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 |
| << < 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 > >> | |
| 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
|
| Add this to another station |
AIAA Joint Propulsion Conf, Open Lines 7-24-09 (60.05MB; download) -- Guests: First Hour: Dr. Klaus Dannenberg, John Karas, Jeff Hamstra; Second Hour: Open Lines: Topics: propulsion, breakthrough propulsion, NASA, AIAA, Open Lines, Space Show guests, bone loss, microgravity, acceleration, NASA. The first hour of this two hour program was dedicated to discussing the coming AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference which will be in Denver, Colorado at the Colorado Convention Center from August 3-5, 2009. For more information about the conference and registration, please visit www.aiaa.org. During Segment 1, our two guests, Dr. Dannenberg and John Karas introduced us to the Joint Propulsion Conference. We talked about many of the sessions at the conference including those focusing on green propulsion technologies, human spaceflight, nuclear thermal propulsion, and even breakthrough propulsion theories. Our guests noted that there would be a portion of the conference devoted to accurate history in honor of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. One set of issues that was brought up by listeners as well as me was what was needed to human rate an EELV. As you will hear during this segment, its not that easy to do, it involves lots of testing, redundant systems, an abort system and an engine shutoff. This came up in terms of a response to a listener asking about the difference between a military, civil, and human spaceflight rocket. During Segment 2, John Karas left us and Jeff Hamstra took his place along with Klaus. Jeff talked some more about the conference registration and pointed out that the conference was joined with the International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference and that there would be some overlapping programming as well as joint programming. You can find out more about this conference on the AIAA website per the above URL. We also talked about low cost space access, air breathing engines, two stage rockets and the AIAA membership which totals about 37,000 members. This brought us to the topic of networking opportunities at the conference, even career possibilities, especially for students. NewSpace issues were discussed along with hybrid rocket motors. We also talked about writing papers and peer review with AIAA conferences, publications and other conferences. K-12 education was an important discussion topic for this conference and AIAA in general. The second hour of this program was devoted to OPEN LINES, primarily to offer Space Show listeners that self-invite themselves to be a guest on the program to call in and let us hear what they have to say and how they say it. I set this hour up as an audition hour based on the number of self-inviting emails for the show I have received over the past several months. As you will hear, not one person called to talk to us and let us hear if there was a reason for them to be a guest on the other than their saying so in an email to me despite having told me they would do so. However, the offer still stands. For anyone who wants to be a guest on the show, call us during an Open Lines program and let's hear what you have to say and how you say it. Despite no audition calls, in Segment 3 we did receive a call about a bone loss theory expressed by Joe in Houston. You can read his ideas at http://artificialgravityideas.blogspot.com/?psinvite=ALRopfUii2KeMfnrznoSqEv-T_Ap4258Iu3HpyiD4iuHjhU-sey9OKshqd6WE13EJHk3lY8s2Z09EWD_dQjuH-jMONPEAifBEw. I ran his idea by some space docs and human factors experts that said he did not really understand bone loss, etc, and I mentioned this to the caller (not Joe) but as you will hear, despite being given a new set of facts by people who know this stuff, the desire to hold onto the theory is just too strong sometimes. In the meantime, I pointed Joe to some specialists in the field and strongly urged him to do the hard core medical research but that he needed more training in the discipline to be able to make assumptions that were relevant. As you will hear, I applied this across the board in space de Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 25 Jul 2009 15:27:29 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
OPEN LINES, Tuesday, 7-21-09 (61.15MB; download) -- Guest: Open Lines with Dr. David Livingston. Topics: Media interviews and privacy, NASA, Ares 1 and pork, Iran, How to be a guest on The Space Show. This two hour program was an Open Lines program divided into three segments. During the first segment, I covered a few topics and issues that I thought needed airing and discussing. For example, for listeners wanting to contact me or ask a question, please use drspace@thespaceshow.com, do not send me messages through Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. I talked about doing media interviews and being misquoted, edited beyond the point of reason and the overall frustration of being manipulated as fair game in this process. I also talked about what I consider to be privacy violations by people with cell cameras, Flip Video, etc. taking video or pictures and audio, doing whatever edits please them and then putting these cuts on YouTube or other online outlets. Perhaps some of you have been impacted in this way. I announced my strategy in doing interviews and known speaking appearances, but being secretly photographed or recorded does leave a person vulnerable. I cautioned people to realize that even a seemingly private conversation might not be private and could be made public , especially if people know who you are and you said something that some might be considered controversial, explosive or noteworthy. Some of this is really maddening and you will hear my passion about it in this segment. Also during this segment, I talked about people who self invite themselves to be a guest on The Space Show and why I am reluctant to invite them on the show as a guest. For anyone interested in being a guest on The Space Show, the best path is to call during an Open Lines program and tell us what you have to say and let us hear you and how you say it. This is a genuine invitation. During the second segment of the show, we received a call from Andrew in Tucson to follow up on recent discussions we have had with him on the manufacturing process in Iran pertaining to their ability to make rockets and missiles. Andrew provided us with a YouTube video but YouTube went down during our discussion so listeners and I could not follow what Andrew was saying real time. The URL for the Iranian video is http://www.youtube.com/user/gforden so check it out. Andrew may call in during the second hour of the Friday show to finish explaining what we see