Eric Berger talks about the sudden departure of Doug Loverro, the head of human space flight at NASA, only days before the agency sends astronauts into space after almost a decade. Berger is the Senior Space Editor at Ars Technica. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/timetoeatthedogs/berger_e_2.mp3
The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman and I question the concept of reality,
the meaning of space and time, the ability of scientists to show us the truth, and the lies our fathers told us.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION AT
Guest: Chrishma Derewa; Topics: Europa mission, SLS, Falcon Heavy, launch industry, mission trades, launcher costs & more. Please direct all comments and questions regarding specific Space Show programs & guest(s) to the Space Show blog which is part of archived program on our website, www.thespaceshow.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.
We welcomed JPL Systems Engineer Chrishma Derewa to the program to discuss a variety of space industry topics starting with the upcoming JPL Europa mission. During the majority of the first segment of our almost two hour program, Chrishma updated us on the Europa mission and answered multiple listener questions. In discussing the Europa mission, our guest also talked about the launcher of choice, SLS. He said the Europa payload could fly on other rockets including the Falcon Heavy but the preferred launcher was SLS, in part due to a travel time of just under 3 years compared to a travel time of just under 8 years if another rocket was used. This caused quite a stir with several listeners and in particular Doug who kept challenging him on why it was preferable to spend more money for the shorter travel time as compared to lower launch costs for the FH. Doug also asked Chrishma for the launch costs for the various rockets under consideration and then Doug wanted to know why he was saying the FH costs were significantly higher than those posted by SpaceX. Chrishma also talked about the Europa mission instrumentation package and goals. One listener wanted to know why there was no sample return mission given the size of the Europa payload. Don’t miss Chrishma’ s response to this question. One of the important things he mentioned was the dedicated congressional funding for Europa. Don’t miss this important discussion.
In the second segment, I asked our guest about obtaining affordable launch costs. Many of you might find this part of our discussion controversial as did several listeners. Our guest said launch costs were not expensive, he cited a history of how costs went up, says the launch industry profits are significant but costs were not. He also talked about market forces and supply and demand for launches. At times this was a complicated discussion but do listen to it, note what listeners were saying to him and challenging him on, and see what you think about what our guest was saying. Post your comments and thoughts on these issues on the blog for this show.
After a while with the above discussion, I modified my initial question to our guest. This time I asked him what we could do to get more launches, drive a higher launch rate, and open space up to more users. Chrishma replied that we needed to make more use of the ESPA ring which is a rideshare adapter. I’ve talked about the ESPA ring on many past Space Show programs and thought it was in wide use but not so according to our guest. Again, don’t miss our discussion which included additional information as well.
Doug took issue with what Chrishma was saying about launch prices and kept sending in email questions referencing SpaceX information. Do not miss these exchanges between Doug and Chrishma. Unfortunately, Doug was with us by email but I believe the discussion was still exceptional. This is another case where in my opinion, there are no solid black and white answers or choices. But listen, then you decide, then tell us about your decision on the blog.
Toward the end of our show, Kim asked about increasing interest in space and how we can get to the next level. Chrishma had a broad vision response including a short discussion about possible ecological collapse with the implication we don’t seem to move and make progress until bad events happen or are about to happen.
Another topic our guest quickly brought up before the end of the program was the Oasis Project. Check it out at this website, https://isulibrary.isunet.edu/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=414. This is a space development infrastructure plan that our guest worked on while doing an International Space University project. Before the program ended, he was asked if he thought space would be a topic in the presidential election. He said probably not but listen to all of what he said about this. He also got in a luke warm plug for the ARM mission.
Please post your comments/questions in the comments section for this archived show on The Space Show website. You can reach our guest through his JPL address or me.
