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 |
Dr. Bernard Foing, Tuesday, 8-11-09 (44.30MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Bernard Foing. Topics: ESA, SMART-1, lunar development, lunar science, European space community and interest. Dr. Bernard Foing returned to The Space Show to discuss the ESA SMART-1 mission which he was the father of. In the first segment, Dr. Foing shared with us the history leading up to SMART-1, the mission design, and the science it conducted around and on the Moon. He talked about the need drive SMART-1 to the Moon given its ion engines, the 18 month trip to the Moon, and the records that SMART-1 established. He explained the science and the success which has come back to us from SMART-1 and more, such as the international component of the mission which allowed other national space agencies to communicate directly with the space vehicle. Toward the end of this segment, we talked about the value of lunar science programs and missions and of course the lunar humans program. You will hear Dr. Foing state very clearly and emphatically the wealth building potential from these missions. SMART-2 also known as the LISA Pathfinder Mission was explained and Dr. Foing did a superb job in comparing the complexity of the LISA mission to a lunar mission. You definitely want to hear this discussion. In the second segment, we talked about what science and other projects we should be doing on the Moon and the needed life sciences which would enable us to learn to live and work and play in space. Bernard talked about growing plants in a closed environment and one listener brought up the idea that when the public is able to go to the Moon for a lunar settlement, they would take their lifestyle with them. That opened the discussion to different ideas and comments, make sure you hear them. Another listener asked if the fact that the Moon moved further away from the Earth each year was a complicating factor in planning lunar missions. The answer was no. As we moved into the third segment, Bernard went into more detail with the global robotic lunar village and the establishment of an International Lunar Village. This prompted listener questions and comments about how we might all get along in space when we cannot do well with that here on Earth. This is a discussion with Dr. Foing that you will want to hear. He talked about preparing those that would live in space. What do you think of approaching space habitation in this way or something similar? Water ice was discussed in more detail. Dr. Foing suggests visiting the ILEWG website, http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34125 . If you have questions or comments for Dr. Bernard Foing, you can reach him using the contact information provided at the bottom of the ILEWG website or Bernard.Foing@esa.int .
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:03:34 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
California Space Authority and French Aerospace Valley Association, Monday, 8-10-09 (75.62MB; download) -- Guests: Eric Daniels and Margaret Lau. Topics: CSA, French Aerospace Valley Association, GPS, California space workforce and economy. We welcomed both Eric Daniels and Margaret Lau of the California Space Authority (CSA) to the show in order to discuss the new international alliance with CSA and the French Aerospace Valley Association. To read the official CSA news release from June 16, 2009, please see www.californiaspaceauthority.org/images/press-releases/pr090616-1_csa.pdf for more details. During the first segment, Margaret and Eric discussed the circumstances and facts that led up to the signing of this agreement at the Paris Air Show. As you will hear, the French delegation was given a whirlwind high-end tour of all aspects of the California space industry. We asked about their reception, NewSpace, and more. Also during this segment, you will learn how the French aerospace industry is organized, how it compares to the industry in the United States and, specifically, California. Eric explained the three key areas for this labor initiative which included education and workforce talent preparedness, economic development and entrepreneurial innovation and international trade openness. It was important to note that our guests did comment on ITAR, but said it was not part of the agreement, there were no waivers for ITAR, and that participants were in charge of their own ITAR compliance like with any business venture a company pursued. Both Eric and Margaret talked about the importance of business to business networking and the CSA project known as The Connectory (www.connectory.com). As Eric explained, California represents 21% of the global space economy and that compared favorably with France. Also, the French Aerospace Valley Association has a geographical location in France that is similar to California. You will want to hear this comparison. In the second segment, we continued discussing the third key element of the Agreement which focused on the openness of international trade. During this discussion, we talked about GPS and the Galileo system under development. You will want to hear some of the concerns about the agreement and French approach to regulating Galileo which were expressed by CSA members. Later in this segment, we talked about the California legislature and its interest in making sure California remains the leading space economy in the country and the world. Eric mentioned some California bills waiting for signature by the Governor and some