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 |
| << < 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 > >> | |
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Ralph McNutt, Thursday, 7-15-10 (55.59MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Ralph McNutt: American spacecraft and plutonium power sources, Mercury, Messenger, Cassini. We welcomed Dr. Ralph McNutt of the Applied Physics Lab to the program. We started our first segment with a discussion of the use of Plutonium 238 as a power source for American spacecraft, asking the questions about why there appears to be so much resistance to anything nuclear in space by broad groups of concerned people. As you will hear, Dr. McNutt said that by using Plutonium 238, we were and are able to do things in space with various missions that we could not do otherwise. Dr. McNutt provided us with a very brief history of radiation and the early use of radioactive isotopes in the early days of the space program. We also talked about the half life of plutonium at 88 years and what this means for the life expectancy of space craft. As Dr. McNutt mentioned some of the early missions that are still operating, we asked him about using the old technology with today's advanced technology by comparison. This was a very interesting discussion on what NASA and the science community has to do to interpret the old data, upgrade equipment and software here on Earth but still keep it communicating with spacecraft using much earlier technology from the 60's and 70's. Listeners started asking our guests about fusion so don't miss his comments on this subject. We started our second segment with a call from Bruce in Canada regarding nuclear propulsion and interstellar travel to the nearest start, Alpha Centauri which is 4.3 light years away. This is a discussion you will want to hear. After the call from Bruce, we talked about the Messenger spacecraft and Mercury. Most of the information from Messenger about Mercury is posted on the website, http://messenger.jhuapl.edu. Much is being learned about Mercury as you will hear and in mid-March 2011, Messenger should go into orbit around Mercury rather just flying by it. We then received a call from listener Dwayne who discussed the old Faster, Better Cheaper NASA program as Messenger was one of those programs. This led to a discussion about having launched Messenger using a Delta 2 but now that Delta 2 was no longer available, launch costs were significantly higher and being taking out of payload funding. We talked about lower launch cost options including the Space X Falcon 9 and learned that usually companies look for at least seven successful launches of a new rocket before there is sufficient confidence to use it. This is another very important discussion you will want to hear. Later, another caller brought back the fusion topic and our guest mentioned the once secret U.S. Project Sherwood which was a program focusing on controlled nuclear fusion under the Atoms for Peace program of President Eisenhower. As we neared the end of the program, I asked what was expected from Mercury as Messenger enters orbit around the planet about March 18, 2011. Dr. McNutt told us several things to be looking for so listen carefully as our discussion comes to an end. In addition, he told us that information gets posted with about a six month delay on the NASA Planetary Data System website, http://pds.nasa.gov. Its worth checking this site on a regular basis. If you have comments or questions for Dr. Ralph McNutt, please send them to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will forward them to him. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:34:30 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Burton Lee, Tuesday, 7-13-10 (50.16MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Burton Lee. Topics: European Commission Space Research Program (ECSRP) and European space consortia for American space companies. We welcomed back Dr. Burton Lee to discuss the European Commission Space Research Program for American space companies and the upcoming July 21, 2010 Stanford University Open Meeting for business and university researchers interested in applying for limited European Commission grant funds in areas such as cubesats, space transportation and propulsion systems, robotic exploration technologies, and NEOs. You can find out more information about his organization and its place in the FP7 European Commission CORDIS at http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/cooperation/space_en.html. In our first segment, Dr. Lee provided us with the basic information about the European Commission Space Research Program and the European Framework 7 Program (see http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html). In this discussion, we learned about the relationship of this organization with ESA and the fact that the ECSRP has a total budget of about 200 million Euros as compared to ESA's budget of 3745 million Euros. We learned that American companies wanting to participate in the program need to work through a European consortium that manages the program, applies to the ECSRP with their version of an RFP and disburses the funding to the consortium members, including the American company. We also learned that maintaining geographical diversity is important in grant approval and allocation. As we started the second segment, a listener asked Dr. Lee what was in it for an American company to participate in the program given the level of funding was small and that a European company/university had to be the lead on the team and the project manager. As you will hear, Dr. Lee said that the European space community was developing, expanding, and growing. U.S. companies see this as a way to get a foothold in this emerging and important space market. Dr. Lee also talked about the Framework 7 Protocols. Listeners asked Burton about space entrepreneurship and the commercial sector in Europe. You will definitely want to hear what our guest had to say about this space sector as applied to European space development. We then talked about the upcoming July 21, 2010 conference held at Stanford University from 8:30AM to 12:30 PM with a networking reception following the session. Limited open seating is available so if you are interested in attending, you need to contact Dr. Lee by email as soon as possible to get the information and have it processed by representatives of the European Commission. If interested, please send your email to Dr. Burton Lee at blee@stanford.edu. Make sure you tell him you heard him on The Space Show. Dr. Lee was also asked about this program being made available to other space oriented nations. He said South Africa and Russia were involved in the program before the United States but did not know about other nations. Another topic Burton told us about focused on intellectual property (IP) brought to the consortium by the American company or developed in cooperation with the specific consortium members. In the third segment, we inquired about the use of a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to protect the U.S. company IP. We also talked about the ECSRP having an interest in appealing to the general public rather than just the targeted organizations and companies. Toward the end of the program, I asked Burton for his assessment on the space economy in the U.S, specifically in the entrepreneurial and startup fields. His economic and financial assessment was most interesting and informative. You will certainly want to hear it. For questions and comments, please direct them to Dr. Lee's email address above. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:15:35 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Drs. Mark Lewis & Lance Chenault, Monday, 7-12-10 (45.77MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Mark Lewis, Dr. C.F. Lance Chenault. Topics: AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, current and advanced space propulsion. We welcomed Dr. Mark Lewis and Dr. Lance Chenault to the program to discuss this important AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference along with the 8th Annual International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference to be held July 25-28, 2010 at the Nashville Convention Center & Renaissance Hotel in Nashville, TN. For more information, please visit the conference website, www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230&lumeetingid=2347. Our program was in two 45 minute segments with Dr. Lewis being the first guest followed by Dr. Chenault in the second segment. If you are interested in checking out the conference agenda which we talked about during this program, please visit the 56 page preliminary agenda at http://aiaa-mjpc10.abstractcentral.com/societyimages/aiaa-mjpc10/AIAA-MJPC10_Program_Matrix_2.pdf. We started our discussion with Dr. Lewis with a description of the conference and the sponsors to it, plus the joint conference sharing with the International Energy Conversion Engineering (IECE). We talked about the conference contents and the availability of advanced or out of the box future concepts being represented in the conference. Dr. Lewis said that there was such research included but such presentations and papers had to stand the basic test of adhering to the known rules of physics. Listener questions asked about chemical rockets and new solutions for space access. This prompted Dr. Lewis to talk about rockets, exotic fuels and more. We spent considerable time talking about the advantages of attending this conference for students including favorable student pricing. All students should definitely consider attending this conference and all AIAA conferences. Dr. Lewis highlighted some of the keynote speakers and we concluded this segment with a discussion about the need for heavy lift vehicles if we are to do anything beyond LEO and conference presentations on the subject. We started the second part of our show with an introduction to Dr. C.F. Lance Chenault who spent considerable time highlighting both keynote speakers and special panels on each day of the conference. You can follow this discussion and find out more about the keynote speakers and the special panels by using the above URL to the conference preliminary agenda. We talked about conference logistics and were told that there were about 700 papers accepted for the conference out of about 1200 papers submitted. Toward the end of this segment, we talked about hypersonics and scramjets, then conference logistics between the AIAA part and the IECE parts. As you will hear, they are completely interchangeable and transparent. Toward the end of the show, Dr. Chenault fielded questions about solids versus liquids for human spaceflight and solar sails. If you have questions or comments for our two guests, please send them to me at drspace@thespceshow.com and I will forward them to the guests or AIAA so you can get a prompt answer/response.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:22:26 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
The Space Show Classroom Lesson 11, July 11, 2010 (57.92MB; download) -- Guests: Classroom featuring Brian Weeden, Dr. Livingston, Dr. John Jurist. Topic: Space Sustainability: Environmental and Crowding Issues Across All Orbital Domains. Lesson 11 for The Space Show Classroom focused on Space Sustainability issues with guest instructor Brian Weeden of the Secure World Foundation. Brian's paper on this subject is on the Classroom Blog under Lesson 11 Presentation Materials and at www.secureworldfoundation.org/images/SWF_Space%20Sustainability%20Booklet.pdf. We started our first of two segments with a definition of space sustainability and where we as space-fairing nations were in terms of a pending disaster because of orbital debris pollution. We talked about human spaceflight and issues surrounding it. From our human spaceflight discussion, we evolved to satellites of all types and scientific payloads. One of the questions and comments brought up by Dr. Jurist was the difference between natural debris and man made debris. Brian also took us through Conjunction Assessment and we discussed it in terms of the US and the Russians who are the only ones that can do it at this time. A listener brought up issues about potential SSP systems. As you will hear, there is not much debris in the orbits that would be used for an SSP system. Listen carefully to what Brian said about this. We talked about GPS and its importance and how evolved economies would be adversely impacted without access to space resources. As we drew to a close in the first segment, Brian talked about the size of objects and said being hit by anything 7CM and larger would be catastrophic. From 1-6CM serious damage would be sustained. As we started the second segment, we summarized and addressed a few additional questions on orbital debris and GPS, including a discussion on the vulnerability of GPS to a hostile attack. We then focused our attention on Space Situational Awareness (SSA)which implies one knows what is going on in space all the time. So far, the US and the Russians are the strongest nations applying SSA but more and more countries are starting to use it. SSA also implies the use of Space Traffic Management. Some of the questions Brian brought to our attention included who pays for these services and who makes important decisions. He said the UN Treaties were OK but were based on the framework of the Cold War. What is happening now is more in line with voluntary agreements. Brian also said there was no legal definition for space debris so legally there no way to discriminate between valuable space hardware and useless space debris. We talked about which countries are getting more and more involved in these discussions and as it turns out, most do, even those nations considered rogue. Toward the end of the program, a question came in about the use of a nuclear bomb to deflect or destroy an incoming NEO. Brian said it was not allowed by current treaties but that the problem would not be solved until a real incident was upon us and a nuclear nation had to make such a decision. We talked about the role of the UN COPUOS, the UN Action Team 14 and the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC). For your questions and comments, please post them on The Space Show Classroom Blog under this post at http://spaceshowclassroom.wordpress.com. All questions sent to me will be posted on the blog. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:48:36 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Clive Neal, Monday, 7-5-10 (46.90MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Clive Neal. Topics: Lunar exploration, space vision and space policy. We welcomed Dr. Clive Neal who is the chair of NASAs Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) to the show. Please visit their website at www.lpi.usra.edu/leag. In our fist segment, we started out talking about water on the Moon, how much and where. This discussion evolved into the vision for returning to the Moon and the need for a lunar exit strategy so we don't get bogged down and not go anyplace else in the solar system. Dr. Neal then spoke of the roadmap for solar system exploration, our new National Space Policy, and leadership issues, goals, and clarity. When asked why the Moon, he said it was important due to its proximity to Earth, it was a hostile environment, that we needed to learn to live off world, and that we could see it. We talked about the need to learn to do insitu resource utilization and if we did not do it, other nations probably would. A listener asked him a question about the Thatcher ban of human spaceflight in the UK, a ban that was only recently lifted. Another listener asked about the Apollo era lunar seismographs left on the Moon and Dr. Neal had much to say about this project and what learned about moonquakes and the Moon. We talked about lunar caves and the Moon as a source of inspiration for students and others. Toward the end of the segment, Dr. Neal said he wanted to dispel the myth that was also cited by President Obama when announcing his policy regarding the Moon that we had been there and done that. In the second segment, I asked our guest to explain why we needed to go to the Moon as if he were fighting for the program in front of members of Congress. Dr. Neal spoke about the payback for returning to the Moon and space exploration. He also talked about the Moon being a jobs creating program. Listen carefully to what he had to say about this. We also talked about options of going to a NEO or Mars and of using the Moon for SSP beamed back to Earth. Dr. Neal focused on building synergies rather than competing and handling problems. A listener asked him for the next step in lunar exploration and he said there would soon be a mission plan on the LEAG website. Listener Trent asked about comparing robots on the Moon to humans and this sparked a good discussion. Listener Jim inquired into the behind the scenes meaning for the statement made by President Obama about been there done that. This also promoted a good exchange with our guest. In our third and final segment, we talked about the cancellation of Constellation and what this meant for going anyplace beyond LEO. Dr. Neal focused on the need for heavy lift. I then discussed the arguments used by many who are not supportive of heavy lift. Dr. Neal was asked if he thought the private sector would go to the Moon, not the government. He said not without a commercial reason and ultimate payback. We then talked about the need for a long term vision transcending many different administrations, perhaps a 40 year vision. As he explained, there is very little payoff for a President or member of Congress to be supportive of such a long term goal but that such long term funding and visionary leadership was essential since space was costly and cannot be done overnight. Project M came up regarding HD cameras on the Moon. I then summarized some of the questions asked by Evon regarding the philosophical differences between scientists and explorer/developers. As you will hear, Dr. Neal again stressed synergy, not the differences. Dr. Neal left us with important closing comments which really were Pearls of Wisdom. Don't miss them. If you have a question for Dr. Clive Neal, please email him at neal.1@nd.edu. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 05 Jul 2010 23:38:02 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Robert (Bobby) Block, Friday, 7-2-10 (49.55MB; download) -- Guest: Bobby Block. Topics: space journalism, space policy news, Florida Space Coast. We welcomed Bobby Block, Space Editor for the Orlando Sentinel to the show. We started our first segment which was one hour by asking Bobby about his transition to space journalism from his previous journalistic assignments at the Wall Street Journal, as a foreign correspondent, even covering various global hot spots. You will find his transition story interesting. Bobby offered us his opinion on Florida space policy and politics and some of the positions being articulated by Senator Nelson in the state. He spent considerable time describing the state of the current situation regarding space policy, NASA, the government, Florida, etc. One word he used was "messy." He did say two things were certain: Payments to Russia for flights on the Soyuz and the Cots program. We talked about the Space Coast job layoff situation and asked the hard to answer question about the balance between space as a jobs program and space for the best space program the nation can have. We talked about new technology and job creation, not just in space. Toward the end of this particular discussion I asked if the commercial sector could create a sufficient number of new jobs to compensate for the jobs being lost. You might be surprised by his response. Toward the end of this segment, a caller asked about the Orlando Sentinel reporting on the 2009 article about a preliminary 45th Space Wing AF study showing that the crew of Orion "will not survive" an explosion of the Ares I rocket within the first minute of launch because blazing chunks of solid-rocket fuel would melt the parachutes on the crew-escape system (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/08/nasa-begs-to-differ-on-ares-i-launch-aborts.html). This was an important discussion, not just in terms of Orion and Ares 1 crew safety and abort, but in terms of Air Force reports and the reporting carried out by the Orlando Sentinel. You can read the controversial report at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17465006/USAF-Report-Ares-I-Abort-Will-Kill-Orion-Crew. I urge you to seek out the counter arguments to the engineering and physics of this report. Several Space Show programs have even addressed problems with this report. As we started the second segment, a caller discussed sustainability and the challenges to anything new represented by those supporting the status quo. During this segment, a listener suggested that the space program new policy had the mark of Lori Garver, Deputy Administrator. Bobby commented on that assumption and refuted it by calling our attention to the new U.S. Space Policy released earlier this week with a significant focus on national security and DOD. Listen to his full explanation. Another listener addressed the loss of a skill set of needed employees that would impact our ability to go to deep space. Bobby reminded us that civil space was not a national security program, its part of the discretionary budget, and its treated as such. A listener from Italy asked about NASA stories leaked to the press. Bobby said this was natural across all branches and activities of the government. In summarizing his comments, Mr. Block said the new space policy had some good points in it but portions of it were not good politics. Civil space was not a defense program. He did not know what the outcome would be for FY 11 due to the confusion and mess in the debate. He said in the background, the arguments are solids versus liquids and there is no leadership to pull any idea or school of thought together. If we have a year of fighting and CR, the risk is the NASA budget might be reduced and human spaceflight might be deferred or undermined for years to come. If you have a question or comment for Bobby Block, you can reach him at RBlock@orlandosentinel.com. His blog, The Write Stuff, can be found at http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:57:19 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Paul Mueller, John Culverhouse, Tuesday, 6-29-10 (50.94MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Paul Mueller, John Culverhouse. Topics: Experimental Sounding Rocket Association (ESRA) 2010 competition, student rocket clubs and launches. We welcomed back Dr. Paul Mueller, Chief Engineer for ESRA to update us on this year's college student competition for ESRA. John Culverhouse of the winning team from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (E-R) joined us to talk about his team's entry and rocket clubs in general. For more information, please visit the ESRA website at www.soundingrocket.org. In our first segment, Dr. Mueller provided us with a summary of this year's competition which was held June 16-18 at Green River, Utah. Teams had to launch a 10 lb payload to 10,000 feet, recover the payload and the rocket, make a presentation and provide a conference type paper on their rocket project. This year they had four teams with about 50 students in total. As you will hear, two teams made it to an altitude higher than 10,000 feet, one team reached 8,840 feet and the other reached 7,900 feet. A team actually looses points if they go higher than the stated altitude objective due to the FAA waiver that the competition obtained. We also talked about student and college competitions in general, as well as rocket clubs. John Culverhouse described the E-R winning entry and then based on listener questions, we took a look at the team costs for building, developing, and participating in the competition. Toward the end of this segment, Paul talked about the advance division of the contest to launch to 25,000 feet. In the second segment, Paul talked about the workshops that they are developing for the teams in association with Utah State regarding hybrid rocket motor development. Later in the segment, ITAR came up as there might be foreign teams wanting to enter the competition including some from Canada. In the context of ITAR, guidance was discussed with roll control and also pitch and yaw. Listen carefully to what Dr. Mueller had to say about this and what he has to do to comply with ITAR rules. Later in this segment, I asked John about the E-R students and their thoughts on Obama space since they are located in the heart of the Space Coast in Florida. He told us the students were upset that there would be no human spaceflight and in fact have signed a petition about this which they sent to every member of Congress. Listen to what John had to say about the student reaction to the FY 11 space budget and policy proposal. Paul brought up an interesting unintended consequence that as a professor he is aware of in that the transition to commercial and low cost space access may ultimately imply less jobs, not more jobs. A major way of achieving low cost is through using less labor. He said this may ultimately impact those seeking aerospace engineering careers as the number of jobs in the field could be reduced. Listen to the complete discussion on this subject. In our last segment, John talked about the E-R senior project to launch ICARUS 3 to space. He mentioned their need for a launch site and said that when ICARUS 1 was launched out of Wallops, the cost for tracking and related services was about $200,000 for the rocket which went to 37.5 miles in altitude. In the latter part of this segment, Paul summarized this year's event at Green River and then we responded to a listener question about the quality of college faculty advisors for rocket teams. If you have a question for Dr. Paul Mueller, he can be reached at paul.mueller.iii@gmail.com or through the ESRA website. John Culverhouse can be reached at jchouse90@gmail.com. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:41:35 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Dan Rasky and Bruce Thieman, Friday, 6-25-10 (44.44MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Daniel Rasky and Bruce Thieman. Topics: CRASTE 2010, commercial space perspectives with the Air Force and NASA. We welcomed both our guests to discuss the upcoming CRASTE 2010 conference (www.usasymposium.com/craste/default.htm). Known as the Commercial and Government Responsive Access To Space Technology Exchange, this conference will be at NASA Ames from Oct. 25-28, 2010. As you will hear when listening to this show, both the Air Force and NASA are committed to commercial space development and our guests carefully and fully explained their different approaches. During our first segment, Dr. Rasky explained CRASTE and the focus on using cargo and the various programs over time that have addressed space commercialization and low cost space access. Mr. Thieman provided us with the Air Force and AFRL perspective and history and how the two organizations came together for the CRASTE series of conferences. We talked about reusability, first stages, suborbital and how these technologies play into our future. On the NASA side, we talked about both orbital and suborbital companies, projects, and the COTS program. The two groups realized that commercial markets go hand in foot with lowering the cost of space access. We talked about priorities for both NASA and the Air Force. Each guest listed the priorities from their perspective but the one thing in common for both the AF and NASA was the need to lower the cost of space access. A listener inquired about suborbital and orbital velocities and trajectories for point to point. As we were mostly talking about cargo, suborbital seems to be the focus for distances of 2-3,000 KM. Toward the end of this segment, we found out that part of SSP was a priority, specifically power beaming within space. Our guests said the jury was out on beaming power to Earth as a market. We started the second segment with some registration and citizenship requirements for attending CRASTE 2010. Another listener asked questions about point to point with high value cargo such as organ transplants and wondered if it would be more cost effective to work on making the organs last longer rather than the more costly approach of point to point travel. Don't miss this discussion. At one point, our guests said they were looking for a 2.5X cost reduction using the Falcon 9. Our guests mentioned the NASA CRuSR. Bruce mentioned the term "Turn Time" referring to being able to refurbish or reuse the vehicle in 24-48 hours. In addition, these groups seek airline like operations and want to be 70% operational for all weather. We talked about the SUSTAIN mission and compared human point to point with cargo point to point. We talked about time lines so listen to when we might see these technologies developed. At the end of this segment, our guests were asked a what if question should Ares and Constellation continue as such programs are seemingly at odds with the goals discussed by our guests today. We started the third and final segment for the show with a discussion of workforce and available jobs and the need for STEM workers. We learned that to work for DOD, there is a citizenship/Green Card requirement. Dan then talked about new markets and we focused on space biotech. He had much to say about this emerging commercial space business so don't miss the discussion. Other space programs were mentioned and we learned about competition and who is doing what and that the U.S. could be over taken if we don't continue investing in space. Operationally Responsive Space was part of our discussion, focusing on getting effective use out of small sats as compared to the larger ones. Toward the end of the show, I inquired about the status of the CRuSR program and Bigelow Aerospace. If you have a question or comment for either of our guests or both of them, please send it to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will forward it on your behalf. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Fri, 25 Jun 2010 22:49:16 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Ryan McLinko, Wednesday, 6-23-10 (45.24MB; download) -- Guest: Ryan McLinko. Topic: Space Frontier Foundation's New Space 2010 Conference. Ryan McLinko returned to discuss the upcoming New Space 2010 Conference with us today. The Conference is July 23-25, 2010 at the Domain Hotel in Sunnyvale, California. For more information about New Space 2010, please visit http://newspace2010.spacefrontier.org/index.php. While our program unfolded in the typical three segments, this description will avoid the segment by segment write-up. Ryan started out telling us about the New Space Conference, the general conference information and the them which is "New Space Ready For Takeoff!" Initially, Ryan took us through the agenda and plans for the conference, then we returned and went through each day of the conference, the speakers, and the panels in detail. Each day has a sub theme as you will hear. For example, Friday is about "The Thrill of Victory, the Agony of Defeat: The Business of NewSpace", Saturday is about "Pushing the Limits: Challenges Facing NewSpace Today," and Sunday is about "Beyond the Horizon: The NewSpace and New Worlds of Tomorrow." Ryan then talked about the Gala Event which is set for Saturday evening and will include the awarding of several SFF awards. The conference is single track but there are going to be some breakout sessions. Listeners asked about SFF membership and as you will hear, there is no membership. He also said there was no Early Bird registration fee but if registration is purchased at the door, it will be more costly than online registration. We went through lunches and the speakers and learned that for the SFF Advocates, there will be a special reception Thursday evening, July 22 at the Domain Hotel. As for logistics for the conference, the closest airport is in San Jose but listeners might also consider Oakland's airport (OAK) or San Francisco International (SFO). There is also a ride sharing option at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AkLS84-tr8HGdGIyckpidFVVRGJ4RXlYY2JsNkE2eHc&hl=en#gid=0. Check it out if you need transportation to and from the airport. If you have questions or comments about the New Space 2010 Conference, please contact Ryan McLinko at ryan.mclinko@spacefrontier.org.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:46:02 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Sam Dinkin, Tuesday, 6-22-10 (53.95MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Sam Dinkin. Topics: Private development of space. Dr. Sam Dinkin returned for this nearly two hour Space Show program to discuss his June 21, 2010 The Space Review (TSR) article, "Individuals Pick Up The Space Development Torch (www.thespacereview.com/article/1648/1). In our first segment, Sam put forth his thesis that Space X and the success of the Falcon 9 excited people and that in time many people will be able to afford to have a rocket company. Also that government does not do as good a job as the private companies and he referenced recent launch failures in India, South Korea, and the problems the U. S. is having, probably around Constellation. A listener asked Dr. Dinkin why he classified Space X as private when the bulk of its funding comes from government and its customer is government. Sam also referenced suborbital work and their RFPs though Sam was reminded that suborbital was not orbital. Dr. Dinkin mentioned a possible Space X IPO but listeners suggested the economic timing and the need to more fully validate the success of the company was needed. As we started our second segment of the program, Larry asked Sam if he would have written the Space Review article had the Falcon 9 launch been unsuccessful. Sam said no and that we would still be waiting for Space X or another company to step up and do what he talks about in his article. We talked about the GAP and Sam suggested he would like to see the Russians restart their old space program from the Apollo days about going to the Moon. Don't miss this discussion. In this segment, we talked about space goals as a function of a destination and time line with regards to the administration policy proposal. Sam suggested that space itself was a sufficient destination. Since many of the comments in his TSR article were critical of what Dr. Dinkin had to say, I asked Sam about the criticism and how it impacted him. Again, don't miss what he had to say about this. A listener asked Sam to compare his focus on private space to the focus of Dr. Foust in his TSR article of the same date saying the space development future would likely involve public/private partnerships. Sam had much to say about this which you will want to hear. Another listener asked Sam why he thought the Falcon 9 launch did not close the deal for a definite transition to commercial space. Sam had much to say on this subject but for the most part talked about the need to change the paradigm and that Congress is still stuck with the status quo outlook toward things. Artificial gravity on the ISS came up, our guest mentioned a Japanese centrifuge and the possibility that Bigelow might partner with a launcher to do things along the lines of the discussion on one of his own space stations. Heavy lift was discussed and Sam said he supported the Augustine Commission position. He also said heavy lift was optional and we could use lots of lighter lift and on orbit construction. Mars came up and he was asked to comment on time tables from the one expressed by Dr. Zubrin to the less specific approach in the administration program. He suggested lunar development should be a one way settlement program. In the final segment, Sam was asked about his awarding a suborbital spaceflight to one of the players of the former game Space Shot. Regarding space policy, he was asked for his ideas on a possible policy compromise. ITAR reform came up in the context of expanding business opportunities. There was an elaborate discussion of robotic space versus human spaceflight and I offered comments from several futurists as to how they see AI taking us to space, not humans. We then switched to discussing the US economic deficit and Sam shared his economic thoughts with us on the deficit, interest, inflation, and more. See if you agree. If you have a question or comment for Dr. Sam Dinkin, you can email him at sam@dinkin.com or you can call him at 1-888-4-DINKIN. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:16:57 UTC
|
| << < 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 > >> | |