Brent Sherwood was the guest for this special two hour Space Show program. Mr. Sherwood is a space architect with JPL who has an interest in figuring out what we will do when we return to the Moon, what we can and what we should do on the Moon, he knows about closed loop systems which we will need for lunar and all space settlement and transportation, and he has intriguing theories about the way nations choose their public space programs. We discussed all of these areas with Mr. Sherwood and much more. This program is a must listen to program for the tough and challenging issues tackled by our guest. We learned about vision drivers for example, we learned about enabling ideas and technologies, and we discussed in some detail the lack of communication about space from NASA to the public. If there ever was a Space Show program to take notes on, this one is it! You can send your comments or additional questions to Brent Sherwood through me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Guest: Brent Sherwood; Topics: NASA Discovery Missions, planetary exploration and more. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience. We welcomed Brent Sherwood back to the show to discuss NASA planetary science missions and in particular the Discovery class missions. During our nearly two hour discussion without a break, Brent started out by telling us how NASA selects Discovery class missions. He talked about the two kinds of science but focused on the Discovery missions which have a $500 million budget not including launch or operating costs. He said it was open season on the solar system other than the sun or Earth as they were covered by other NASA programs. In speaking about the history of Discovery missions, he named a few that we are all familiar with such as Kepler, Grail, Deep Impact, Stardust, the Phoenix Mission, Dawn and the upcoming Insight Mission to Mars. Brent then explained the proposed missions under the auspices of his team. These proposed missions include VERITAS, BASiX, CORE, Pandora, Proteus, Psyche, Kuiper, and ELF. Brent explained each proposed mission to us, talked about the P.I. for each mission, and the science to be gained from the mission. Listeners had many questions for him including how the principal investigator (PI) was selected. Brent explained the process, where the PIs come from, how a mission is proposed, is it coming from a university or academic setting, has it been proposed before, or is it coming from JPL or another NASA center or the Applied Physics Lab (APL). Brent was clear that Discovery missions, given their limited resources, were not about developing and proving out new technology so in answer to my question about the TRL of completing these missions, he said they were all coming in with very high TRLs though the missions sound very futuristic, even bordering on science fiction. As for timelines, Discovery missions approved now would fly in 2021 so they have about a six year time frame to be developed and flown. In response to questions, our guest addressed this six year time line in some detail. All of these missions sounded very exciting but as Brent said, it is a very competitive process and only one or two if any of them may be selected as other teams are proposing their Discovery projects as well and they are equally exciting. Later in the segment, Brent was asked about the choice of launch vehicle for each project. This was a very interesting discussion, don’t miss it as our guest explained in detail the role of the PI regarding the launch vehicle and how NASA actually selects a rocket for the mission. In response to BJohn’s question about launch costs, they certainly factor into the mission planning. Doug asked a question about the Photos-Deimos mission and if the mission could identify a favorable small crater which could later be the site for a covered habitat and if it could identify frozen volatiles in the polar craters of those moons if they exist. Brent said it might have such capabilities but that these missions only do the work specific to their actual project. He had more to say on this so don’t miss all his comments. BJohn asked why not a Uranus mission. Brent said Uranus was too far out and too costly for a Discovery class project. Near the end of the segment, BJohn also asked about the importance of miniaturization now and for the future with NASA and these missions. Brent said it was very important and then updated us on all the cubesat opportunities and uses being integrated into NASA missions. He spoke about the significance of cubesats for several minutes so don’t miss what he had to say about them. Doug asked a question about realizing economic value from these missions or at least what was the rationalization behind these purely science missions. Brent provided an excellent answer to Doug’s questions so don’t miss it. We ended the show after Brent’s response. See what you think of it and post your comments on TSS blog. Doug sent in a final note saying "I agree with his answer re: the value of science. I believe that it is worth a certain amount of our money to increase our knowledge for its own value." Please post your comments/questions on The Space Show blog above. You can reach Brent Sherwood through me at email@example.com.