of the progress being made across the state to value and build the space economy. In the third segment, we talked about the signing ceremony which took place at the French Observatory and was carried out by James Long, a CSA board member and the Executive Director of Programs and Business Development for Aerojet. In addition, we talked about reaching outside the space community for support for space education and workforce programs since the impact of such programs extends far beyond the direct space community. Both Margaret and Eric talked about efforts to reach the entertainment and other industrial sectors within California. If any of you have contacts across California, contact Eric or Margaret or me and let's get you connected to help tell the right story regarding space programs in the state for the nation and the world. The wealth building potential, the economic development, the educational opportunities are all broad based and can interest many people who do not have space in their consciousness. Toward the end of the program, we talked about some of the upcoming CSA events with a particular focus on the California Spotbeam Awards Dinner in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2009. If you are interested in attending, visit http://www.prestoregister.com/cgi-bin/order.pl?ref=csa-event&fm=1 to register. I will probably be there, so make sure you find me and say hello. If you have questions or comments for Margaret Lau or Eric Daniels, you can reac Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 10 Aug 2009 03:22:19 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Mark Hempsell, Thursday, 8-6-09 (59.10MB; download) -- Guest: Mark Hempsell. Topics: Reaction Engines, Ltd., SKYLON, special heat exchangers, low cost space access. We welcomed first time guest Mark Hempsell. Mark is the Futures Program Director for Reaction Engines, Ltd. in the UK. I suggest you follow along on their website with this interview at http://www.reactionengines.co.uk . In the first segment, Mark started out by referencing previous efforts by Reaction Engines, Ltd. with the HOTOL space shuttle project that was cancelled by the British government. This easily transitioned the discussion to the need for launch vehicles that were reusable like an airplane, this is what Reaction Engines is working on with the SKYLON vehicle. Mark talked about the uniqueness of the vehicle which uses a special type of heat exchanger which almost instantly cools air which is at 1,000 degrees in the engine down to -140 degrees so it can be used by the SKYLON spacecraft. Listen to this discussion and Mark's explanation and description of this technology. Mark also talked about the performance criteria and he explained their testing program in detail. You certainly want to hear about their testing program and how it differs from other testing programs we have heard discussed in the media and on this show. In the second segment, we started out by identifying the capacity of SKYLON. For example, the C1 version can hold about 20 passengers. The D1 version can hold about 24 passengers. As this is an orbital vehicle, it can be used for transporting cargo to the ISS or for orbital space tourism, satellite launches, etc. Mark guessed that the tourism price would be around $1,000,000, but since Reaction Engines will not be the operating company and the hope competition exists in the marketplace, the price could be lower. We discussed orbital tourism versus suborbital and he thought orbital was a better venture for commercial success because of the vehicle R&D costs for suborbital and orbital spaceships. This is a discussion you will certainly want to hear. We also talked about ways to improve the launch rate because even the SKYLON needs a higher launch rate to be more cost effective. One of the things Mark offered was that, since the vehicle would be sold to entrepreneurs and operators, leaving them to decide the market and the usage would be far better for finding space applications and ventures that do demand a higher launch rate than were they the only vehicle operator. He mentioned trusting in the market. In the third segment, I asked Mark if this was a time of golden opportunity for space development and vehicle investment given the upswing in the interest in space. He suggested the SKYLON could have been done in the 1980s, but the timing was not right. There is better timing now and there is government interest, but the future of course is still an unknown for the space markets and even the completion of the technology to a final commercial vehicle. We also talked about the differences with the SKYLON approach to a Rocketplane type vehicle, a carrier vehicle and even a high altitude balloon. In the fourth segment, we talked about the SKYLON capability for launching and retrieving satellites. The market for returning payloads to Earth was discussed and while SKYLON will have a limited capability to do that, initially it will only be able to return payloads that are manually put in the vehicle. We also discussed the total investment to date in SKYLON and Reaction Engines, Ltd. and the cost estimates for designing and building an orbital space vehicle as well as a suborbital vehicle. If you have questions or comments for Mark Hempsell, use the contact page, http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/contact.html . Additionally, you can use the email address enquiries@reactionengines.co.uk . Please be sure to put Space Show in the subject line of your note. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:16:59 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Leonard Johnson, Tuesday, 8-4-09 (47.43MB; download) -- Guest: Leonard Johnson. Topics: Team America Rocketry, NASA, high powered rocketry, STEM education. Our guest for this Space Show program was Lt. Leonard Johnson who, as an Illinois fire-fighter and paramedic, responded to the 9/11 Ground Zero and Katrina tragedies. We started off segment 1 by asking Len for his thoughts, perceptions, and experiences in working at Ground Zero and then in helping out with the Katrina tragedy. I believe you will find the sharing of his experiences and perceptions with us to be instructive, valuable, moving, and important. We then turned to space and aviation as Len and his St. Andrews Rocket Team just returned from the famous Oshkosh AirVenture. Len spent a few minutes telling us about some of the highlights of the show including seeing White Knight II and the Airbus 380. The students participated in several events and met astronauts and others, so you will definitely want to hear about this student rocket team's Oshkosh adventures. In segment 2, Len described the Team America Rocketry Challenge (TARC), and he told the story of how he built his successful St. Andrews Team as a result of being shut out from the local schools and school administration. TARC is a fabulous program. Listen to the opportunities given to the students to interact with real rocket projects with engineers at Marshall and Glenn. There is no doubt this is an inspiring program. Questions about Teachers in Space and additional ways to inspire were discussed but because of the challenges Len faced with the school system, much of our discussion centered on inspiring and motivating teachers and school officials. As you will hear throughout the show, this does not sound promising in Len's area and I suspect it’s the same in many districts around the country. Questions came up about comparing the peer respect of the racketeer students with the athletes in the school system. You will want to hear what Len had to say about this comparison, both from a student perspective as well as teacher and administrative perspective. In segment 3, we learned that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came to the TARC National Finals in Virginia, spent the afternoon there, met the students, talked with them, interacted with them, and said they were the future of the country. Don't miss hearing this story. Len then mentioned the NASA INSPIRE program which becomes available to the students after the Student Launch Initiative Program. The St. Andrews Rocket Team student went to the INSPIRE program at the Glenn Research Center. You can learn more about INSPIRE by visiting . http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/descriptions/INSPIRE_Project.htm . Toward the end of the program, Len ready a very inspiring and powerful letter from Betty Grissom to the St. Andrews Rocket Team. You must hear what Ms. Grissom had to say to these young students. If you want to learn more about TARC or the St. Andrews Rocket Team, please visit http://www.orionrocketprojectsli.com . You can email your comments or questions to Lt. Leonard Johnson at firebrick720@yahoo.com .
Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:21:48 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Eric Davis, Marc Millis, Monday, 8-3-09 (52.85MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Eric Davis, Marc Millis. Topics: Propulsion science, propulsion physics, interstellar travel, antigravity, negative matter. Dr. Eric Davis and Marc Millis were our guests today to discuss the book they edited, "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" published by AIAA. You can order this book by using the One Giant Leap Foundation website for Amazon books and benefit The Space Show at the same time. Please visit http://www.amazon.com/dp/1563479567?tag=onegialeafou-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1563479567&adid=0Y48WW0T6Z8Q5STXG44M&. As you will hear throughout our discussion, this is THE research and reference book to have for advanced and out of the box space propulsion science. While there were the usual three segments for the program, this write up cannot does not actually go segment by segment because so many of our topics were covered during the entire show across all segments. That said, we did start out talking about theory and experiments and we learned that many of the frontier propulsion ideas have been part of experiments even if the experiment did not work. We talked about out of the box science ideas and mainstream science acceptances, plus the need for rigor on the part of the PI or scientist. This term is somewhat equivalent to the term due diligence I frequently use in program discussions. As we moved into the next segment, a listener inquired about out of the box ideas and theories for lowering the cost of space access to LEO. Here, Lightcraft were mentioned as was the space elevator and beamed energy propulsion. You will want to hear the full discussion on these potential technologies. A listener also asked about a screening process for crackpot or fringe science ideas, that is how do you tell if something is worth pursuing or reading about or not? In the last chapter of the book, Marc Millis talked about three filters for this purpose, the John Baez Crackpot Index, Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector, and the Dr. Irving Langmuir talk on Pathological Science. In the context of discussing