Update: About 20 minutes before the show. I was just now thinking about the Superhero series. The reason I was thinking of it was that my commenter here included a link to the site in which I saw something that he wrote that interested me and I downloaded it. Not to say much more here, other than I was reading a bit from the download while I was waiting for the show to begin. ( It's about storytelling.)
Update: Looks like the show is about to begin.
Intro beginning. Announcements: phone, email, podcast access to program, website has all current info, newsletter uploaded this evening, upcoming plans, future guests can be seen on website, shows are archived.
It is a nonprofit ( where I got the idea for this blog). Donations are tax deductible. Begin intro of Dr. Spudis. Effective articulation of going back to moon. Senior staff scientist, awards received and has a book out based upon his blog. Has a cd in the back of the book.
Corrects the URL into the Doctor. gave. Asks about book. Why in a book? Got requests and said it would be handy in a book. Traveling literature. Good thematic collection. A serious change in national space program. Formally collect those to keep a record.
Running commentary of lunar science. Running log of operations. Collection of mini essays. Like an op ed column. Half revolved around policy. Evolved in differently than what they anticipated.
Question: Clarify article about NASA meetings going to the moon, but going back to Moon cancelled. Are we going to Moon? We do we stand? Answer: Yes and No. Phenomenon: a large program get reoriented by big organization not everybody gets message. Get confusion called Brownian Motion. Got the project proposed changed, but Congress disagreed. ( Part of the confusion ) Only partly implemented Prez proposal. Of seven points, 3 mentioned lunar surface. No one knows what the mission is. Chaos. Also the budget situation in Congress. No budget for this year nor next year.
How do you plan for that, asks David. Ans. Don't. In reactive mode. In chaos. Good plan to destroy NASA he says.
Suggestion on how to move forward? Ans: Lack of leadership have chaos. Need to bring order out of chaos. A budget will emerge eventually. May be painful (new budget). Until then, all up in air. No comfort to offer, he says. Never seen it this bad.
Q: Are we really moving forward without timelines? A: Yes we do need them. NASA works better with a schedule. NASA is operational agency. Need realistic program. Cost overrun were supposed to be handled by scheduling.
Caller: John in Montana. Asks about competition from India, China will spur competition? How will to turn things around given lack of leadership, competence, vision and having everyone "diving into their own navel"?
Ans: Spur into action? Sputnik effect? But not so sure that it would make a difference. It will take something dramatic or negative to make that happen, hopes not.
Stop navel gazing? Will continue that, he says. Small groups will make things better. These people will emerge and move us forward. At some point, realize space is important to society and we need it. Practical reasons. Once that is realized, a more stable rational program emerges.
follow up: can it be reversed? Ans. Yes, it can. Need a critical mass. A rational reason to do this. Is possible to change it.
call in number 18666877223
Half of questions are aligned with these thoughts. Tries to convey enthusiasm for the science. But the edifice is crumbling too.
No shortage of publicity, but not driving it. Perplexing. Evidence stronger for return to Moon.
Alan in Seattle: do we need a commercial driver or is it still government. He says both. Doesn't have to be a conflict. Can make money and are important national interest. Knowledge base improving.
Carla asks focus should build heavy lift vehicle? Ans. argument on both sides of that. The language in bill was in bill. Congress concerned by retiring shuttle, they are worried losing capability we might need in future. Keep the infrastructure. Build around shuttle hardware.
Now a test of wills between NASA and Congress. Ugly battle.
Why does NASA oppose this? Pres is opposed.
My opinion: do both commercial and heavy lift on shuttle technology.
Shuttle sidemount a possible solution. Meets all requirements.
Policy from the top down.
caller: John in Atlanta. mixture of two influences 1) academics rely on unmanned probes 2) certain elements want commercial space Ans. fair comment, he says. Agrees about 1), but influence is less than that. Not powerful on 2) in agreement that commercial guys want to get a chance at the money. Don't help them build their vehicles.
Democrats not been manned program fans. A certain wing of party. Ans. Bipartisan support. Philosophical divide, not partisan.
Can't gut the program. What are the goals? Won't see Apollo funding. Need funding to move to get you to goal.
John in Montana: Other than LBJ has been fan of space? All Prez have supported space.
break
The nuts and bolts of government bores me, I have to admit. This discussion was getting tedious to me. I am more interested in the moonbase.
back now
Propellant depots. Ans. Not critical of heavy lift. Budget figures struck him on asteroid mission. Each architecture got only 1 mission to asteroid. Took too long and got so little for it. End point trivial to what it took to do it. ( criticism of president)
another comment was that we spend same amount of money but by end have capability. Better deal.
(Spudis): Never said propellant depot was dumb. Depends on what you are trying to do. One off program is dumb.
Like asteroid. ( YES!)
This discussion looks very bad for President Obama. ( my comment)
Discussion goes off on propellant depots and such. My mind is wandering back to the ET discussion that I wrote about on this blog a few months ago. Can save the shuttle derived system he was talking about, plus make it more cost effective.
Arc jets? Dennis Wingo mentioned. A lot of noise on the line.
David goes off on one his "rants". Says he has radically changed his views. Never in 10 year history have totally bullcrap been talked about. Equated as reality to build is ridiculous. Tired of powerpoints. Lack of knowledge and so forth. Says not doing any good to bombard us with nonsense. Get Real his says. He's really getting into it!!!
Spudis agrees with 3/4 of it, he says. Lot of people on internet. ( like me?) Don't consider myself an expert. I try to keep it real. Spudis, blames it on the lack of leadership in Washington. He thinks it will get worse.
break
Comment: The last thing I want to do is to harm the space program. If that was the result of what I am doing, I would shut everything down immediately. I want to keep everything real. That's the whole point.
back to show
Blogging the Moon
is the name of the book. 
Academic community feels that manned space program too costly, Spudis disagrees. Cold traps are colder than surface of Pluto. Cold traps keep water there forever. Areas near poles are in near perpetual light. Axis tilt is very low. Sun is always on horizon. Mapped out these areas. Perfect situation to occupy the Moon. Human presence on a sustainable basis is possible.
Vaporware problem. Bang on!!!!! I noticed this.
Spudis says exercising the imagination is a good thing. Daydreaming is a good thing not a bad thing. Only bad if allow to replace day to day living. "Don't be a wanker
!!!!"Widget factories don't make flight hardware, he says.
Need to go to polar region to observe in place. Anyone can do this, says. Says he has already done it on the Indian mission.
Any missions to surface? Looks like no.
Moon v Mars. (NASA) Never thrilled about Moon.
Rate the optimism 10 perfect 0 worse than today in 5 years? Spudis at the 30 percent level. Nothing going to happen in couple years. Still going to be shell shock at NASA. Looks for indecision to be extended. Won't get back on track in couple years. May take next election. After that, resolution one way or another.
Future direction is emerging, he says. Spudis can be contacted through his website. Can't transcribe this stuff fast enough. Gives pearls of wisdom and closes the show.
Final notes on show: I think Spudis is right. I think Obama is mostly wrong, but I am in favor of commercial crew. I am in favor of sidemount, just use it for cargo. Try to reuse shuttle ET tanks. Don't use sidemount for crewed missions. Don't need to man rate it. Can use SpaceX for manrated hardware. Decide on that or another but decide soon. Agree with Spudis that we need to find out about what is on the Lunar pole regions. This seems like high priority to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment