener for an upcoming PongSat flight. In our second segment, John told about his remaining 2012 flights, their flight expectations for 2013, plus I asked him about the costs involved for a typical weather balloon mission to 100,000 feet. John fielded several additional listener questions including several and one phone call from Trent in Australia. John responded to questions about his volunteer workforce and we learned that there were no aerospace engineers working with JP. Listeners asked him about his timeline to orbit which he said was around ten years. As the program was close to ending at the two hour mark, Charles Pooley called in about being skeptical that an airship can muster the energy needed to go to orbit. This was a good and passionate discussion between Charles and John. Charles kept saying he put his trust in Mother Nature (the laws of physics) and John said that it was a challenge but was optimistic that they would figure out a way to do it, especially since they would be air launched. Part of the discussion focused on the very early Echo test flights. You can read about the Echo flights which used a rocket at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch6.htm. See what you think and let us know on the blog. If you have comments/questions please post them on The Space Show blog. You can email John through me or his website. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:52:30 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Rand Simberg, Monday, Oct. 1, 2012 (60.18MB; download) -- Guest: Rand Simberg. Topics: "Our irrational Quest For Absolute Safety in Spaceflight." You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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 back Rand Simberg to discuss his views on space safety with human spaceflight. On the heels of his successful Kickstarter campaign to finance his upcoming book on the subject, he discussed his early draft book ideas on this subject. While the program was two hours in length in two equal segments, this summary will reflect our discussion without regards to the segments because our overriding themes and our discussion carried over from segment to segment. Rand provided us with the background for his interest in this topic, he shared some logistical information with us as to how Kickstarter works and then we talked about the topic. Rand is purposely provocative both in the draft of the book that I read plus in our discussion today. Rand wanted to be provocative to help drive the point that in his opinion, we need a national discussion as to the importance of our space program & missions. He points out through a good historical summary in the book and on the show that in past exploration and big projects, we were willing to risk human life to accomplish the mission. To be clear, he does not advocate carelessness, stupidity, or anything like that but he says if space is really important, the mission or the objective should be more valuable than the life of the crew. Since we pursue ultimate astronaut safety, it confirms that what we are doing in space is not important. He cited example after example of this & I brought in additional examples including DOD & our Rules of Engagement in our Middle Eastern wars as our military safety takes second place or worse to the policy goals. The Hubble repair mission was an example of NASA reversing the initial policy where clearly the administrator at the time would not risk a crew and instead would let the HST be destroyed. Dr. Griffin reversed that decision showing that keeping Hubble going was valuable and worth the human risk. We had lots of callers and emailers, some agreeing with Rand and others more or less in agreement with him but challenging him in some areas of his discussion. Rand has some terrific one liners in the book and he said some on air. One such impactful line can be found near the end of the draft version of his book that I have as he is writing about opening up the harsh frontier & needing a rational approach to the space safety issue by saying "If we really mean it, we will dedicate a (large) national cemetery to those who will die in doing so." Again, his purpose is to be provocative to make his point. Rand was asked if he has talked up his ideas to members of congress, staffers, policy makers, and such. Listen to how he responded to these questions. He was completely frank about it, including responding to questions about the impact his blog writings and those of others have on our current policy. Calling for a national discussion as to what our space policy should be, including how we value the purpose & the mission as compared to the astronauts is an important idea. If you have comments/questions for Rand Simberg regarding this two hour discussion, please post them on The Space Show blog above. If you want to email Rand, you can do so through me or his blog, www.transterrestrial.com.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:52:07 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Erik Seedhouse, Sunday, 9-30-12 (49.98MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Erik Seedhouse. Topics: Ocean outposts, living underwater, and the oceans as an analog to space. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. Dr. Erik Seedhouse returned to discuss his book "Outpost: The Future of Humans Living Underwater. If you buy the book from Amazon with this URL, Amazon will contribute to The Space Show: www.amazon.com/Ocean-Outpost-Underwater-Springer-Popular/dp/1441963561/ref=onegiantlea20. In our first segment, Dr. Seedhouse introduced us to the subject of living underwater. We discussed some of the basics per the outline suggested by the contents in his book. You can see the book's contents at www.amazon.com/Ocean-Outpost-Underwater-Springer-Popular/dp/1441963561/ref=onegiantlea20#reader_1441963561. Follow along for the general topic discussion. He received questions about comparing living underwater to living in space or perhaps on the Moon or Mars. I asked our guest about human factors issues such as those experienced in long duration spaceflight. Dr. Seedhouse talked about bone necrosis with the saturation divers. Other issues in this segment dealt with scuba as a pre-requisite for spaceflight training, the recent deep dive in a small submarine by James Cameron, and the amount of money spent on ocean habitat R&D compared to that being spent in space. In our second segment, we went into detail on many of the topics in his book including biochemical decompression, liquid breathing, vasculoid, and artificial gills. We compared space suits to dive suits, specifically the ADS2000 hard suit. Several listeners called in asking about time lines for operational ocean outposts and habitats as well as many of the advanced technologies Dr. Seedhouse was telling us about. Near the end of the program, our guest went into more detail about budgets for developing the capacity to live underwater as compared to the NASA budget and what the private space sector is now doing. Erik also compared the amount of press, media , & PR given to space matters as related to ocean matters. If you have comments/questions, please post them on The Space Show blog above. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:33:44 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. James (Jim) Vedda, Friday, 9-28-12 (51.76MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. James (Jim) Vedda. Topics: Dr. Vedda's new book addressing cislunar development rather than destinations. You are invited to comment, ask questions, and discuss the Space Show program/guest(s) on the Space Show blog, http://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. Jim Vedda back to the program to discuss his new book, "Becoming Spacefarers: Rescuing America's Space Program." If you order the book using this Amazon link, Amazon will make a donation to The Space Show: www.amazon.com/Becoming-Spacefarers-James-A-Vedda/dp/1477130918/ref=onegiantlea20. Dr. Vedda started our discussion by responding to my question about what he meant by "rescuing America's space program." This opened the way for most of the first segment to lay out the recent history of our space program and how we arrived at where we are today, Sept. 29, 2012. Issues talked about during this narrative included Obama Space, Constellation, SLS, congressional actions, partisan divides, space vision, goals, timelines, space telescopes, Orion, Earth/Moon libration points as a destination, and much more. We talked about the purposes of various missions & plans and if the stated purpose was sufficient or not for spending public money on it and carrying it out to completion. We then shifted to the Romney Presidential Campaign Space White Paper (www.scribd.com/doc/106652769/Space-Policy-White-Paper?secret_password=a0i3o1yj25ed5ycop3w). Dr. Vedda mentioned that space policy has not always been bipartisan & he provided examples to support his statement. We started the second segment by talking about our being in the training or initial phase of his three stages of space development. The other two phases include cislunar development followed by space settlement & expansion throughout the solar system. Dr. Vedda made the case for proximity operations in our space development program plus the need for strong public/private partnerships and when warranted, international cooperation with space projects. Later in this segment, I asked Jim to outline for us his action plan, just how he would initiate a space development program per what he outlines in the book & discussed with us. In response to my question, Jim outlined several initial steps that need to be taken to get the ball rolling. See what you think of them and let us know with your blog comments. We also talked about the general public, how Jim would make his case were he speaking at a Rotary lunch, and the best way to have a say & impact policy makers. One of our final topics included the newly proposed bill to do multi-year congressional funding of space projects, make use of a to be created space project oversight panel, and have the Administrator serve a ten year term. As you will hear, we supported the multi-year funding part of this proposed legislation. Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can email Dr. Vedda through me. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 29 Sep 2012 03:38:30 UTC
|
| << < 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 > >> | |