antigravity, warp drive, wormholes and more, both Eric and Marc discussed advanced physics topics which are all outlined in detail and summarized in their book. In fact, if you have ever wondered about what it would take in energy to open up a one meter wormhole, this is the show to listen to and the book to buy and read as this and many other important questions were addressed and answered. By the way, to open up that one meter wormhole, the energy equivalent to three-fourths the mass of Jupiter would be needed! At various times during our discussion, we talked about some of the science fiction ideas in Star Trek such as the transporter and this led to a discussion on transportation physics related to quantum teleportation, non-locality, and a little of the quantum entanglement. As the show moved on, zero point energy was discussed, starting with its history and then the real science of it and the New Age hype. Science fiction did enter our discussion and it was said that it was an excellent early stage brainstorming initial step. As you will hear me say over and over again, this is a must own and a must read book. It is also a very valuable research and reference book for anyone wanting to know propulsion and physics facts regarding space travel and related issues. One of the features of the book that makes it so valuable is that at the end of each chapter, there was a conclusion that summarized the chapter contents but not in such technical language as the chapter itself. The chapter summary/conclusions were very helpful and clearly added to the value of the book and the ability to understand what was written, especially if you do not have a physics or advanced scientific background. If you want to know about antigravity, antimatter, out of the box ideas and theories, start with this show and read this book. If you want more information, Marc Millis created the Tau Zero Found Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:52:04 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Dwayne Day, Sunday, 8-2-09 (74.13MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Dwayne Day. Topics: Decadal Survey, Space Studies Board, space science missions, U.S. space policy. Dr. Dwayne Day was our guest for today's Space Show program. We started Segment 1 with a definition of the Decadal Surveys and the National Research Council's Space Studies Board. You can learn more by visiting their website at www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/. If you ever wanted to learn how space science missions were decided, budgeted, and implemented, this is the discussion and program for you. Dr. Day explained how the science missions were designed to ask and answer key solar system big questions and that such questions were at the root of the Decadal Surveys. You do not want to miss this discussion and mark this program as I'm sure it will serve as a reference for us all in understanding space science missions and the space science side of NASA. The first segment of today's show is devoted to an in-depth discussion of this subject. In Segment 2, we continued talking about the Decadal Surveys, especially the Planetary Science Decadal Survey which was fairly new and the astronomy survey which dates back several decades. Here we talked about Europa being a top priority mission dating back from 2001 but it has not yet been undertaken. Dwayne explained the rules for missions bridging one Decadal Survey period to another. Dwayne also explained the categories of missions in that both the planned Europa and Titan missions are known as Flagship Missions, the highest possible level for a science mission and the most costly. A listener asked Dwayne if there had ever been or would be science missions planned around human spaceflight. While Dr. Day did not rule it out, he said it would probably be too costly as human missions are extremely costly and the science budget would be severely disrupted to fund such a mission. Toward the end of this segment, we talked about lunar science and the probable bias against lunar science and why such bias exists. Again, this is an important discussion you will want to hear. Segment 3 was a longer segment as this show was extended to a full two hours. We started off this segment by asking Dwayne if the space science budget was stable or if it had to be fought for every step of the way. We learned that it is fairly stable, around one-third of the total NASA budget. We also learned that science missions are competitive but as much as possible, the system used in the United States removes the political process from mission selection. For example, NASA is given a fixed sum of money for science missions, the one-third of its budget. No mission is ordered or championed by anyone to the extent that it is selected as a favor or special interest. Instead, missions are presented and they compete with each other for a share of the fixed science budget. Dwayne was asked how science missions were done in other countries and he said many were trying to model the United States way of doing it to remove the politics from mission selection. During this segment, the question was asked about the influence and necessity of support in space policy, specifically civilian space policy by the general population. Dwayne did not think it was that important. A listener asked another question about the influence of powerful members of congress and Dwayne suggested that influence was more regional and that space states do focus on getting and keeping space jobs in their state. He was then asked if the space advocacy groups along with the space enthusiasts have a significant impact on space policy and again the answer was no. That said, there were niches or pockets of influence such as the personal spaceflight groups and the AST regulations and policies. In general, the public is not so enthusiastic about space in terms of it being relevant and in continuing the discussion about the space advocacy groups, Dr. Day suggested that the space enthusiast/advocacy vision might not even resonate Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:36:14 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Brent Sherwood, Saturday, 8-1-09 (60.14MB; download) -- Guest: Brent Sherwood: Topics: Options for human spaceflight, NASA, life support factors, destinations. Brent Sherwood was our returning guest for this Space Show program to discuss his recent White Paper which addresses various options for human spaceflight. Brent will make his paper available to me so if you would like a copy, please send me an email requesting it and I'll forward it to you as soon as possible. In Segment 1, we started off the show with Brent telling us something about JPL. Did you know they have seven business lines? I believe you will find this interesting and instructive as our guest explains to us the way in which JPL works and the types of projects and missions it undertakes. As we moved toward our main topic of discussion, Brent made it clear that he was speaking for himself and not JPL and I want to be sure that disclaimer is present in this archive write-up for his interview. As we launched into this discussion, we learned that Mr. Sherwood is supportive of a second generation shuttle but also less concerned about destinations for human spaceflight than he is in making spaceflight more relevant to us all. As the discussion continued, we talked about a new role and vision for NASA and the VSE, one that actually helps create a true space economy and new space industrial base. In Segment 2, among the many topics discussed, Brent zeroed in on the existing NASA budget, around$18 billion a year of which 2/3 of that is dedicated to human spaceflight of about $12 billion/year. As you will hear when he discusses options for how this money could be used, we could use it to accelerate commercial public space travel. Later in this segment he introduces us to the concept of also doing a large scale commercial and needed project in space, space solar power for example. The introduction of SSP brought in several listener questions about the economics of SSP and the possible need to subsidize any electricity produced by an SSP project given the costs would likely be much higher than terrestrial power costs. We also talked about the cost benefit analysis for an SSP project in terms of helping to industrialize space. This is a discussion you will not want to miss and it continued on into Segment 3. As we got into Segment 3, SSP economics and subsidies were center stage. Brent then talked about the coming findings of the Augustine Panel, some past history of blue ribbon panels and the usual acceptance of their recommendations, and the fact that space today and the vision seems to have lost the attention of most of the public. In this segment, we talked about restating NASA and human spaceflight. Later in this segment, a listener asked how the status quo is changed given the power of senators and members of congress. As Brent explained, getting these members of congress to work with the type of programs he suggests actually benefits their areas with more jobs, economics, etc. Industrializing space creates jobs and wealth not just for the country but for the NASA centers and the heavy space districts across the country. We started Segment 4 with a question asked at the end of the previous segment about what other nation's space programs were doing. A listener wanted to know if any other national space agencies were following a different path such as what we had been talking about on the show or were they all more or less following the existing NASA pattern. Brent had much to say about various national space agencies, don't miss his comments. Toward the end of this segment we asked about the progress being made in developing fully closed loop systems for long duration spaceflight or space settlement. He said we were still a long ways off from having a real closed loop system. This is also a discussion you will want to hear and remember. He said the two biggest Mars or human factors issues involve radiation and microgravity deconditioning. If you have a question or comment for Brent Sherwood, pl Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:03:04 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Rand Simberg, Tuesday, 7-28-09 (43.85MB; download) -- Guest: Rand Simberg: Topics: Evoloterra, Low cost space access, propellant depots, NASA, commercial space, heavy lift rockets. Rand Simberg returned to The Space Show to discuss both the 40th anniversary of Apollo and his Evoloterra ceremony as well as his article in The New Atlantis, "A Space Program for the Rest of Us" You can read his article at www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/a-space-program-for-the-rest-of-us. Starting with honoring the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 in Segment 1, Rand told us about the ceremony that he and his associates wrote years ago, Evoloterra. You can download the ceremony and use it by visiting www.evoloterra.com I suggest you do go to this site, download it, and use