Brief Summary: The program focused on a discussion with Roger Launius, a retired NASA historian, about his book covering NASA’s history from its origins as NACA to the present day. The conversation explored NASA’s relationship with commercial space industry, historical organizational changes, and the challenges of accessing NASA’s historical records and archives. The discussion also covered various technical and political aspects of space exploration, including decision-making processes, military roles in space, and the evolution of NASA’s approach to partnerships and innovation. Roger shared his thoughts on the future of space exploration, expressing uncertainty about the timeline for lunar missions and human presence on Mars. Space Show team participants included myself, John Jossy, Bill Gowan, Marshall Martin, John Hunt, Dr. Ajay Kothari, and Phil Swan.Detailed Summary: As host I welcomed Dr. Roger Launius back to the Space Show to discuss his new book, “From NACA to NASA to Now.” Launius explained that the book, published in 2025, provides a concise history of NASA from its origins as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1915 to its transformation into NASA in 1958. He highlighted the ongoing role of NASA’s legacy research centers in aeronautical research today. Launius also discussed the evolution of the aerospace industry, emphasizing that the distinction between “old space” and “new space” is complex and not clearly defined. He noted that private sector activities in space have a long history, dating back to the 1950s, and that NASA’s approach to commercial partnerships has evolved over time, particularly with the creation of separate entities to handle launch services in the 1990s.Bill Gowan and Roger discussed the evolution of NASA’s relationship with commercial space, noting that while NASA has always relied on commercial industry for spacecraft design and construction, there has been a shift towards non-cost-plus contracts. Roger highlighted that while NASA innovations have contributed to commercial space advancements, the designs are not entirely independent of NASA’s influence. They also explored the partisan nature of NASA’s early years, with Roger explaining that the Apollo program faced political challenges from both the left and right, and was subject to budget cuts after its initial success.The discussion focused on the impact of the government shutdown on NASA’s historical resources and archives. Roger explained that while NASA facilities are currently closed, their websites and online historical resources remain accessible, though not updated. He detailed the complex federal records system, noting that most NASA records are stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and other federal record centers across the country, with access often delayed by years, especially for recent or classified materials. Marshall inquired about accessing Elon Musk’s communications with NASA and the President, to which Roger clarified that such recent records would not be available in the National Archives yet and suggested using interviews and publicly released documents for journalistic research on recent events.Roger explained that separating historical facts from salesmanship in space exploration is a challenging task due to the varied motivations behind statements. He emphasized the importance of understanding these motivations and balancing contradictory perspectives. David inquired about the feasibility of modernizing old Apollo lunar lander plans, to which Roger confirmed that NASA possesses extensive technical drawings and records of past hardware in federal records centers and has historically allowed access for analysis. Roger also described the difficult transition from NACA to NASA in 1958, highlighting resistance from the military, particularly over the transfer of the von Braun team and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency’s resources, which was a prolonged and contentious process.Our discussion addressed historical NASA consolidations and organizational changes, with Roger explaining that efforts to close or merge NASA facilities have been ongoing since the 1960s, though political opposition from congressional delegations has typically prevented closures. The conversation also covered the history of the National Space Council, which was established in 1958 but became less active after the 1960s, particularly under Nixon, before being revived by the Trump administration. John Hunt raised questions about military roles in space, noting how the Army developed its own ballistic missile programs while the Air Force maintained separate capabilities, highlighting ongoing challenges in service roles and missions.Roger explained that Space Council issues are now handled through the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House. He discussed the difficulty in finding detailed information about NASA’s decision-making process for certain projects, such as the Mars Sample Return mission. Roger mentioned that some individuals, like George Lowe and Bob Siemens, kept detailed records of meetings and decisions, which are now available at Rensselaer and MIT respectively. David asked if there would be a “post-NASA era,” to which Roger responded that there is no known impetus for such a transition. The conversation also touched on the public and intellectual resistance to using Nazi engineers, like Wernher von Braun, in the early American space program, and the debate within the federal government about this issue.Roger discussed the history of supersonic flight, clarifying that Chuck Yeager did not demand a million dollars to fly the X1 and that Slick Chalmers flew multiple supersonic flights. He also addressed a controversy about whether the F-86 pilot beat Yeager’s speed record, noting that the evidence was unreliable. Roger emphasized the importance of data-driven decision-making in engineering, using examples from the Challenger disaster and flight readiness reviews. Marshall inquired about decision-making processes, and Roger highlighted the need for comprehensive data and proper training in engineering education.The group discussed historical space program decisions, focusing on the Challenger launch and the X-30 National Aerospace Plane program. Roger explained that while data existed showing risks of cold-weather launches, the decision-making process was complex and the data wasn’t presented clearly, leading to the catastrophic failure. The discussion also covered the X-30 program, which was announced by Reagan in the 1980s but ended in the early 90s due to technological challenges and cost concerns, though some research continued.Roger discussed the NACA’s contributions to aeronautics, highlighting its approach to research and development. He explained how the NACA hired young engineers and provided them with advanced research tools, such as the variable density wind tunnel, which led to significant advancements in airframe and wing design. Roger also mentioned the NACA’s involvement in rocket research during World War II, which eventually led to the establishment of NASA and the transition of key personnel to the new space agency.Roger discussed his friendship with Dr. John Anderson and shared details about a 2009 incident involving Mike Griffin and Laurie Garver at a launch party for John Logsdon’s book. He explained that Mike Griffin expressed concerns about Laurie Garver’s involvement in the Constellation program, emphasizing her need to step back from technical details. Roger also highlighted Laurie Garver’s significant role in transitioning NASA to the commercial crew program, advocating for private sector involvement in space exploration. The conversation touched on the challenges NASA faced in the 1990s, including the cancellation of the X-33 program and the search for alternatives to the Space Shuttle.Concluding Summary: The meeting featured an interview with Roger, a retired NASA historian, who discussed his book on the history of NASA and its predecessor organizations. Roger shared his plans for future conferences and mentioned his current residence in Auburn, Alabama. The discussion also covered the availability of Roger’s book for free download from NASA. The conversation ended with thanks to the show’s sponsors and participants, and a reminder about an upcoming open lines session.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Tuesday, 11-11-25; 7 PM PDT, 10 PM EDT:Bob Zimmerman returns with space news and updates plus a look at space 2025. Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Hotel Mars, Weds, Nov. 5, 2025Guest Dr. Ajay KothariSummary:John and I welcomed back to Hotel Mars Dr. AJ Kothari for one segment to discuss Russia’s successful test of the nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile which Russia claims flew 14,000 km for 15 hours. The missile does this by capturing and compresses air, heating it over a nuclear reactor to create thrust. Dr. Kothari emphasized the attack danger of this missile because it flies low (50 to 100 m above the terrain) and is hard to detect. When asked if look down tech such as an AWAC or something similar could pick it up it, he said but he also explained his answer so don’t miss it. He notes this nuclear propulsion technology, or similar ramjet designs, could revolutionize commercial travel and be applied to flight on Mars, using its CO₂ atmosphere for heating. That said it would not be good for in space or the Moon due to no atmosphere. In such cases it would need to take fuel with it which might negate any advantages it might otherwise have.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4458 ZOOM Open Lines Discussion | Sunday 09 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David LivingstonZoom: Open Lines Discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
The Space Show Presents Arkisys CEO DAVE BARNHART Sunday, 11-2-25David Barnhart (Dave), CEO of Arkisys and research professor at USC, discussed the company’s progress in space operations and their unique business platform called “The Port” in Los Alamitos, Ca, including their work with NASA’s Astrobee facility and development of a free-flying space platform called “The Port.” The discussion covered various technical aspects including funding sources, modular space platforms, and navigation systems, while addressing challenges in hiring engineers and developing flexible infrastructure for space servicing. The conversation ended with conversations about future plans including lunar applications, and company security measures. Before ending, Dave highlighted the potential environmental impact of satellite debris and mentioned a USC PhD student’s research on the topic presented at the United Nations. I referenced future Space Show programs with Hotel Mars Dr. Kothari and Dr. Roger Lanius on Friday to discuss his new book.CEO Dave discussed his role in managing the Astrobee facility, a robotic free flyer inside the International Space Station. He explained that Arkisys, where he works, had taken over the commercial maintenance and operation of Astrobee which is used for microgravity experiments inside the ISS. The facility allows for testing in full 6 degrees of freedom in a zero-G environment, with capabilities for various payloads and operations lasting about 3 hours per session. Our guest noted that while NASA does not pay for the service, it aligns with his company business model focused on services, and they are responsible for helping customers through the necessary paperwork and procedures to use Astrobee.David went on to discuss the development of his free-flying space platform called “The Port,” which will provide a stable environment for autonomous robotics and payload hosting. He explained that the first flight of key technologies, carried by a 250-kilogram vehicle called the Cutter, is planned for late 2026, with the goal of demonstrating rendezvous capabilities with a port module in a 525-kilometer Sun Sync orbit. Barnhart noted that while there is competition in the space infrastructure and logistics sector, the market for hosted payloads and space servicing is projected to grow significantly, with potential revenue from existing markets like hosted payloads.Barnhart discussed his company’s funding, which includes government grants, SBIR, STTR, and contracts from DIU and the Space Development Agency. He explained their development of a modular space platform with propulsion capabilities, including the use of chemical systems and potential partnerships with companies using electric propulsion. Barnhart also addressed the challenges of refueling and connecting different interfaces for their platform, noting that they conducted a study on various interfaces worldwide and are working on creating a flexible system for future growth.David discussed the evolution of his satellite concept from a DARPA challenge focused on modular orbital functions to the development of “satlets” and port modules. He explained how the concept of cellularization led to the creation of scalable, multi-functional satellite components that could be aggregated, addressing the challenge of building cost-effective satellites. Barnhart described his company’s current size of 4 full-time employees plus himself, with plans to expand to 10-12 people, and mentioned their upcoming move to a larger facility to accommodate growth and develop a flat floor testing platform for robotic arm movements in space.Barnhart further discussed the challenges of hiring engineers for innovative space projects, noting that while experienced engineers are valuable for technical expertise, they may struggle with new concepts, while less experienced engineers might be more adaptable but lack depth. He emphasized the importance of finding a balance between technical expertise and innovative thinking. Ryan inquired about the potential internal applications of the Astrobee partnership with NASA, to which Barnhart confirmed that the learnings would be applied to Arkisys port module for validation and verification post-launch. Barnhart also explained the company’s use of an AI-based system, powered by a large language model, to assist in identifying potential issues with connectivity and safety. He highlighted the flexibility of the port module, which can be reconfigured and expanded in multiple dimensions to meet various customer needs, and emphasized the company’s focus on creating a versatile infrastructure for space servicing rather than specializing in a single service like refueling.The team discussed navigation systems for their spaceport module, which includes onboard cameras, GPS, IMU, and a partnership with Fugro for high-precision navigation down to centimeter accuracy using differential GPS and L-band signals. Dave explained their power management strategy, noting they have 500 watts on the cutter and plan for 1,000-1,500 watts on the port module, with power optimization software to manage shared infrastructure. Marshall inquired about lunar applications, to which he confirmed the system could be adapted for lunar and Mars orbits, including potential use as a communications router to handle different frequency standards around the moon.David also discussed the challenges of selecting the right mix of connectors for their first port module to ensure flexibility over the next five years, particularly in light of Europe’s space servicing push. He mentioned they have letters of intent from prospective customers and have conducted over 20 tests with 15 different types of customers using a full-scale port module mock-up. Barnhart also addressed cyber and IT theft protection, noting they are NIST certified and going through the audit process for CMMC, with a focus on mitigating attacks from overseas. He explained they are developing software for security, including the ability to encrypt payload data with customer-specific keys, and are allocating 5% of their monthly budget to IT security.David Barnhart discussed the company’s approach to satellite connectivity, explaining they are working with AWS ground stations and exploring optical beam communication options. He addressed Marshall’s question about interfacing with satellite constellations, noting they are currently independent but considering multiple ground station providers. Our guest responded to David’s question about succession planning, confirming they have explored directors and key people insurance and identified Dr. Raul Rugani as a potential successor. Ryan inquired about the company’s growth strategy, to which he explained they are focusing on key modularization challenges while being open to partnerships for specialized technologies like robotics, with the goal of creating flexible port modules that can accommodate various capabilities.Dave discussed the challenges and potential solutions for exploring lava tubes on Mars using a modified Ingenuity helicopter, emphasizing the need for a hybrid approach involving both aerial and rover-based systems. He explained the technology behind cave navigation using SLAM and highlighted the importance of energy and data distribution. Barnhart also described the Bosun Locker project, which provides students with 3D printable files to design and test hardware for space applications. Additionally, he addressed the environmental impact of space debris reentering the Earth’s atmosphere, noting the potential for nanoparticles to affect the atmosphere’s composition and radiation effects.David and Dave discussed the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday and both expressed gratitude to the Space Show team. They encouraged listeners to support the show through donations and subscriptions. David mentioned the next shows will feature Dr. Roger Lanius, then an open lines discussion.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4457: ZOOM Dr. Roger Launius | Friday 07 Nov 2025 930AM PTGuests: Dr. Roger LauniusZoom: Dr. Launius talks about his new book, “NACA to NASA to Now.”Broadcast 4458 ZOOM Open Lines Discussion | Sunday 09 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David LivingstonZoom: Open Lines Discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Doug Messier was our Hotel Mars guest to discuss the challenges and the struggles concerning NASA getting back to the Moon before China even gets to the Moon. and the Moon Race Douglas Messier both responded to questions by John and David and he discussed a power struggle over NASA, including acting administrator Shawn Duffy’s interest in folding NASA into the Department of Transportation and his concern that the United States might lose the Moon Race 2.0 to China. The race is such a high priority to the administration that Duffy has even challenged SpaceX’s contract for the Artemis 3 moon landing, aiming to accelerate lander development amid fears that dependence on the complex Starship/Superheavy architecture might delay the mission beyond 2029. Doug breaks it all down for us in this edition of Hotel Mars. Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Bill Gowan, Tuesday, 10-28-25Quick Summary:The main focus of the discussion was Bill’s experience participating in The Planetary Society’s advocacy efforts on Capitol Hill, where he and other volunteers met with congressional representatives to advocate for increased funding for NASA’s science programs, which faces a proposed 47% budget cut in 2026.Detailed SummaryDavid Livingston hosted a special early Tuesday space show program featuring Bill Gowan, a retired electrical and systems engineer with experience in medical comms and aerospace. Bill discussed a recent citizens lobbying event in D.C. where 300 people met with their representatives to advocate for saving NASA science, which faces a proposed 47% budget cut in the 2026 NASA budget. The discussion highlighted how NASA science benefits American society through economic, medical, and technological advancements, while also addressing concerns about NASA employee reductions, with 20% of employees expected to leave by year-end. Bill was one of the 300 participating in the advocacy event.Bill explained that the 20% net figure for employee retirements and departures to private industry includes normal attrition and is considered a legitimate concern. He clarified that the advocacy work he and others were involved in was not lobbying, as it was done on a volunteer basis without payment. Bill described his decision to participate in the October advocacy event, which involved 19 other organizations, despite the success of a similar effort in March, due to the ongoing need to encourage Congress to do more for NASA and address the organization’s weakening foundation.Bill described a two-day training event organized by The Planetary Society for over 300 participants, including meetings with congressional representatives. The training covered NASA’s budget, with President Biden requesting $3.9 billion for NASA science, while the Senate proposed $7.3 billion and the House $6 billion, though with a “not less than” clause. Bill explained that participants met with their senators’ offices and representatives, with the logistics managed by a third party to ensure efficient scheduling.Bill and David discussed strategies for advocating for NASA’s space and science budget before Congress. They highlighted the importance of preparing clear messages, leveraging public support, and emphasizing the economic benefits of NASA’s science missions. Bill shared his experience with his own North Carolina delegation, where they met with seven members, including some first-time advocates. They emphasized the need to prioritize space science, referencing China’s increased investment in space exploration, and highlighted the return on investment for NASA’s science programs. Bill also mentioned the case of Christina Cook, a North Carolina native who will be the first woman to walk on the moon, to underscore the state’s connection to NASA’s missions.Bill discussed his experiences with meetings, noting that they lasted between 15 and 30 minutes. He shared that he had not seen individuals using meetings to advocate for personal issues, but he believed it would be permissible as long as the person was clear they were speaking as a citizen, not for any organization. Bill also mentioned meeting with Representative Fushi’s staffer, who was knowledgeable and supportive of NASA funding. Dr. Ajay Kothari inquired about the responses from Congress members, and Bill explained that both his representative and Senator Fushi were supportive of NASA funding. They briefly discussed the Senate’s $7.3 billion NASA science budget and how it relates to the $10 billion added by Senator Cruz, which Bill clarified was part of a reconciliation bill outside the normal appropriation process.Bill shared his previous experience participating in NASA advocacy meetings on Capitol Hill, noting that congressional staff generally receive space advocacy messages positively but express concerns about the 47% budget cut proposed by the administration. He explained that while there’s no significant difference in reception between Democratic and Republican-controlled White Houses, the current proposal faces resistance due to the large percentage cut being implemented in one year. The meetings, which involve approximately 300 advocates, are organized by Casey Dreyer and Jack Corrali, with participants completing feedback forms after each meeting to help improve future advocacy efforts.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Dr. Arun Sharma Monday 10-27-25 Space ShowQuick Summary:Our program focused on the establishment and operations of Cedars-Sinai’s new Space Medicine Research Center, including its research programs, educational components, and institutional support. Arun discussed their stem cell research initiatives, particularly the creation of 3D heart tissue organoids grown in microgravity on the ISS, and explained their approach to training astronauts and conducting space-based medical research. The conversation covered the potential of AI and telemedicine in space missions, regulatory challenges in stem cell research, and the future opportunities presented by commercial space stations for conducting biomedical research. David and Arun were joined by participant Dr. Sherry Bell.Detailed Summary:David and Dr. Sherry Bell discussed the establishment of the Center for Space Medicine Research at Cedars-Sinai, led by Arun. Arun confirmed the center’s functionality and its institutional support, emphasizing its research and educational components. After Arun was welcomed back to The Space Show to discuss Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s new Space Medicine Research Center. Arun explained that the center, established about a year ago, builds on their 10 years of work in stem cell and biomanufacturing research, including 8 missions to the ISS. He noted that the center has both research and educational components, offering courses in space medicine and biosciences as part of their master’s and PhD programs. Arun emphasized their institutional support and goal to become an academic partner for the growing private space industry in Los Angeles.Arun discussed Cedars’ expansion beyond cardiovascular focus to broader biomanufacturing and space research, with plans to establish a clinical arm leveraging their hospital’s expertise. He mentioned ongoing conversations with local space industry players in LA, though details are not yet public. Arun also outlined their vision for a comprehensive space medicine program, including pre-flight workups, in-flight diagnostics, and post-flight checkups, while acknowledging the need for space medical training for their network of providers.Arun further discussed his research on 3D heart tissue, or cardiac organoids, created from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). He explained that these tissues are grown in microgravity on the ISS, as microgravity may improve their growth compared to simulated microgravity on Earth. Arun clarified that the iPSCs and necessary chemicals were launched on SpaceX 33 in August and are now orbiting Earth. David inquired about astronaut training, and Arun explained that they work with engineers and partners like BioServe Space Technologies to train astronauts, as most are not life scientists. Arun expressed a desire for more direct communication with astronauts in the future.The discussion then focused on stem cell research and space medicine training. Arun explained that stem cells are sourced from de-identified donor samples at Cedars-Sinai, with consent for medical research use. The long-term goal is to create patient-specific bioengineered organs, starting with heart tissues, though this remains an area of ongoing research. Arun clarified that the initial training program will focus on biosciences for research scientists, with plans to expand to clinical training in the future.Arun did talk about the potential of AI and telemedicine in supporting deep space missions, emphasizing the value of human-focused research over animal studies. He clarified that his lab uses patient-specific stem cell models, focusing on human biology, and does not work with embryonic stem cells. Arun also addressed the cost and funding challenges of conducting research in space, mentioning partnerships with government agencies and the need to explore alternative funding sources for future collaborations. David inquired about simulating microgravity studies, to which Arun explained that while some ground-based simulations exist, they do not perfectly replicate the conditions of true space microgravity.Arun explained that the stem cell research at Cedars Space Lab involves creating three-dimensional organoids to study human biology and potentially identify new drugs, but emphasized that these cells cannot be transplanted back into people due to ethical and regulatory constraints. He clarified that the research is outcome-oriented, focusing on whether stem cells can be improved in space, with the goal of creating better models for understanding heart development and drug efficacy. David raised concerns about potential regulatory differences between countries, particularly regarding stem cell research, and Arun acknowledged that while the US has strict guidelines, some international research may go unpublished, making it difficult to track all ongoing work in this field.Arun discussed his work as a stem cell biologist and highlighted the potential of space biology research, mentioning a recent publication by UC San Diego on growing cancer cells in space. He expressed concerns about the transition from the ISS to commercial space stations, acknowledging the ISS’s valuable contributions to research but seeing an opportunity for the commercial industry to fill the gap. Arun also considered the possibility of conducting research on a commercial space station, emphasizing the potential for more biomedical researchers in space and the possibility of accelerated training in a private space capacity. He expressed interest in the idea of conducting his own research on a private space station, such as SpaceX’s Starship, and noted the importance of access and opportunities for further research.Arun discussed the differences between microgravity and partial gravity environments in space, highlighting the potential for developing unique therapeutic options that may only be applicable in space. He explained that while some treatments could be brought back to Earth, others might require patients to travel to space for treatment. Arun also touched on the current state of stem cell research, including clinical trials for various applications, and expressed optimism about future advancements in bioprinting and organoid manufacturing in space. He emphasized the importance of personalized medicine using patient-specific stem cells and encouraged continued interest in both stem cell and space biology research.Be sure to see the video of this program at doctorspace.substack.com.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Open Line Discussion – 4451 10-26-25Quick Summary: The meeting began with technical discussions about audio issues and upcoming show scheduling, including a fundraising campaign for The Space Show. The group then engaged in extensive discussions about space exploration, focusing on SpaceX’s Starship program, NASA’s lunar lander projects, and the geopolitical competition with China regarding moon missions. The conversation concluded with debates about rocket system capabilities, cost effectiveness, and the need for strong leadership at NASA to navigate both technical challenges and political considerations.Detailed Summary:Our program started out with David making a few general program announcements. We talked about upcoming shows, including a potential cancellation for Friday. The conversation then shifted to space settlement, with John mentioning a recent podcast about Tesla’s financial results and its focus on automation and robots for future space missions. David expressed skepticism about Starship’s readiness to take humans to the moon before China and before Trump leaves office, emphasizing the political importance of achieving these goal before the end of 2028.David announced the start of the annual fundraising campaign for The Space Show, a non-profit 501C3 program, which begins around Thanksgiving. He encouraged listeners to call into live programs using Zoom Phone lines, which offers better audio quality than the previous toll-free line. David expressed gratitude to the donors who have supported the show for nearly 25 years, allowing it to continue. He also invited non-donors to participate in the program and contribute to the fundraising campaign through various payment methods on both The Space Show website, www.thespaceshow.com and our Substack site, doctorspace.substack.com.Early on I shared excitement about a new physics book by Daniel Whiteson that explores universal scientific concepts, including the possibility of alien understanding of our known physics. I also highlighted the ongoing debate between Transportation Secretary/NASA Administrator Sean Duffy and Musk regarding the delays for both the SpaceX’s human lunar lander but also Blue Origin’s human lunar lander projects, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to prioritize returning to the moon and beating China to it. Phil suggested a structured debate to address the technical aspects of NASA’s decision to open lunar lander bidding, advocating for a more in-depth analysis of the issue.Our Zoom group discussed the possibility of organizing a debate on the Starship Human Lander Engineering Design Program, with Phil suggesting it could be a shorter, 40-minute format to attract a wider audience. David expressed concerns about the debate’s impact, noting that previous attempts to influence policy through debates were unsuccessful. The group also touched on the potential for sharing debate clips on platforms like YouTube and Substack to increase exposure.The group talked about SpaceX’s position and the challenges of organizing an independent audit of SpaceX’s delays. They debated the feasibility of an independent panel examining technical and policy factors contributing to SpaceX’s delays, with concerns raised about SpaceX’s proprietary information and the current hyper-partisan environment. The conversation shifted to the broader context of U.S. space exploration, with Charles suggesting focusing on establishing a long-term lunar facility rather than rushing to beat China to the moon, while others emphasized the importance of cislunar economy and political competition in reaching the moon as soon as possible.Our Space Show participants looked at options for returning to the moon, with Ajay presenting two possible solutions: an Apollo-like lander or a modified Blue Moon Mark 1.5. Charles and others expressed concerns about the feasibility and wisdom of using old Apollo technology, arguing for a more modern approach. The discussion also touched on potential NASA administrators, with Sean Duffy and Jared Isaacman being considered as candidates. David emphasized that the NASA administrator serves at the president’s pleasure and would likely follow the president’s agenda rather than any personal or corporate interests.The group discussed the influence of political leaders, particularly Trump, on space policy and the role of advisors like Jared Isaacman. They explored the potential impact of a major incident involving China’s space program on U.S. policy and SpaceX’s development timeline. The conversation also covered milestones for both SpaceX’s Starship program and China’s lunar mission plans, with Marshall inquiring about China’s key milestones for moon travel. The discussion concluded with an acknowledgment that the topic had been covered extensively, and David invited participants to bring up other topics for further discussion.The conversation went back to discussing the challenges and limitations of SpaceX’s Starship and Falcon Heavy systems, while expressing concerns about Starship’s current performance and suggesting a hypothetical collaboration between SpaceX and another company that was quickly dismissed by Michael and others due to interpersonal conflicts. Marshall presented data on Falcon 9’s cost-effectiveness, claiming it had reduced space transportation costs to $2,500 per kilogram, though Phil disputed these figures, suggesting a more realistic cost of around $6,000-10,000 per kilogram. The discussion concluded with Phil explaining the mass-to-orbit ratios of different rocket systems, noting that Starship’s approach was closest to the Space Shuttle’s method of transporting large amounts of mass to orbit.The focus continued on the challenges and limitations of SpaceX’s Starship program, particularly regarding the mass fraction required to reach orbit and the reusability concerns. They debated whether Starship could achieve the goal of 100 flights before carrying humans, with Charles and Marshall expressing skepticism about meeting this target within the given timeframe. The conversation also touched on the cost and complexity of refurbishing reusable rocket stages, comparing it to the Falcon 9 program.We talked about the potential of China beating the U.S. to extract lunar water, while I emphasized the geopolitical risks of China’s lunar ambitions and the need to prioritize returning to the moon before them. John Hunt raised concerns about the government shutdown potentially hindering NASA’s observations of the 3i Atlas comet, leading to a decision to invite Avi Loeb back on the show to discuss it further. The conversation also touched on ESA’s planned probe for the 2030s and the Europa Clipper mission’s potential to observe the comet.As we neared the end of our program we discussed the geopolitical implications of China potentially establishing a presence at the South Pole, with Marshall expressing concern about mining rights claims. Phil suggested focusing on demonstrating technological superiority rather than racing China to specific destinations. John Hunt argued that being beaten by China might actually motivate the U.S. space program, while others noted that the current political climate makes long-term planning difficult. The conversation concluded with a debate about NASA’s future leadership and potential reorganization, with some emphasizing the need for someone with both technical knowledge and visionary leadership.Please see the video of this program at doctorspace.substack.com.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
The Space Show presents Phil Swan, Friday, 10-24-25Quick recapThe program focused on economic and technological aspects of space exploration, particularly Mars voyages, with Phil Swan presenting his analysis of kinetic energy costs and the need for long-term strategic planning. The discussion covered various propulsion technologies, cost considerations for different rocket systems, and the potential for in-situ resource utilization on Mars. The group explored concepts like mass drivers, lunar industries, and the economic viability of Mars cyclers, while emphasizing the importance of developing cost-effective solutions for human space travel and long-term settlement on Mars and the Moon.Detailed Summary: Phil Swan, the lead principal engineer for the Atlantis project, presented his recent Mars Society Conference talk, focusing on the economic aspects of kinetic energy for Mars voyages. He emphasized the need for a long-term strategy that makes Mars valuable to humanity, beyond just the initial journey. The discussion touched on the historical reluctance to use terms like “colonization” due to negative connotations, and Phil noted the importance of understanding the economics of kinetic energy in space travel. The program also included updates on podcast availability and ways to support the Space Show.Phil discussed the importance of developing a sophisticated space strategy that combines high-level merit with institutional capacity to support it. He compared humanity’s expansion across Earth to potential space exploration, noting that exponential thinking is necessary to set realistic goals and expectations for space travel. Phil emphasized the need to apply exponential thinking to space problems rather than relying on linear thinking, as this approach could lead to more accurate timelines for reaching celestial destinations like the Moon and Mars.Phil referenced the technological advancements required to reach the Moon and Mars, highlighting the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous as a pivotal innovation. He emphasized the need for new technologies to enable human settlement on Mars and addressed the challenge of long-term value recognition for such endeavors. Our guest proposed a staged approach to Mars exploration, outlining key stages like “Boots on Mars,” “Research Outpost,” “Expansionist Drive,” and “Keystone Industries,” each with its value proposition and enablers. He concluded by identifying the high cost of interplanetary transportation as a significant barrier to progress, emphasizing the need for cost-effective solutions to make Mars exploration feasible.The group discussed the concept of Mars cyclers, with Phil explaining that they would serve as infrastructure for repeated Mars travel, though questions remained about their economic viability and technical feasibility. They explored the idea of self-sustaining biospheres on Mars cyclers and Mars bases, with Phil noting that technology would play a crucial role in maintaining these environments. The discussion concluded with Phil addressing the question of Mars’s independence, comparing it to the interdependence between continents and suggesting that Mars would eventually become more self-supporting over time, though it would initially rely on supplies from Earth.We also discussed the need for more advanced propulsion technologies beyond chemical rockets, such as nuclear plasma or fusion rockets, to enable more efficient space travel. Phil highlighted the challenge of securing funding for long-term space exploration projects compared to immediate investments like Starlink, attributing this to society’s short-term focus. Marshall and Phil agreed that governments might be better at making long-term investments, while David noted cultural differences in budgeting practices, particularly between the U.S. and China. Phil suggested that future space missions could serve as a test to compare different economic and political systems, similar to the Cold War moon race, which he argued was won by the American free-market system. John Hunt observed that the lack of competition from the Russian space program in the 1970s led to a reduction in space technology development in the U.S.Our guest presented a slide showing the delta V requirements for various destinations in the solar system, emphasizing the need for cheaper and faster transportation methods. He discussed the potential for using aerobraking and the economic benefits of lunar industries producing products for low Earth orbit. John Jossy suggested considering near-Earth asteroids for mining, which Phil acknowledged as a viable option with lower delta V requirements. The group also touched on the economics of low Earth orbit and the potential for lunar materials to be used in space industries.Phil explained the concept of delta-v and air braking, noting that while aero braking reduces the need for fuel, some mass is still required for the heat shield and other landing equipment. He discussed a paper titled “Cost vs. Delta V” that outlines the methodology for converting air braking delta-v into an equivalent rocket-based delta-v. Phil then presented a graph illustrating the relationship between delta-v and cost per kilogram for various missions, highlighting that costs scale exponentially with delta-v requirements. He noted that reusable rockets and infrastructure-based solutions could potentially reduce costs and provided examples of how different launch systems performed compared to the cost curve.The group discussed the cost-effectiveness of different rocket technologies, particularly comparing the Space Launch System (SLS) to Falcon Heavy. Phil noted that while Falcon Heavy was slightly more cost-competitive for some missions, SLS was still a viable technology that offered good value for its Delta V capabilities. John Hunt highlighted the issue of low production quantities for SLS, which limited cost savings from experience curve effects. The discussion concluded with an examination of Mars mission costs, with Phil presenting estimates for sending humans to Mars, including the cost of crew, provisions, and life support systems.Phil presented a detailed analysis of Mars mission costs, highlighting that a round-trip mission would cost $38 trillion, but could be reduced to $2.7 trillion through in-situ resource