Guest: Brent Sherwood. Topics: Space Solar Power (SSP), climate change, SSP demos, SSP economics. Please direct all comments and questions regarding Space Show programs/guest(s) to the Space Show blog, http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm. For those listening to archives using live365.com and rating the programs, please email me as to why you assign a specific rating to the show. This will help me bring better programming to the audience. We welcomed Brent Sherwood back to the show to discuss the rational, potential, and economics for the use of space solar power (SSP). During the first segment of our 1 hour 27 minute discussion, Brent first introduced us to Dr. David MacKay from Cambridge University who in 2009 was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Brent talked about Dr. MacKay’s book during our discussion, "Sustainable Energy-Without The Hot Air" which is available for free on the internet. You should follow along in the book with Brent’s discussion, especially in the first segment, as our guest referred to pages and visuals frequently. Check it out at http://withouthotair.com. Most of the first segment was spent using information from Professor MacKay’s book to explain the current energy and climate situation on Earth and to justifying moving away from petroleum, eventually to SSP. Brent talked about CO2, energy disruption, the transition to something other than fossil fuels, and how to develop SSP. Dr. MacKay used modeling for the UK which Brent referenced, especially from page 215 with the UK map. Brent then talked economics, again referring to the work by Dr. MacKay suggesting an SSP system costing $1.4 trillion! Spread out over a number of years, that price was not much different from what is spent on several government departments and policies, including NASA at this time. Brent listed several examples of this so don’t miss this discussion. Brent then suggested the least path of disruption would focus on the key which would have to be electricity. This took us to our next topic which addressed how to generate the amount of electricity needed, including his identifying several newer technologies that could lower some industry costs. He talked about some of the main challenges including transportation, storage, transmission, & operations. Later in the segment, Brent delved into the cost per kWh for electricity. Marshal called to talk about key new technologies including advancements in related and applicable photo voltaics and more. In the much shorter second segment, Brent talked about macro engineering projects and huge platforms in GEO space. He said that such SSP GEO platforms would be around 7,000 sq. km. or three times the size of the paved U.S. national highway surface. Brent then addressed why none of this ever happens and he pointed to this not being a purpose of NASA as an example. To counter this, he advocated for a serious demo project, even suggesting the use of the ISS for the demo. Our guest talked about the challenge in attracting private capital to this because it is so futuristic right now. However, private capital has flowed to the futuristic industry of asteroid mining. We both asked why to one and not to the other? The last email question of the day was from Carol who pointed out that government policy to regulate coal and CO2 over 30 years is off point. Instead, government policy should produce a serious demo project that confirms the technology and the potential market, then let the markets and industry self-regulate and invest for the future. Please post your comments/questions on TSS blog above. Brent can be reached through me if you want to contact him.
Guests: Brent Sherwood, Dr. Scott Howe, Dr. Ted Hall; Topics: Variable artificial gravity research on proposed Gateway (was known as LOP-G), design issues for rotating habitat, & the need for the human gravity RX for BLEO & more.
Please direct all comments and questions regarding specific Space Show programs & guest(s) to the Space Show blog which is part of archived program on our website, www.thespaceshow.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.
We welcomed Brent Sherwood and Dr. Scott Howe back to the show and Dr. Ted Hall to the program for the first time for this 1 hour 44 minute two segment discussion about their RFI proposal to use the Gateway (LOP-G) as a variable artificial gravity research platform. Please note that later in the show after the call from Dallas, we lost the connection to our guests but I was able to get it back though you will hear the edit bringing our guests back online. I apologize for this error on my part.
Brent, our first speaker, explained their RFI suggestion for a variable artificial gravity platform on the Gateway to make sure the Gateway had an important and useful purpose. Most of the first segment was spent with our three guests explaining the need for determining the gravity prescription for human spaceflight BLEO, ethical concerns for going into deep space without this information and the total lack of credible information on this subject today. In addition, all our guests firmly pointed out that while LEO might be a better location for artificial variable gravity research, no such artificial gravity platform research was planned or even close to being planned for LEO. In other words, the only possible to carry out this essential research was on the Gateway which they considered a done deal with NASA though the actual design, purposes and multiple uses for the Gateway were not yet determined. Because of the requirement for a spinning habitat or spacecraft, designing it from the beginning to be rotating was essential. Regardless of the Gateway not being the best location, as was said several times on the show, it is for now the only possible game in town. Be sure to listen carefully to our first segment discussion. While technical at times, it was information and fact packed and very important even if their RFI was not accepted and even if the Gateway ends up having nothing to do with artificial gravity. What our guests spoke about and described would hold true for any rotating hab or variable artificial gravity research platform.
During this segment we did take several listener email questions. Our guests responded to them. One for example wanted to know about putting the AG platform on the surface of the Moon. Our guests explained why that was not feasible so don’t miss the response. Hint: Lunar gravity would prevent the variable gravity research from happening just as would Earth’s gravity but listen for the detailed explanation. Another listener mentioned that nobody had died from microgravity problems, and he exercise routines seemed to keep the astronauts OK on the station, even on the longer mission such as the Twin Study. Make sure you listen to the comprehensive response given by our guests to this question. Let us know what you think by posting on the blog. Note that the response referenced the Twin Study and other issues encountered on the ISS and other platforms regarding microgravity.