it with your family and friends. I believe Evoloterra is an exceptional way to honor our leaving Earth's gravity field and going to the Moon. Let us know what you think, OK? Our discussion then moved to Rand's article per above as we discussed the importance of low cost space access and the idea that NASA should buy transportation services from the private sector, not make rockets themselves. In addition, any space transportation system would require gas stations or for space, propellant depots. Rand does a very good job of explaining this on the show but also in his paper. To become space fairing, we do need a commercial space economy and this involves affordable transportation and this requires propellant depots. Rand also talked about the options being considered by the Augustine Panel including two of the five options that focus on the use of propellant depots. He said our space transportation system needs to be scalable as space commerce grows. Toward the end of the first segment Rand put forth the idea that we do not need heavy lift vehicles and why focusing on a heavy lift vehicle track prevents affordable space access. In Segment 2, we continued talking about propellant depots, Rand fielded questions about the use of suborbital vehicles as a plus for eventually lowering the cost of space access, and NASA as a jobs program. Rand talked about the influence of Sens. Shelby and Nelson in maintaining jobs for NASA and their respective NASA centers over programs that might be better for NASA or the country. Rand was very hard hitting, factual, and blunt in his discussion of these topics. In response to listener questions, it was clear that Rand did not think Marshall could develop launch systems and their track record supported his conclusion. He thought EELVs were a better approach than Ares 1 as they already exist, do not need billions of new development money and can be upgraded for human spaceflight, saving NASA and the taxpayer lots of development money. But he also said NASA did not care about any of this including low cost space access. An overriding theme in all of the segments for today's show that was that space was simply not important to the general population and until it became important and relevant in our lives, nothing would really change within NASA or our civil space programs. He did suggest that maybe an incoming asteroid might make space relevant to the population and eventually force changes or a different set of priorities on NASA. In Segment 3, listeners commented on the incoming asteroid idea and here Rand suggested that NASA and the government would not likely be competent in dealing with such a threat. He suggested we might need a separate new agency to deal with such a threat. This is only one of many discussions you will want to hear regarding this interview with Rand Simberg. Another listener commented on NASA bashing during the show, primarily on the human spaceflight side of NASA. Rand did admit that most of what was being discussed was on the human spaceflight side but he did suggest that if NASA science was compared to science across the board by the National Science Foundation (NSF), it was not a certainty that NASA science would favorably compare to what the NSF accom Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:13:12 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Paul Spudis, Monday, 7-27-09 (53.49MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. Paul Spudis. Topics: Return to the Moon, VSE Mission Statement, lunar science, NASA, Mars, U.S. public and space exploration. Dr. Paul Spudis returned for this special two hour program to discuss why we should return to the Moon. In Segment 1, Dr. Spudis talked about the Moon as a transitioning resource and our training ground for how we can learn to live and settle in space. He said that the way the VSE has evolved, its gotten away from the true mission of our return to the Moon. This is a discussion that you must hear and its repeated throughout this two hour show. He said NASA does not actually have a Mission Statement for returning to the Moon. Briefly, his mission statement said that we would be going to the Moon to learn the skills and technology to live and work on another world. His full mission statement is near the end of this initial program segment. When asked about going to a NEO or Mars and bypassing the Moon, he talked about our need to learn to do ISRU and that going to Mars now would be end to end, no ISRU. A NEO would also be no ISRU. He said that he thought NASA might be reluctant to find out how to live and work on another world. Again, this is a very interesting discussion and Dr. Spudis raised some questions that not only deserve our consideration but also answers. Toward the end of this segment, a question came in regarding how much of the general population needed to be onboard in supporting returning to the Moon. He referenced polls taken when he was part of the Aldrich Commission that show about 50% of the population mildly supports space and about 50% slightly disapproves of it. Thus, the public is indifferent. With an indifferent public, creating missions to inspire are not relevant. Doing missions that inspire are relevant. This is another discussion you do not want to miss. In Segment 2, Dr. Spudis clarified and summarized the poll referred to at the end of the first segment. He also talked about making space routine, not making it stand out as something special. I asked Dr. Spudis to tell us what lunar science could be done on the Moon and what type of scientific projects the lunar scientists would like were they totally funded and their wish lists could be honored. Dr. Spudis mentioned several scientific projects but he pointed us toward Lunar Exploration Analysis Group website which is www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/. Here you will find the scientific projects to be undertaken that Dr. Spudis mentioned. Another question that I asked on behalf of a listener was why our Moon did not have a name such as the moons of other planets. As we learned, our Moon does have a name, Luna. That said, we prefer to use the Germanic translation Moon in English but in other languages the Moon is referred to by its name, Luna. Dr. Spudis also talked about supporting the lunar mission that he described in the first segment and he explained how support for that mission ultimately supports carrying out lunar science. In Segment 3, we started out discussing the two radar experiments Dr. Spudis has going on around the Moon at this time. The first is on the Indian Chandra One satellite orbiting and photographing the Moon. This radar experiment is looking for water ice and can look down into deep, dark places for quality imaging. I asked him if he had ITAR issues with this project and you need to hear what he said about the ITAR compliance effort. It took a year, was extremely costly and ultimately Dr. Griffin had to go to India to speak with his counter part at the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) to get the job done. The second radar is on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and is a more advanced radar imaging system. He talked about doing bistatic imaging for finding ice because ice has a bistatic image. He explained how the orbits of Chandra and LRO come close at intersecting points, they figure those points out and they are then able to do the bistatic imaging wit Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:02:55 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. John McGowan, Sunday, 7-26-09 (57.05MB; download) -- Guest: Dr. John McGowan. Topics: Trial and error testing for advancing technology and cheap access to space. Dr. John McGowan was our guest today to talk about his two recent Space Review articles, "Cheap Access to space: Lessons from past breakthroughs" dated May 11, 2009 and located at www.thespacereview.com/article/1368/1 along with "Can the private sector make a breakthrough in space access?" This article was dated June 8, 2009 and can be found at www.thespacereview.com/article/1388/1. During Segment 1, Dr. McGowan put forth his thesis which is that we should learn from past lessons with advancing technology and do lots more trial and error flight testing to lower the cost of space access. During this segment, Dr. McGowan cited many examples of this from railroads to the Wright Brothers and Octave Chanute, as well as James Watt and the steam engine. You will certainly want to hear his analysis of these various technologies and how they were perfected and modernized through trial and error testing, then listen to how Dr. McGowan extrapolates from then to now. Toward the end of the first segment, the discussion focused on the public perception of small versus large rocket payloads, missions, and progress. This discussion was fueled by questions and a call from Charles Pooley of www.microlaunchers.com earlier in the show. In Segment 2, John picked up on the theme from the end of the first segment regarding public perception and the role of the general public which was thought to be not that important in lowering the cost of space access. In this segment, John talked about the number of flight tests for various rocket technologies such as those by Goddard which totaled 58 flights, the V2 with 157 flight tests before bombing England with them in WW2, and the X-15 with 199 test flights. We talked about today's computer modeling and simulation programs to minimize costly flight tests and suggested that due to the high costs involved, it might be that large quantities of flight tests are prohibitively expensive. Dr. McGowan stated that we should be starting small and ramping up. Marshall from Dallas brought up the Jevons Paradox/Effect and just before the end of this segment, risk taking entered into the discussion. As we launched into Segment 3, we talked about risk taking some more and I asked how we get more trial and error flight testing into the development and building of rocket systems. Listeners asked if the private sector could do this more easily than the public sector and they asked if breakthrough technologies were really needed to obtain low cost space access. Here, Dr. McGowan brought us back to the steamboat example of what constitutes commercial and referred the 1790 Fitch steamboat versus the first commercially successful steamboat in the U.S. by Robert Fulton. As John pointed out, Fulton found a market with pain in it (listen to the discussion) and then solved the problem with his steamboat transportation. In applying lessons from the past, we explored commercial and civil space for markets with pain in them and for a way to solve the problem by eliminating the pain. We could not think of any comparable markets for commercial space at this time. If you have questions or comments for Dr. John McGowan regarding this show or his Space Review articles, please email him at jmcgowan11@earthlink.net. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:43:13 UTC
|
| << < 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 > >> | |