utilization and a Mars propellant plant. The discussion clarified that the Europa Clipper mission was launched by Falcon Heavy, not SLS, and Phil agreed to review the cost numbers later. Phil also explained the energy efficiency advantages of mass drivers compared to rockets, suggesting that Mars should consider implementing mass drivers for future space operations.Phil then presented a detailed analysis of mass drivers, discussing their potential for Mars and Earth-based applications. He explained the physics and economics of mass drivers, highlighting their cost advantages over rockets for Mars missions. The group discussed technical challenges, including G-forces and atmospheric entry, with Phil addressing concerns about safety zones and aiming. The conversation ended with a brief discussion on human transportation to Mars, noting the need for further exploration of options beyond cargo transport.Our guest discussed the challenges of improving human space travel to Mars, focusing on reducing costs and enhancing comfort and safety. He suggested increasing the mass budget, improving ecosystems, and using more efficient propulsion methods like mass drivers. David inquired about nuclear propulsion, but Phil explained that it may not be practical due to the weight of radiators compared to solar panels. They also discussed the limitations of current mass driver technologies, such as SpinLaunch, which can only replace the first stage of a rocket and cannot achieve the necessary delta V for Mars travel. Phil emphasized the need for a 1,000-fold cost reduction to enable long-term human settlement on Mars and the Moon.As we were moving to the end of the program, Phil discussed the challenges and inefficiencies of using aircraft carrier electromagnetic catapults for launching rockets into space, explaining that such systems would be too expensive and impractical compared to traditional rockets. He also explored the concept of linear motor launchers for space travel, noting that while they could potentially compete with rockets for long-distance missions like Mars travel, they are not cost-effective for low Earth orbit missions. The discussion highlighted the importance of developing a long-term strategy for lunar and Martian exploration, as well as the need for better institutional and public evaluation of complex space travel ideas.Audio is posted at www.thespaceshow.com for this date and Substack, doctorspace.substack.com. Video is also posted on the Substack site for this program.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doct
Hotel Mars, #4449 with Rick Fisher as guest, Wednesday, Oct. 22,2025:Brief program summary:The Hotel Mars team discussed the US Acceleration of the Moon Race Against China. Guest Rick Fisher, John and David discussed how the US moon race is accelerating, driven by President Trump’s demand to land on the moon by 2028 and concerns that China, using the Long March 10 booster, might get there by 2029. Interim NASA Director Sean Duffy reopened the lunar lander contract, previously held by SpaceX’s Starship, to Blue Origin and potentially Lockheed Martin, seeking multiple pathways. The Chinese space program is viewed as a strategic maneuver aimed at distracting the US from other global conflicts.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PTGuests:ZOOM, Dave Barnhart, CEO of Arkisys updates us with interesting news and developments Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Quick recap: The program began with a focus on Neil Armstrong’s academic background and connections to USC, including his completed coursework and potential master’s degree, as well as his compensation as a NASA civil servant. The discussion concluded with an examination of space engineering education and industry practices, including the balance between government oversight and contractor responsibility, and the challenges of returning to the moon and planning future space missions. We were joined by Marshall Martin, Phil Swan, John Hunt and Dr. Ajay Kothari.I hosted this Space Show program featuring Dr. Mike Gruntman, who discussed his latest book about Neil Armstrong’s connection to USC. Gruntman revealed that Armstrong, while serving in the Navy during the Korean War, took courses at USC from 1955-1962, eventually completing all coursework for a master’s degree in aeronautics except for his thesis, which he never completed due to his NASA commitments. I also announced upcoming programs with Phil Swan, and Bill Gowan as well as a special day Halloween show featuring Dr. Sharma from Cedars-Sinai discussing their 3D printing of cardiac tissue and new space medical lab research unit.Mike discussed the history of the Apollo program, focusing on Neil Armstrong’s involvement with Purdue University. He detailed Armstrong’s earned Master of Science degree and shared insights from his personal archives, including his grades and the content of his lecture at USC on the moon landing. Mike also highlighted the significant workforce reduction following the Apollo program and the practice of bringing in top industrial talent to lead NASA projects, which he suggested could be relevant for future space missions. He drew a link to workforce reductions planned for NASA at this time.I informed Mike and the audience about Roger Launius upcoming appearance as a guest on their space show program on November 7th. Mike shared interesting findings about Neil Armstrong’s compensation as a NASA civil servant in 1969, which was significantly higher than Michael Collins’s salary as the latter was still in the military. They discussed Armstrong’s academic background and his desire to become a professor, as well as his contributions to NASA and his subsequent career as a university professor. Marshall commented on the astronauts’ reputation for being “rock-hard” test pilots, and Mike explained NASA’s development of a lunar lander research vehicle and simulator for training astronauts to land on the moon.Mike discussed the unique space engineering department at USC, highlighting its success and the contributions of its students. He mentioned that Buzz Aldrin visited the campus several times, inspiring students. Mike also shared insights into the history of the Apollo program and the impact it had on the aerospace industry. David inquired about the current mood regarding the Artemis program at USC, to which Mike responded that faculty opinions vary, with most not having detailed knowledge of the program.Mike discussed the evolution of space engineering education and industry practices, highlighting the shift from performance-driven government programs to financially-driven commercial space initiatives. He explained that while commercial space has grown to be six times larger than government space worldwide, government programs remain crucial for technological advancement and fundamental research. Mike emphasized that both approaches are necessary, as government programs provide the performance-driven environment needed for technological innovation, while commercial space drives cost efficiency and rapid development.Mike discussed the balance between government oversight and contractor responsibility in space exploration, drawing on Apollo-era practices where NASA maintained discipline while granting significant autonomy to contractors like Grumman. He noted that today’s government centers have varying levels of expertise, with some being effective while others are ossified, making it challenging to remove ineffective parts without harming the whole. Mike also compared Soviet space programs’ heavy bureaucratic oversight with the U.S. approach, suggesting that while Soviet control could prevent fraud, it often stifled innovation. He concluded that while there are no easy solutions, NASA needs to make clear decisions about lunar exploration and contractor roles, particularly given SpaceX’s current delays in meeting launch schedules.Mike discussed the challenges and considerations for returning to the moon, emphasizing the need for a strategic plan that could include a lunar gateway for long-term infrastructure. He highlighted the importance of strong leadership and the influence of politics on space programs, noting that NASA should provide a feasibility assessment for any mission. Mike expressed optimism about long-term lunar exploration but expressed concerns about the lack of investment in technologies like artificial gravity and nuclear reactors, which are crucial for sustained human presence on the moon and future Mars missions. He suggested prioritizing a return to the moon before attempting a direct trip to Mars, as it could serve as a stepping stone for future exploration.The discussion focused on space exploration and the challenges of congressional oversight. Dr. Gruntman, a space expert, explained how SpaceX’s approach to rapid development and testing, reminiscent of NASA’s George Mueller’s strategy in the 1960s, differs from traditional government methods. They discussed the importance of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous strategy in enabling the moon landing. John raised concerns about potential delays in Elon Musk’s Mars colonization plans due to on-orbit refueling challenges. The group also discussed the need for better congressional oversight of space programs, with David questioning how to educate lawmakers on space issues. Mike noted that professional societies could play a role but have become politicized. The conversation concluded with a brief discussion about the Mars Society presentation scheduled for Friday by Phil Swan who participated in this program today.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4450 ZOOM Phil Swan | Friday 24 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Phil SwanZoom: Phil talks about going to Mars with kinetic energyBroadcast 4451 Zoom OPEN LINES | Saturday 25 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David Livingston, The Space Show Zoom Team & Zoom callersZOOM Open Lines discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Brief Summary:John Batchelor and I welcomed our guest, Anatoly Zak of the RussianSpaceWeb.com. Anatoly updated us regarding the continued Russian debates about orbits and costs for a new space station after the ISS is deorbited. Anatoly Zak went into detail about Roscosmos facing challenging questions over the orbit of its new space station, considering both a low-inclination 51-degree orbit or a more expensive near-polar orbit. Our guest outlined the pluses and negatives for both choices. The polar orbit offers an valuable strategic Arctic observation but increases radiation risk and reduces the all important payload capacity for such a mission. Russia’s economic realities given the war in Ukraine and sanctions may force Roscosmos to take the cheaper 51-degree orbit, even possibly using existing ISS infrastructure, to ensure an operational station for cosmonauts by 2031. Don’t miss this two part discussion what Russia is considering post ISS. Do check out www.russianspaceweb.com for all the space news, both current and historical, for the Russian space program.