Before the break, our guests outlined the seven different artificial gravity configurations outlined in their RFI. Several of them were discussed in detail on our show, including the simplest one which was the first configuration mentioned. Our guests had much to say about NASA and researchers possibly avoiding the necessity of doing artificial gravity research due to complexity of it so don’t miss this discussion.
I asked our guests about the added costs to the Gateway for doing the artificial gravity work plus possible project delays. Don’t miss how they responded to this set of questions. Listeners and I asked about comfort and the crew having space sickness so would this require a different type of screening for the crew. Our guests did not think so but they did talk a lot about space adaptation syndrome and crew comfort. Also discussed were proposed spin rates for crew comfort. Once again, a very interesting and important discussion with possibly surprising comments on the need to establish and design for crew comfort and how space adaptation syndrome might be dealt with on the platform. You might be surprised by some of what you hear so don’t miss what was said. I bet you even learn from the discussion. I sure did.
In the second segment, our guests talked about using animals for the research before humans. While this was also most interesting, it was suggested that it would not happen as animals would require their own protocols, environment, handling, and more which would be a cost driver. Our guests did not think it would be necessary to do this type of research first on animals.
Listener Penny asked our guests what the crew would be doing during this study? Also, would the platform constantly be rotating or just part of the time. These and more questions were answered by our guests. That said, another interesting and challenging issue was brought u regarding visiting docking vehicles to the platform. Docking to a rotating platform presents different challenges over and above docking to a non-rotating platform which is what we do now. Make sure you listen to what our guests had to say about this matter.
Dallas called to ask questions about Orion and long duration stays since the Orion and SLS launch schedule was much shorter term than what AG research would require on the platform. Once again don’t miss what our guests said about Orion and scheduling. It was when Dallas ended his call that I lost our guests but was successful in restoring their connection a few minutes later.
After the Dallas call, I asked our guests for the probability of their RFI happening and the Gateway being used for the artificial gravity research platform. Our guests were not optimistic about the chances for selection success but listen carefully to what they had to say when asked this question. I then asked our guests a series of questions about their belief that determining the human gravity prescription for human spaceflight BLEO was essential or not. Our guests thought was as so many others appearing on TSS over the years have said. I then pointed out the obvious disconnect that since this was essential research and no such research was being planned for LEO either by the public or private sectors (as of now), and should they pass on this opportunity for the Gateway, then why would anyone take NASA seriously when they talk about humans going beyond LEO to the surface of the Moon, to Mars, to elsewhere in the solar system? That was a hard one to answer by all of us but do listen to this discussion. We also want to know what you think so post your thinking on this subject on the blog. By the way, listeners and I did ask our guests about just spinning a ship and going to Mars on the assumption any artificial gravity would be better than none or just going as is talked about by many advocates for both Mars and return to the Moon flight and settlement. Our guests did address these ideas and concepts so for sure you will want to hear what they had to say about such practices. Ethical behavior seemed to play a large role in how they viewed the spaceflight without knowing the gravity prescription. Before leaving the topic, I did ask our guests for the actual TRL level today for human spaceflight BLEO. I believe you will find what they had to say regarding our human spaceflight TRL for BLEO to be both interesting and important.
Another topic that was brought up before the program ended focused on cislunar flight. Since human spaceflight BLEO was brought up several times during the program, our guests pointed out that one did not have to go deep space to learn about artificial gravity. Our guests pointed out the advantages of sticking to cislunar space at this time to learn about artificial gravity, the gravity prescription for humans and more. This discussion was near the end of the show up to and including closing comments.
Please post your comments/questions on blog for this show. You can reach the guests through their NASA pages or me.
The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be la
A few months ago, I had the pleasure of being on Dan Moyle’s podcast, The Storytellers Network.I’m always a bit hesitant to go on podcasts. I love chatting with people, but my relationship with th
The FISO Telecon Archive can be
materials, and those from this archive should be properly credited to the
Page 1 of 4Older