in this video. Toward the end of this segment, Dr. Jurist called in from Montana to ask about the way space advocacy has been changing, good or bad, and its impact on space policy. This was a good discussion though I dominated it with long comments and answers. Hear what I had to say about the impact of space advocacy and how it might work best. While there is definitely some Kool Aid in advocacy, overall I think it is a plus for moving space policy and space programs forward. You can hear my full comments and this discussion on the show and I don't think you will want to miss it. Dr. Jurist also brought up my comments from previous programs about SpSt students not knowing who Alexander Solzhenitsyn was and wondering if the same applied to the ISU students I was meeting at the Ames summer session. Since I did not ask any of them that question, I can only assume most of the students I met would fair far better because their European or global education was likely more history inclusive than what many U.S. students now get in their various high school and college programs. In the last segment which was long, we talked about the ISU students and programs and UND SpSt programs and students. Both programs are excellent but they address different markets and I believe the students I have met at the ISU Summer Session at NASA Ames this summer to be extremely well educated, rounded, mature and bright. Mel, one of my former UND students and an alum of the program took issue with what I said about SpSt students in a blanket statement and I did apologize as Me Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:43 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Google Lunar X Prize Team FREDNET, Monday, 7-20-09 (56.83MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Sean Case, Fred Bourgeois, Richard Core, Wade Butcher, Mike Barrucco for Team FREDNET. Topics: Team FREDNET and the Google Lunar X Prize. Team FREDNET was our guest for this show, talking about its open source approach to designing its Google Lunar X Prize entry. Our guests talked about the Web 2.0 tools being used on their site for open source, including their forum, and how it was bringing people together in a collaborative effort for their lunar project. We also discussed the downstream commercial value for going to the Moon, especially after the contest ends. As you will hear from our guests, there are many ways to participate in the open source with Team FREDNET, including skills and expertise including disciplines broader than just engineering, science, propulsion, orbital dynamics, etc. For example, our guests talked about the need for a logo designer, a musician to compose a theme song for Team FREDNET, policy, and other specialties. You will want to visit their website to join their forum and find out more about what they are doing. Please see www.teamFREDNET.org. Our guests also talked about the challenges of going to the Moon. I asked which was harder, getting to the Moon or making a soft landing to protect their hardware so it works and can win the contest. You might be surprised at the answer to that question. The team members talked about their financing, university partnerships, sponsorships and their non-profit status. As this show airs on July 20, the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, we talked about our efforts to return to the Moon, what was different in 2009 from 40 years ago, about leadership and the support of the American people. This is an interesting discussion. Team FREDNET members suggested that our return to the Moon and the efforts of the Google Lunar X Prize teams were wealth builders for the nation, possibly capable of creating 10,000 or more jobs. This is yet another important part of the discussion you will want to hear. If you have a question or comment for the Team FREDNET guests, send them to me and I will forward them to our guests. In addition, you can use the contact information on their website, www. teamFREDNET.org. During the show, they tell listeners how to reach them. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:39:51 UTC
|
| Add this to another station |
Dr. Pat Patterson and Dr. Doug Lemon, Friday, 7-17-09 (59.64MB; download) -- Guests: Dr. Pat Patterson and Dr. Douglas Lemon. Topics: SmallSat Conference, Space Dynamics Lab, academic outreach for satellites, commercial satellite programs. Dr. Pat Patterson returned to The Space Show with the new Director of the Space Dynamics Lab (SDL) at Utah State University, Dr. Douglas Lemon, to discuss the upcoming SmallSat Conference in Logan, Utah from August 10-13, 2009. Our guests took us through the jammed packed agenda for this year's SmallSat Conference, they explained the student scholarship awards programs and papers, and we talked at length about the SDL and several of its existing and new programs. The theme for this year's conference is Element of New Space Systems and you will hear how the conference addresses this theme and integrates the subject into small satellites, advanced technology, and much more. As this conference is now 23 years old, we also took a glimpse through history with our guests to see what was going on with small satellites and the fledgling industry when the first SmallSat Conference was held. Listen to what the conference was like back then with the 100 or so attending and compare and contrast that to what the conference will be like this year. Our guests elaborated on the important social and networking aspects of the conference, and the company dinners/parties that they host. Dr. Patterson let us know about the keynote conference speaker, Lt. General Kevin T. Campbell, Commanding General USDASMDC/ARSTRAT. Dr. Lemon talked in detail about the SDL, explained its relationship to Utah State and the conference, the student employees, and the new program with the University of Arizona in Tucson. You can find out more information about the SDL by visiting www.sdl.usu.edu/index-noflash.html. Listeners asked several questions including asking for the definition of a small satellite as well as a cubesat. Listen to their definitions as definitions for all sizes of satellites. Pat talked about the online registration, hotel space in Logan, and the different conference rates for those attending, including students and those coming just for a day. You can find out all you want about the conference, the daily agenda, the side programs both before and after the main conference, all by visiting www.smallsat.org. If you have comments or questions for our two guests, please send them to me at drspace@thespaceshow.com. Conference questions can be directed through the website to the contacts page at http://www.smallsat.org/contact-info. Selected by: David Livingston [ stations ], Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:33:53 UTC
|
| << < 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 > >> | |