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4450 ZOOM Phil Swan | Friday 24 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Phil SwanZoom: Phil talks about going to Mars with kinetic energyBroadcast 4451 Zoom OPEN LINES | Saturday 25 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David Livingston, The Space Show Zoom Team & Zoom callersZOOM Open Lines discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Quick Summary: The program focused on discussing space architecture developments over the past 18 years, including the impact of reduced launch costs and the current state of lunar mission initiatives. The conversation covered technical details of lunar construction projects, including power requirements, reactor deployment, and the development of construction equipment and materials for moon bases. The discussion concluded with an overview of funding sources, regulatory challenges, and educational programs related to lunar exploration, emphasizing the importance of NASA partnerships and commercial opportunities in space infrastructure development. Joining us in the program were John Jossy, John Hunt, Bill Gowan, Marshall Martin, and Dr. Ajay Kotari.David and Sam discussed the significant changes in space architecture over the past 18 years since he was first a guest on The Space Show. Sam highlighted the reduction in launch costs as a key enabler. Sam explained his focus on using plant material for industrial processes like 3D printing on the moon. The discussion concluded with an overview of upcoming Space Show programs and a reminder about listener-supported fundraising efforts including Substack subscriptions.Sam discussed the significant impact of reduced launch costs on space exploration, highlighting SpaceX’s role in this development. He expressed concerns about the U.S. lagging behind China in lunar missions and emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong pace in space leadership. Sam also detailed Astroport’s efforts to build moon ports, including the development of a 15-acre testbed in Midland, Texas (west Texas) to simulate lunar conditions for testing construction and engineering techniques. He stressed the need for further research into civil engineering and geotechnics for moon base construction, as well as the importance of cargo complement and autonomous construction technology.We talked quite a bit about landing pads and Sam showed creative videos of their lunar development, construction and land pad plans via Zoom screen sharing. Sam explained that while the Artemis III landing pad is planned for the 2030s, their fusion surface power program might require building the power reactor foundation first, which would involve bringing construction equipment in the first landing. They are developing a brick bot as a technology demonstrator to be launched by 2028, and while they have some interface with Starship, they are not directly working with them. Sam emphasized the importance of standardized containerized cargo for logistics, Our Space Show program team asked about the power requirements for various tasks, noting that NASA mentions 100 kilowatts but questioning if more power would be needed for activities like sintering regolith and building roads.Sam also explained the power requirements for their lunar construction project, noting that while 20 kilowatts is sufficient for brickmaking, more power is needed for other tasks. He described plans to use portable solar power towers to generate energy for rovers and construction equipment, with potential suppliers including Astrobotic and Honeybee. Our guest also emphasized that they would act as general contractors, subcontracting various components to partners like Astrobotic for mobility platforms and other utilities. He concluded by showing an additional video of the construction layout and deployment process for the reactor and associated equipment.We discussed the development of lunar landing pads give I asked him to describe one in detail. Sam said that they would be 100 meters in diameter with a 50-meter target landing area and a 25-meter apron. He described the construction materials, including interlocking bricks that are 50 millimeters thick, and highlighted challenges in creating bricks in a vacuum environment due to outgassing. He also presented their work on material science, including the use of biomass to create 3D-printed tiles and the development of an excavator with interchangeable implements for lunar construction.Our guest explained the system architecture for a brick-making demonstration on the moon, aiming to combine multiple processes into one platform to create bricks in a vacuum by 2028. He described a subscale vibrating compactor being developed and its power requirements. The group discussed the layout for a lunar base, including the need to place a nuclear reactor over a kilometer away from the habitation zone for radiation protection and to prevent blast effects from affecting assets. John Jossy questioned why the initial landing couldn’t be closer to the reactor site, but Sam clarified that the initial landing would be automated and not intended for return, with the goal of establishing a permanent outpost. Radiation exposure was a reason and safety measure were being carefully planned and designed into the project.The team discussed the logistics of deploying a nuclear reactor and associated equipment on the moon, focusing on the challenges of cargo capacity and the need to bring multiple pieces of equipment for both the reactor and landing pad construction. They explored options for power transmission, including the possibility of wireless power transmission, and discussed additional radiation protection measures, with Marshall suggesting the use of topology and walls to shield the reactor. Sam mentioned their work on the Lido mission in the Marius Hills area, which includes developing technologies for accessing and utilizing lava tubes, though these are not currently present at the South Pole site being considered.I asked about his sources o funding and if he was already generating revenue. Sam explained that Astroport is funded through NASA contracts and DOD contracts, with revenue generated through R&D, and they are preparing for Phase 3 funding next year. The team discussed reactor options, with John Hunt suggesting a pebble bed reactor, and Sam noted they will follow NASA’s chosen provider for the reactor. I inquired about his regulatory issues and challenges for putting equipment on the Moon and developing it much like the development of a large r/e project here on Earth. Sam mentioned regulatory and legal challenges for lunar operations, including the need for state government sanction and licensing, while John Hunt raised concerns about radiation exposure during human landings, which our guest suggested could be addressed by shutting down the reactor temporarily.Sam discussed the progress and challenges of developing lunar infrastructure in collaboration with Orbit Fab, focusing on water supply and fuel processing. He highlighted the need for further research on lunar dust impact on machinery and potential partnerships with humanoid robotic companies.Before concluding, I asked Sam to discuss his nonprofit WEX Foundation for middle school stem programs. I also stated I would like to do a separate Space Show program focused on WEX. Sam shared insights into the WEX Foundation’s STEM education program, which aims to engage middle school students in space exploration. Listen to the program which he described in some detail.Our discussion concluded with a conversation about the logistics and funding of lunar missions, with Sam emphasizing the importance of NASA as an anchor customer and the potential for commercial customers in the future.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 (Not in service at this time)For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com for instructions and access.The Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Upcoming ShowsBroadcast 4448 ZOOM Dr. Mike Gruntman | Tuesday 21 Oct 2025 700PM PTGuests: Dr. Mike GruntmanZoom: Mike talks about his new book, “Neil Armstrong at USC and on the Moon”Broadcast 4449: Hotel Mars with Homer Hickam | Wednesday 22 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David Livingston, Homer HickamHome Hickam is the Hotel Mars guest this weekBroadcast 4450 ZOOM Phil Swan | Friday 24 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Phil SwanZoom: Phil talks about going to Mars with kinetic energyBroadcast 4451 Zoom OPEN LINES | Saturday 25 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David Livingston, The Space Show Zoom Team & Zoom callersZOOM Open Lines discussion Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Please note that due to our 501C3 status with One Giant Leap Foundation, all donation, subscriptions and gifts must go through PayPal, Zelle or by check to The Space Show in Las Vegas. See the large PayPal button on our website home page, www.thespaceshow.com for details these supporting ways to help The Space Show. We are working to be an approved nonprofit for Substack support but the process is tedious and lengthy. In the meantime, we do ask for and need your support.Quick summary: Our program explored lunar exploration and habitation concepts, focusing on lava tubes and the challenges of robotic mapping and structural analysis. The discussion concluded with conversations about lunar transportation, power requirements, and the importance of maintaining public interest in space exploration, while also touching on the role of AI in education and research.David and John Jossy discussed personal matters, including John’s upcoming meeting with his son and David’s struggles with overeating. They briefly touched on political topics, such as the upcoming New Jersey governor’s race and concerns about New York City’s direction. Haym joined later and shared his focus on lunar lava tubes, including their structure and potential for habitation, but noted he hadn’t made any new progress on habitats recently. Space Show Zoom participants included Dr. Charles Lurio, John Hunt, John Jossy, Marshall Martin, Dr. Ajay Kothari, and Joe Pistritto.I announced upcoming guests for the space show, including Sam Ximenes who is the founder and CEO of Astroport Space, Mike Gruntman, and Homer Hickam for the next Hotel Mars program. I also discussed progress on getting podcasts back on various platforms and the challenges of accepting donations through Substack due to our nonprofit status. Dr. Haym Benaroya, a mechanical engineering professor at Rutgers University, was introduced as the guest for the day, having previously appeared on the show and authored books on lunar exploration.Haym reported strong student interest in space and lunar engineering at Rutgers, with many students pursuing independent research projects and finding placement at companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and NASA. He teaches both undergraduate and graduate courses in spacecraft and mission design, and while he hasn’t pursued commercial work himself, he is interested in studying lunar lava tubes as a logical progression from his previous lunar habitat research. His current research focuses on the structural stability of lava tubes, particularly examining the trade-offs between pressurized and unpressurized tubes, which serves as a valuable training ground for students.Our Zoom Space Show participants in this program, along with Dr. Benaroya, discussed lunar habitat options, with Haym explaining that lava tubes would be more suitable for third-generation habitats due to access and infrastructure challenges. Haym suggested that initial lunar structures would likely be cylindrical pressure vessels or inflatable modules that could be pre-constructed and shielded with regolith, with 3D printing as a future possibility once energy and robotic capabilities improve. Marshall raised the need for an exploratory rover to map lava tubes, with Haym confirming that some students have developed small-scale models with LiDAR equipment for this purpose.The group discussed the exploration and potential habitation of lunar lava tubes, emphasizing the need for robotic technology to assess their structural stability and safety. Haym and others highlighted the challenges of robotics on the Moon due to factors like regolith and radiation, suggesting a high reliance on robotics but acknowledging their complexity. Marshall mentioned the use of seismic technology to map lava tubes, while Joe referenced a presentation on a tethered rover concept for exploration. The conversation also touched on the balance between human and robotic efforts in preparing lava tubes for habitation, with Haym suggesting a significant robotic presence. David asked about the feasibility of similar efforts on Mars, and Haym noted that while gravity might differ, many challenges would remain similar.We continued talking about the potential for lava tubes on the Moon and their possible water content, with Haym noting that while water could theoretically accumulate in tubes, it would be a longer process than in permanently shadowed regions. They explored the temperature conditions in lava tubes, with Haym citing a source that suggested temperatures around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, though the accuracy of this measurement in a vacuum environment was questioned. The conversation then shifted to the need for lunar landing pads, with David raising the question of current technological readiness and the necessary robotic construction methods, emphasizing the need for structural analysis and material selection.We did focus on the challenges and potential solutions for lunar landing pads, including their structural stability and regolith displacement. Haym highlighted concerns about the instability of tall rockets landing on the moon and proposed two classes of landing sites: sintering the surface or using ceramic-like plates. John Jossy mentioned Ethos Space’s work on a regolith compacting device, though David noted their timeline was far off into the future. The conversation also touched on the need for engineering tests and inspections for lunar infrastructure while suggesting that Sam, our upcoming Sunday guest, could provide insights on regolith-based landing pads. The discussion concluded with a consensus that energy, particularly fission energy, would be crucial for mapping lava tubes and other lunar activities.We continued with a discussion of power requirements for lunar and Martian bases, while noting that the current proposed nuclear power is sufficient for now, future needs will require megawatt-scale power. They agreed that cables would be the simplest method to transport power to construction sites, though Marshall emphasized the uncertainty of permanent vs. temporary needs on the moon. The discussion concluded with predictions about lunar missions, with Haym and others expressing confidence that China will send a person to the moon within 5-8 years, while Joe noted uncertainty about American lunar missions in the same timeframe.The group discussed various concepts for lunar transportation, including maglev trains and rovers, but noted that current U.S. lunar ambitions lack key components like a lander and the Gateway station, which was revived by Sen. Cruz for Artemis missions 4 and 5. They debated the status of Boeing’s Starliner and Orion programs, with Orion being considered in good shape despite some heat shield issues, while NASA is exploring alternative rocket options like Starship, New Glenn, or Falcon Heavy. The discussion concluded with David raising the importance of communicating the value of lunar missions to the general public, emphasizing the need for clear benefits that could be realized within a reasonable timeframe.Zoom participants along with Haym talked up the benefits of lunar exploration, with Haym explaining that while students are excited by the prospect of space activities, the long-term economic benefits could include advancements in civilian technology, a lunar-based economy, and access to helium-3 for fusion reactions. Ajay noted that the excitement factor, similar to Hollywood, is important for public engagement, while Haym mentioned potential medical benefits of conducting cancer research in lunar gravity. The discussion highlighted that while immediate benefits might not be apparent, the cumulative economic and technological impacts over 50-100 years could significantly benefit society.The group discussed the potential for mining lunar resources and the importance of maintaining public interest in space exploration. They agreed that frequent and exciting missions, such as those involving lava tubes or live broadcasts, could help generate public enthusiasm. Joe noted that the Eclipse missions might be more exciting than Artemis, while Marshall mentioned the high viewership of the Starship test flight. When asked, Haym shared how artificial intelligence is being used in his spacecraft course to help students produce polished summaries of papers, reducing their workload.Haym discussed the integration of AI in education and research, sharing his experience with using AI tools to assist in teaching and conducting research. He highlighted the potential of AI to accelerate research processes and optimize habitat design, emphasizing the need for human oversight to guide AI’s capabilities. John Jossy brought up the work of the Purdue University’s Brazilian Extraterrestrial Habitats Institute on automating habitats and using AI for design, which Haym acknowledged as impressive. The group discussed the rapid pace of AI development and its potential to transform future technology, including its application in space missions. David asked about the path from academic theories and projects to real-world lunar missions, but the response was vague.Haym emphasized the need for affordable lunar missions to test technologies in the actual lunar environment, highlighting the importance of both commercial and governmental efforts. He noted that while small landers have made progress, costs remain a significant challenge. Haym also discussed his previous work, including his books on space exploration and lunar habitats, and shared insights on AI in academic writing. The conversation concluded with a discussion about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs), where Haym expressed skepticism about the technology claims but acknowledged the possibility of extraterrestrial origins.The conversation ended with participants expressing appreciation for the discussion and format, and David announced the next meeting with Sam on Sunday. Haym and others shared positive feedback on the new Space Show format, and David hi
Please note that due to our 501C3 status with One Giant Leap Foundation, all donation, subcriptions and gifts must go through PayPal, Zelle or by check to The Space Show in Las Vegas. See the large PayPal button on our website home page, www.thespaceshow.com for details these supporting ways to help The Space Show. We are working to be an approved nonprofit for Substack support but the process is tedious and lengthy. In the meantime, we do ask for and need your support.We talked about a a space-themed presentation about multi-planetary topics and artificial gravity research. We explored various aspects of space colonization, including the challenges of low gravity environments, the feasibility of artificial gravity solutions, and the potential for space tourism and medical research. The discussion concluded with a seven-step sequence for space exploration and considerations for future space missions, emphasizing the need for practical solutions and sustainable funding to advance human space travel. Space Show participants included Marshall Martin, Phil Swan, Dr. Ajay Kothari, and John Hunt.I introduced the evening’s space show, highlighting upcoming guests and discussing the ongoing transition of podcasting to Substack. I announced several upcoming shows, including Hotel Mars with Anatoly Sack, Dr. Benaroya discussing lunar habitats, and Sam Jimenez from Astroport Space Tech. David welcomed Joe Carroll, an expert on advanced space transportation and artificial gravity, who would be sharing his presentation later in the show. I reminded listeners about the non-profit status of the show and encouraged support for their annual campaign.Joe discussed the current state of artificial gravity research, noting that while NASA’s commercial lunar destinations program includes it as a stretch goal, no immediate plans exist for funding. He highlighted efforts by VAST, founded by Jeb McCallab, and Blue Origin, both of which are seriously interested in artificial gravity for long-term human health on the Moon and Mars. Our participants agreed that research into the effects of different gravity levels on human health is crucial for future space exploration, with Marshall suggesting that the Stanford Torus could be a valuable tool for such research.Our Space Show Zoom participants discussed the feasibility and challenges of colonizing Mars, focusing on the cost implications of one-way trips versus round trips, and the potential for raising families in low Martian gravity. They explored the idea of building a space station to simulate Martian gravity and investigate the effects of long-term exposure to low gravity on human health, particularly in terms of radiation exposure. Joe suggested conducting research on animals to understand the impact of low gravity on human physiology, while Marshall raised questions about the relationship between gravity and radiation exposure. The conversation concluded with a discussion on the potential benefits of establishing a settlement in equatorial low Earth orbit as a stepping stone to Mars colonization, though David noted the lack of concrete action towards addressing the gravity problem.The group discussed two main topics: the effects of microgravity on human health and the feasibility of artificial gravity in space travel. Joe explained that while short-term stays in microgravity (up to 3 months) don’t cause severe health problems, longer missions of 6-12 months could lead to coordination issues upon return. Regarding artificial gravity, Joe noted that while rotating rooms have tested different spin rates, the experience would be significantly different in a spacecraft due to the gravity gradient. The group agreed that more tests are needed to determine the optimal spin radius and speed for human comfort in space, potentially using Crew Dragon for these experiments.Joe presented a detailed analysis of artificial gravity solutions for multi-planetary settlements, focusing on Moon and Mars gravity levels. He outlined seven distinct tests needed to determine the feasibility of artificial gravity, including ground-based simulations and Crew Dragon experiments. Joe emphasized the importance of testing these concepts in Earth orbit before attempting lunar or Martian settlements, due to the high costs and long travel times associated with space missions. He also discussed the potential for tourism to drive the development of artificial gravity technology and the need to determine the optimal gravity level for human health and comfort in space settlements.Joe discussed the design and functionality of a space facility that simulates Moon and Mars gravity through rotation at different speeds. He emphasized the importance of testing human health impacts in long-term low-gravity environments and highlighted the challenges of recycling and space constraints in future Mars missions. Marshall inquired about wet launch theories, and Joe explained the potential for pre-launch modifications to space vehicles for expanded functionality. Joe concluded that future space missions would require more space and gravity simulation, suggesting that Elon’s current plans for Mars missions might need adjustments.Joe and David discussed the feasibility of a space project, focusing on the potential use of Starship for missions to Mars and the challenges involved. Joe expressed concerns about the practicality of sending people to Mars without proper preparation and suggested alternative locations for a launch site near the equator. They explored the possibility of securing funding from billionaires or innovative VCs, as government support seems unlikely. Joe estimated that the project could be completed within 5 years with adequate funding.The discussion focused on inflatable space structures, with Joe and David sharing insights about existing military and commercial applications, including Bigelow’s earlier work and Sierra Space’s current developments. They agreed that while there’s significant interest in commercial space ventures, many startups face challenges in securing sustainable funding without clear operational revenue streams, noting that current market conditions offer numerous alternative investment opportunities. The conversation concluded with David emphasizing the need for a well-defined and practically ready project to attract serious investment, rather than just theoretical concepts.The group discussed the challenges and costs associated with space tourism and medical research in space. Marshall suggested that reducing the cost per pound to orbit could make space tourism feasible, but Joe pointed out that current launch costs are too high for widespread access. David emphasized the need for a commercial revenue stream to fund space activities, while Phil proposed creating a medical research lab in low Earth orbit with a 30-year return on investment. The conversation touched on the potential for pharmaceutical companies to fund such a project, but acknowledged the lack of current plans or funding for such initiatives.Joe discussed a seven-step sequence for space exploration, emphasizing the importance of gradual progress and building public trust. The group discussed the challenges and potential of sending humans to Mars, with John raising concerns about the lack of return capability. Phil emphasized the need for long-term arguments to create support for short-term plans, while Joe shared his experience with NASA funding and the visibility of space stations. The show concluded with plans for future discussions and a reminder to “keep looking up.”Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4446: ZOOM Dr. Haym Benaroya | Friday 17 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Dr. Haym BenaroyaZOOM: Dr. Benaroya is here to discuss lunar habitat architecture, policy and lots more.Broadcast 4447: ZOOM Sam Ximenes of Astroport Space Technologies | Sunday 19 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Sam XimenesZoom: CEO & Founder of Astroport Space Tech, Sam Ximenes, is with us to discuss their lunar work, his being featured by National Geographic and more. Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Quick Summary & Overview: Our program began with a detailed technical discussion about the Starship spacecraft and its potential for Mars missions. The group explored various technical challenges and possibilities for Starship’s capabilities, including engine operations, payload considerations, and transit times, while also discussing nuclear propulsion options and potential destinations for the spacecraft. The conversation concluded with discussions about lunar stations, their economic and scientific value, and the broader implications of public-private partnerships in space exploration.I started this program by introducing Space Show participants, including John Hunt, and guest Jack, Dr. Ajay Kothari, John Jossy, Phil, Peter, and Marshall Martin. I discussed the upcoming Starship and Mars transit topic with Jack, who agreed to stay for a 90-minute discussion. I also mentioned upcoming guests for future shows, including Joe Carroll, Dr. Benaroya, Sam Ximenez, and Dr. Mike Grumpman. I brought up fundraising and financial support for The Space Show as we are a listener supported show and we request your help to keep the program going.I also talked about the ongoing denial-of-service attack on the Space Show by AI bots which has led to issues with podcasting and other problems. We are using Cloudflare blocking for all non-human traffic but sometimes that blocks desirable non-human traffic. I mentioned the potential move of the podcast to Substack, but this is still in progress. I introduced our guest Jack Kingdon, a final-year undergraduate physics student at UCSB. He shared his interest in Starship and his published work in a Nature sub-issue which explores Starship’s capabilities.Jack presented his research on the potential for Starship to achieve faster transit times to Mars, suggesting that the increased payload capacity and reusability of Starship could enable missions to Mars in as little as 3 months, compared to the traditional 6-7 month journey. He noted that this would require higher velocities and specific impulse from the Raptor engines, as well as meeting certain mass ratio targets. The discussion touched on the challenges of a narrow launch window for such a fast transit, the potential benefits of reduced radiation exposure, and the ethical considerations of presenting cost data without proper sourcing. Jack acknowledged the need to revise his cost estimates and agreed to further investigate SpaceX’s perspective on faster transit options.Our group discussed reducing the payload of the Starship to accelerate transit time for human cargo, with Jack explaining that converting payload to fuel could increase delta-V by about 10%, but this might not be sufficient for a 90-day Holman transfer. Phil noted that SpaceX’s claimed 100-ton payload capacity for Mars missions assumes optimal cargo transfers, and reducing payload to 45 tons could allow faster travel but might not be feasible for a crew. Marshall raised questions about using composite materials instead of stainless steel, which Jack explained was considered but abandoned due to concerns about re-entry temperatures and the need for ablative or ceramic heat shields.The group discussed the feasibility of a Mars mission involving separate reentry vehicles and transit vehicles, with Peter proposing a two-vehicle system to reduce heat shield requirements. Dr. Kothari explained that slowing down in cold space would require significant propellant, making the proposed system impractical. The discussion then shifted to SpaceX’s plans for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) on Mars, with Jack noting that four shiploads of ISRU propellant would be needed rather than one, though he expressed doubts about the technical feasibility of this approach. Phil raised concerns about SpaceX’s payload claims for the Starship, questioning whether they could truly achieve the promised capabilities with current technology.The group discussed nuclear propulsion options for space exploration, with Jack expressing skepticism about solid-core nuclear thermal rockets due to their high dry mass and limited specific impulse advantage. They explored the challenges of nuclear power systems on Mars, including radiative cooling requirements and ISRU considerations, with Phil noting that nuclear reactor radiators might become as heavy as solar panels. The conversation also touched on quantum physics research at UCSB, where Jack works on atomic and condensed matter systems, and Marshall raised questions about light speed in neutron stars, though Jack couldn’t provide specific answers about light propagation in such extreme environments.Jack discussed the potential destinations for the Starship, emphasizing Mars as a priority due to the possibility of discovering ancient bacteria. He explored the feasibility of uncrewed missions to Jupiter and Saturn, highlighting Starship’s capabilities for such missions. The group also discussed the use of Starship as a space settlement vehicle, with Jack noting its potential as a habitat for lunar and Martian settlements. David inquired about Jack’s support from his professors for his Starship work, to which Jack replied that they have been very supportive. The discussion concluded with predictions on SpaceX’s timeline for taking people to Mars and concerns about potentially losing to China in space exploration.This program is audio archived at www.thespaceshow.com. In addition, it will be both audio and video archived at doctorspace.substack.com. When our podcasting returns it will be podcasted from our Substack site.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4444: Zoom Joe Carroll | Tuesday 14 Oct 2025 700PM PTGuests: Joe CarrollZOOM: Joe updates us with art. gravity, spin gravity, his work and moreBroadcast 4445: Hotel Mars TBD | Wednesday 15 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David LivingstonHotel Mars TBDBroadcast 4446: ZOOM Dr. