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 |
| << < 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 > >> | |
| Add this to another station |
Professor Frans G. von der Dunk, Friday, 5-14-10 (54.52MB; download) -- Guest: Professor Dr. Frans von der Dunk. Topics: International and transatlantic space governance. Professor Dr. Frans G. von der Dunk of the Space and Telecom Law Center of the University of Nebraska Law School in Lincoln, NE was our guest for today. Please visit their website to find out more about their program, http://spaceandtelecomlaw.unl.edu/home. In our first segment, Dr. von der Dunk told us about the recent conference, Space Security and Space Tourism: Challenges to, and Transatlantic Perspectives on Governance. To find out more about this recent conference and see most of the Power Point presentations from the two day meeting, visit http://spaceandtelecomlaw.unl.edu/conferences/lincolnconference/powerpoints. Our guest told us there was a focus on suborbital flights, the technology and regulations needed for suborbital point to point transportation, and some of the issues facing the European regulatory agencies for space traffic management. We talked about Sweden, the copying of the FAA AST policies, even the potential space launch impact of the Icelandic volcano and the restrictions that followed the eruption to much of European air space. At the end of the segment, we started talking about space debris issues and courts with jurisdiction to hear a space debris claim. As we started the second segment, we moved to security issues and a discussion about weapons in space. Here, Dr. von der Dunk described a weapon in space, explained the existing space treaty requirements regarding weapons in space and WMDs in space and much more. This is a comprehensive discussion on the issue and I urge all of you to listen to it as it clarifies the treaties on this issue and what nations can and cannot do regarding space weapons. Different nations were discussed in the context of space weapons issues and you might be surprised by what was said about North Korea, Iran, and others. Caller Bruce asked about nuclear power in space in the context of the treaties because of the possibility of using nuclear explosions as part of the propulsion system. Such nuclear explosions would be prohibited by the NPT treaty, not any of the space treaties. Again, this is an excellent discussion regarding the legal uses of nuclear propulsion in space so don't miss it. And remember, its mostly the test ban and similar treaties that prohibit or restrict nuclear space propulsion, not the space treaties. Our third segment started out with a question about the increasing privatization of space and if that means we will see more liability issues for the responsible states. Professor von der Dunk's response might surprise you. During this segment we discussed more space debris issues and the newer concept of space surveillance. Our guest talked about some of the U.S. STRATCOM issues mentioned in the keynote by AF General Kevin Chilton. As this segment ended, the subject of ITAR reform came up with four suggestions for modifying the ITAR restrictions. In our final segment, we continued the ITAR discussion and then inquired about the Space & Telecom Law Center and how it was doing since it is a relatively new program. Listeners and I inquired about the possibility of there being Astrolaw someday when we are engaged in space settlement. You will certainly want to hear this discussion. As the segment closed, I asked our guest to compare the interest space among American students and European students. Again, don't miss this brief but important discussion. If you have questions or comments for Professor Frans von der Dunk, please email him at fvonderdunk2@unl.edu. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 15 May 2010 16:37:53 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Kevin Sloan, Tuesday, 5-11-10 (42.59MB; download) -- Guest: Kevin Sloan. Topic: Mars Society University Rover Challenge 2010 June 3-5, 2010. Kevin Sloan returned to tell us about 2010 Mars Society University Rover Challenge (URC). To learn more about it, visit their website at www.marssociety.org/portal/c/urc. Sign up for their newsletter and URC updates at www.marssociety.org/portal/author/kfsloan. In our first segment, Kevin described the location for URC which is near Hanksville, Utah where the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) is located. Kevin described the four main tasks that the rover teams must successfully accomplish. These include a sample return task, a site survey , an equipment servicing task, and an emergency navigation task. The control room for each robotic team is in a special tent and the only feedback they have with their rovers comes from mounted video cameras and microphones. Kevin explains this and the four tasks in this segment. He also discussed the nine teams that will be competing. You can see the list of teams at www.marssociety.org/portal/c/urc/Teams. Listeners inquired about coming to URC as spectators but Kevin said the site was too remote and they were not set up for visitors/spectators. He did say that there will photos and videos uploaded to the URC website as the challenge is underway. A listener asked about commercial value for the winning rover and Kevin said that for now there were no commercial markets but industry was often present for recruiting and other reasons. In the second segment, Kevin described the Oregon State robotic team with their website video showing the team running their rover the length of a football field running over the football team end to end the length of the field. You can see this video at http://oregonstate.edu/groups/osurc/urc-rover/videos.php. Kevin said most of the teams were in stealth mode so he was unable to describe for us what the other teams were planning for their rovers. In response to a question about one of the teams from Poland, he said that Polish news has been very interested and focused on the rover teams and they get lots of PR in Poland. In this segment, he also talked about the rover specs and that they were limited to a 50 kg weight. In response to a question from Tim, Kevin said that all teams were required to have a detailed plan costing out the elements of their rover. The NASA Robonaut 2 project came up and Kevin talked about it in comparison to the robots designed by the URC teams. As we began the third segment, Kevin spoke about team sponsorships, space grant support, and support from the team's schools. Kevin told us that there was a $15K cap on the hardware for each team rover. Near the end of this segment, he mentioned that their seems to be less of an interest in the aerospace engineering classes but that NewSpace and some of the space activities has helped to keep certain pockets of engineering interesting to students. If you have questions or comments for Kevin Sloan and the URC, please contact him at Kevin@marssociety.org. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 12 May 2010 15:34:32 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Gary Hudson, Monday, 5-10-10 (41.36MB; download) -- Guest: Gary Hudson. Topics: Obama space policy and FY 2011 budget. Gary Hudson was our guest today to speak about the Administration's space policy program and the Fiscal Year 2011 space budget recommendations. In our first segment, Gary defined heavy lift in the context of history. For example, early in the space days in the 1960's, heavy lift was thought to be a million pounds to orbit. Today we talk about 50 to 200 tons to orbit. During this segment we also talked about a Mars mission and commercial launchers and their readiness to transport humans to LEO. The subject of human rating the EELVs was discussed and Gary had much to say about this. We concluded this segment with a detailed discussion about the GAP facing our human spaceflight program. As we started the second segment, we received a call from John in Montana continuing the man rating discussion by asking about the acceleration profiles on Atlas and Delta, citing NASA acceleration standards for launch trajectories. Gary discussed these profiles in the context of the Black Zone Argument. Do not miss what Gary had to say about acceleration profiles and this issue. Anthony from the UK brought up the issue of risk averseness and Gary had much to say about this. This subject led me to go off on one of my rants about the subject and my apologies in advance to anyone I may have offended with my energetic commentary. Mr. Hudson brought up and addressed the COTS program as this segment concluded. We started the third and final segment by discussing the Orion Lite lifeboat concept. Gary liked the idea, talked about it at length and introduced us to the concept of space taxis. This is a discussion you will not want to miss. A listener asked him for his thoughts on the Augustine Commission and our guest said he thought it was the best space panel/commission ever. The issues of having goals and specific deadlines was addressed and Gary said the goal was to be truly space-fairing and to be able to go throughout the solar system with human beings. He said the administration program was very goal oriented. When asked if he was concerned that another nation might get to the Moon before we got back there, he said no. Don't miss his full comments on this subject. At the end of the program, Gary was asked to tell us what he saw for our space program five to ten years out and if our domestic and global economic problems would interfere with space development and expansion. He suggested that we segment our space issues from the rest of what is going on, to compartmentalize. Humans are adaptable and he believes humanity and space will prevail despite present day challenges. If you have comments or questions for Gary Hudson, please send them through me at drspace@thespaceshow.com. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 11 May 2010 15:56:03 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Madhu Thangavelu, Sunday, 5-9-10 (42.15MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Madhu Thangavelu. Topics: USC Astronautics, class team projects for the ISS, Obama space policy, X37B and NEO deterrence. During our first segment, Dr. Thangavelu started our discussion by talking about the reorganization of the USD Division of Astronautical Engineering. To learn more, please visit http://astronautics.usc.edu. He then described his most recent team project class, the Concept Synthesis Studio. The theme for the end of 2009 class was the ISS but the students had to develop out of the box futuristic solutions and projects for using the ISS. He used WebEx to teach the class by distance. Listen to some of the student/team projects that he described during his discussion. As we started the second segment, he talked about another question he asked his students and that was around what to do with the astronauts if our space policy changes and they are mostly flying to the ISS on a Soyuz. One idea he had was to use them as Ambassadors and have them travel around the world promoting space development and human spaceflight. Since Madhu is a Moon guy and has done much work regarding lunar habitats and has books published on the subject, he said he was "let down" by the President's August 15 talk at the Cape. He thinks the Moon should be on the critical path but since its not and the focus is on the ISS, he is working with his students to make the ISS a very valuable and useful asset. He advocated bringing the Indians and Chinese aboard the ISS partnership. He also suggested having a Department of Space and turning the ISS over to private management. Listen to this discussion and see what you think as he advocated the privatization of the ISS. Later in this segment, he talked about the X-37B and suggested it was a game changing potential for human spaceflight and much better than using a capsule. As we started our third segment, we again heard from John in Atlanta with his questions around recovering a rocket from the ocean, specifically a liquid rocket motor. He asked our guest that if we do design a new heavy lift, should we design it from the ground up to be recovered from sea water? Dr. Thangavelu seemed to like the idea. I suggest that John bounce his idea off rocket engineers and those designing and building rockets. Perhaps he should contact members of the Direct 3.0 team or start posting on the engineering based blog www.nasapaceflight.com. Our guest then addressed the X-47B project and its potential. He then talked about his recent Space News article titled "Putting Surplus Nukes to Good Use" (www.spacenews.com/commentaries/1004712-putting-surplus-nukes-good-use.html). If you have questions or comments for Dr. Madhu Thangavelu, please contact him at thangavelu-girardey@cox.net. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 10 May 2010 15:54:16 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Erik Seedhouse, Friday, 5-7-10 (55.95MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Erik Seedhouse. Topics: Astronaut training process, human spaceflight. Dr. Erik Seedhouse returned to discuss with his book, "Prepare For Launch: The Astronaut Training Process." This book is available through the One Giant Leap Foundation (OGLF) Amazon partners page and if you buy it through this URL, Amazon contributes to The Space Show/OGLF: www.amazon.com/dp/1441913491?tag=onegialeafou-20. In our first segment, Dr. Seedhouse said that all national space agencies more or less follow the same astronaut training process. He talked about the number of applicants for the Canadian Space Agency, ESA, and NASA followed by how many are actually selected by each agency. He also suggested that winning candidates spend their academic and professional careers working toward the goal of becoming an astronaut. He talked about the academic background required for pilots and crew members. You won't want to miss this discussion. Toward the end of this segment, I brought up the part of his book that focuses on making very hard decisions in the arena of spaceflight bioethics. Again, don't miss this discussion. Erik compared the decision making process to decisions made by earlier remote expeditions and sailing ventures, suggesting that in the end the mission captain will have to make the decision for bioethical issues, in conjunction with doctors on the ground, possible family members, and the crew. As Dr. Seedhouse indicated, this type of analysis and problem solving does not yet appear in formal astronaut training but will when we get closer to long duration spaceflight. In our second segment, we talked about age and other requirements for astronaut training. As it turns out, some nations have strict age guidelines which we do not have in the U.S. Dr. Seedhouse also outlined what is covered in the basic 18 month training course. I asked if emotional or psychological training was part of it and he said no because the astronauts are considered professional and don't require it. For private astronaut training such as might be used by Bigelow Aerospace, there might very well be some training in this area. Listeners asked our guest about sex in space and astronauts. This was a topic discussed on and off throughout the program. We started the third segment by talking about the period leading up to launch. He described the personal gear astronauts take with them, the family escort process, and quarantine ten days before a launch. We also talked about astronaut fear factor riding the rocket, space sickness, and more. In fact, the issue of space sickness dominated the balance of this segment and we extrapolated to what may happen with private spaceflight participants. In the final segment, we looked at future astronaut training and how such training might evolve over time. Dr. Seedhouse compared suborbital with orbital and missions beyond LEO. Artificial gravity was brought up and then Erik talked about the private astronaut market. In concluding his comments, he said that those that make it into the program and become astronauts have to have an absolute burning ambition and passion to be an astronaut. If you have comments or questions for Dr. Erik Seedhouse, please email him at DrErikSeedhouse@hotmail.com. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 08 May 2010 16:14:47 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
OPEN LINES, Wednesday, 5-5-10 (57.61MB; download) -- Guest: Open Lines with Dr. David Livingston. Topics: nuclear rocket propulsion, VASIMR, space policy, ISS, Constellation, Ares 1. This Open Lines program was a two hour discussion with many listener phone calls and email/chat questions. As with all open lines shows, they have a mind of their own and go off in a direction that you the listeners want. During the first segment, I led with a discussion of the copyright issues for The Space Show. I summarized Space Show/One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. policy on copyrights, unauthorized program use, unauthorized edits, etc. Please note our policy and if you have any questions or ideas, contact me. When the toll free line was opened up, our first call came from Dave who wanted to talk about the VASIMR, recent comments on it made by Dr. Zubrin when he was last on the program, and what his analysis of power generation and heat exchanger requirements were for this new technology. Dave then talked about the NERVA type of nuclear propulsion. As we started the second segment, our first caller suggested that VASIMR was simply a possible development path starting with the ISS and evolving to Mars and beyond. He then brought to our attention the announcement earlier in the day of the retirement of Congressman David Obey and what this might mean for our civil space policy given the person who might take his place as head of the House Appropriations Committee was more closely aligned with the military and this might suggest a policy continuing on with parts of Constellation and Ares 1 for the benefit of the Air Force. Our caller suggested it might be business as usual with NASA helping to cover the costs of defense department programs. Our next caller commented on thin film photo voltaic batteries and more. A caller then asked which technology represented a better path to low cost space access, Big Dumb Boosters or an RLV. My response focused on the need to develop commercial markets so there would be a reason to incur the R&D to develop either technologies or even different technologies. This opened up a discussion thread on which comes first, the rocket/technology or the markets. John from Huntsville called in to suggest a type of compromise between the booster and the RLV with a medium size heavy lift vehicle. John has been calling the show quite a bit lately to express his ideas about heavy lift and more. If you want to respond to him about his ideas and theories, he provided us with his email address which is j_hunt@mindspring.com. Callers also talked with us about recovering rockets from the ocean as part of an RLV, both SRBs and even liquid rocket motor components. As we neared the end of the show, I brought up space policy since it was not a major part of this program. In my comments I mentioned a Dr. Scott Pace interview that is worth hearing regardless of your views on space policy. Here is the URL for that interview: www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/222557. At the very end of the program, a listener asked the email question about our NASA budget operating under a continuing resolution in 2011 and if that meant Constellation would continue to be funded into 2011. I referred our listener to earlier space policy programs where this issue was addressed by people who know space policy issues and what it means to be operating under a continuing resolution. That said, I believe it does mean that Constellation is continued until the point the FY 2011 budget is passed and assuming that FY 2011 budget cancels Constellation, at that point funding for the program would cease. Please let me know if this is an incorrect analysis of what it means to operate under a continuing resolution. If you have a question for any of the listeners or callers for this show or the host, please send it to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will pass it on to the person you designate. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Thu, 06 May 2010 16:05:32 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Tom Olson & Robert Jacobson for SIS 8, Tuesday, 5-4-10 (49.56MB; download) -- Guests: Tom Olson, Robert Jacobson. Topics: Space Investment Summit #8, commercial space investments. Our guests joined us for this program to talk about the upcoming 8th Space Investment Summit Conference to be held on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 from 8:30AM-6:30PM at the InterContiental Chicago Hotel O'Hare Airport in Chicago. For more information, please visit http://spaceinvestmentsummit.com. In our first segment, Tom and Robert provided us with a short history for the Space Investment Summit program and how each program targets a special niche in the market, aspect of the industry, and market. Our guests went through the proposed agenda, told us who the speakers were, some of the panels, and we talked about the content. The point was made that those in attendance learn how to make an effective "pitch" for your proposal. Networking opportunities were brought up and as you will hear, are exciting and dynamic. We talked about space R&D programs and at the end of this first segment, we talked about R&D as was carried out with the old NACA organization. Tom talked about related fields that were part of the focus for SIS 8 including alternative energy, biotech, nanotechnology, etc. As we started the second segment, a listener asked about the status of commercial space investment today, particularly in NewSpace, and if we should expect an investment bubble in this targeted investment community. You will want to hear what our guests had to say in response to this question. Another listener asked about the line between NewSpace and commercial space within the administration policy and FY11 proposals. Our guests and I agreed that the lines are fuzzy at best. Don't miss this discussion. Listener Reda asked what types of businesses were being overlooked or not yet part of the SIS series of meetings. Our guests thought that SIS was fairly inclusive. Tim called in from Huntsville to talk about point to point suborbital transportation and he eventually brought up the ramjet skipping model for point to point. This is another discussion you will want to hear though the guests and I were not so kind to point to point emerging from the suborbital industry. Later in this segment, Robert talked about his experiences in the morning at JPL for a business roundtable meeting and I asked about the commercial, private, and NewSpace awareness level of those at the meeting. No surprises in the response Robert provided us, but then we do understand the tight focus and time constraints for the type of work being done by these engineers at JPL as well as other NASA centers. Robert had some important observations for us to consider so please listen carefully. Our guests talked about investment in the COTS program and also Earth imaging which is showing how useful it is with regards the BP Gulf of Mexico well in addition to the Icelandic volcano. Toward the end of the program, Robert and Tom talked about the logistics for SIS 8 at the hotel, the registration process, and the registration costs. Before the program ended, we talked about the NANORACK project and Cubesats being part of SIS 8. If you want to send a question or comment to Tom, Robert, or both, for Tom, please forward it to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will forward it to him. Robert can be reached through any of these websites: www.desertskyholdings.com;
wwwm62mileclub.com and www.youtube.com/62mileclub.
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 05 May 2010 17:25:03 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dallas Bienhoff, Monday, 5-3-10 (42.39MB; download) -- Guest: Dallas Bienhoff. Topics On orbit fuel/propellant depots. Dallas Bienhoff was the guest for this Space Show program to discuss orbital fuel/propellant depots. In our first segment, Dallas started out by describing the concept behind the orbital propellant depot which he said was similar in concept to a gas station for cars except it was in orbit. Dallas suggested that by using depots we could increase payload capabilities between 2-3 times were we refueling in LEO today. He also summarized the history of depots which goes back to the early days of the space age. He further said that depots would be an important part of a space transportation system. Another way of expressing the capability was by saying we could go from 20 tons to the Moon without using depots to about 51 tons landed on the Moon if filled up using LEO depots. A listener asked about cryogenic fuel transfer and Mr. Bienhoff explained this challenge to listeners. I asked him what would happen if the depot had a leak in space. Don't miss his answer to this question. Near the end of this segment, we talked about various orbits that could be serviced by a depot. He suggested putting the depots in orbits that most launch vehicles can reach to expand market potential. We also talked about technology challenges and possible show stoppers so don't miss his response to this set of questions. As we started the second the segment, we talked about docking and how the refueling process would be handled. A listener asked if the depots would be made available to private space companies, assuming the depots were government projects. We talked about the potential for offsite refueling using small tugs. We talked about launch and destination timelines using a LEO depot. Another listener asked if we could be a space-fairing nation without the use of depots. Dallas said they are not essential but they do increase what we can put into space. He said that depots are enhancers, not enablers. Listeners asked Dallas about the priority of depots within the Administration's FY2011 budget. Mr. Bienhoff suggested that the depot was a priority program, a flagship program. I then asked him to describe the next steps in the development project assuming the FY 2011 budget is passed as is by Congress later this year. Near the end of this segment, Dallas addressed the boil off issue and the life expectancy of a depot. As we kicked off the third segment, Dallas said that a depot could be located at the ISS as well as on the surface of the Moon or Mars but suggested the fuel be produced on the Moon and Mars rather than brought up from Earth. He also talked about the choice locations for a depot so listen to his suggestions on this. We talked about launch economics with the EELVs and the potential afforded the industry with the Falcon 9. We then applied some of these launch economics to developing SSP and it was said that the use of depots definitely facilitated SSP development. In talking about depot development, Dallas equated policy with needing a customer and that was a critical path to depot development. Much of this segment was focused on the critical path of needing a customer and the potential market. In the end, the depot must make economic sense and be lower in cost than the alternatives. If you have comments or questions for Dallas Bienhoff on orbital fuel depots, please send them to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com and I will forward them to our guest. Please be patient in waiting for a response to your email. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 04 May 2010 14:50:01 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Neville Marzwell, Sunday, 5-2-10 (63.16MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Neville Marzwell. Topics: STEM, Aerospace industry recruiting and expansion for the future. Dr. Neville Marzwell was our guest for this program to discuss the findings and conclusions of his visit to 20 of the greatest universities in this country on an aerospace industry fact finding and recruiting mission. In our first segment, Dr. Marzwell explained the recruiting mission and then started sharing some of his findings, analysis, and conclusions with us. What you will hear during this show will likely startle, shock, and possibly even anger you. Dr. Marzwell talked at length about student expectations and entitlements, salary demands, at times, even wedding ring and car demands by those students getting married. As you will hear, our guest went into the detail of student attitudes and expectations but also talked about what the professors do and don't do and why type of classroom experience produces better trained and equipped students. Listeners brought up several related issues such at GPAs in excess of 4.0, why only visit 20 Tier 1 schools and none of the second or third tier schools across the country. As you will hear, the industry focused on wanting the "best" so they limited their tour to the top aerospace schools. Toward the end of the first segment, Dr. Marzwell talked about the nationality mix of students and where they were from and attitude differences among the foreign students as compared the American students. As we started the second segment, we heard that in many ways, the American aerospace industry was in a panic over what has been happening in higher education. The industry is now very concerned about what the future will be and what their place in the future will be. You do not want to miss this discussion as it takes a look at what is happening here in the States and the global economy and as you will hear, the industry is asking the hard questions. Dr. Marzwell did a superb job of connecting the dots and demonstrating what uncertainty, risk and the lack of strategic policy planning does to business planning. both at the company level and the industry level. During this segment, we also talked about government programs to improve education and asked which if any of the programs were working. We also focused on possible solutions to the problems being discussed. Dr. Marzwell suggested we needed to first figure out where the country will be in ten years and what type of country. Will we even want an aerospace industry or will we be outsourcing it, even for the Dept. of Defense as we do now in every increasing quantities. He suggested that getting jobs back in America was an important solution step and he said many times that we had to bite the bullet to get the jobs back at any cost. We talked about the absence of national leadership and he said there were a few leaders but they were emerging from the business community. As we neared the end of the program, he talked about space solar power as being a near term positive and his new work on developing SSP for the future. As we closed the program, our guest again said jobs were the starting point for turning our educational and aerospace industry problems around. If you have comments or questions for Dr. Neville Marzwell, please send them to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com. I will forward them to Dr. Marzwell but be patient in waiting for and expecting a reply as he gets hundreds of emails. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 03 May 2010 15:49:47 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Alan Ladwig, Friday, 4-30-10 (56.16MB; download) -- Guest: Alan Ladwig: Topics: Obama space policy, U.S. space policy, NASA outreach, NASA TV, NASA and politics. Alan Ladwig, Deputy Associate Administrator for NASA Public Outreach was our guest today. During this program, Mr. Ladwig referenced several useful and informative websites that I recommend for bookmarking. All of them start with a visit to www.nasa.gov. One site in particular that I suggest you visit often is their new video page, www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html. In our first segment, Mr. Ladwig summarized the new approach to space policy recommended by the Administration in its FY 2011 budget proposal. To provide more detail on the policy, we learned about the study teams being formed to review and study many aspects of space policy and how to implement them in the new direction NASA is heading. Briefings to congress to provide them with more detail are in process. Alan spoke at length about the technology development program and listed numerous space technologies that will benefit from the new program. We also talked about the risk of the new policy and I asked him about IP ownership rights. During this segment, we talked about having a destination as a goal and Alan said we needed flexible destinations, not one fixed destination. To make his point, he referenced the robotic and science mission program which is very successful and does have multiple destinations as goals. He also told us that that having a single destination as has been the case for the past 40 years has proven unsuccessful. He fielded questions about extending shuttle and the GAP and said to do so takes money away from other programs. He also talked about having extended ISS to at least 2020. In our second segment, we led with a call from Stephen of the Direct 3.0 team who asked a series of three excellent questions that you will want to hear. After responding to Stephen's questions, Alan provided us with registration information for the coming Industry Day which will be May 25-26 in Galveston, Texas. Based on a question about stimulus money going for community organizing, the listener asked why NASA could not be properly funded. This resulted in a discussion about the politics of space versus competing government projects and interests, and the problems space has in connecting with the general public. Here Alan talked about extensive outreach programs. This is an important discussion and everyone is searching for answers. Later we took a call from Rick regarding heavy lift and the Direct launcher. We started our third segment talking about the recent Everett Group’s “Space Poll” from March 27-April 12, 2010 (http://www.spacepoll.com/sumreport041610.pdf). One thing our guest said was that NASA needs to do a better job of relating NASA work to STEM, the health industry, national security among others. This discussion went forward for the majority of this segment. Bruce called in to discuss nuclear rockets and power in space. Alan summarized the administration position on this so listen carefully. Toward the end of this segment, Alan talked about public outreach, including a Buzz Lightyear. Program. You won't want to miss his comments. In our fourth and final segment, we focused on NASA TV. Our guest told us it was a mission support technology and its communication venue was an added benefit. NASA TV has four channels which Alan described for us. He also provided us with some background on the restraints and operating parameters for NASA TV. He then told us about the new NASA Video website so see the URL for this site above. Toward the end of the program, I asked him to describe the budget process which he did. This was a most informative and important procedural discussion. If you have questions or comments for Alan Ladwig, you can reach him at alan.ladwig@nasa.gov. Your suggestions on how better to engage the public in space and with NASA are most welcome. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:00:07 UTC
|
| << < 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 > >> | |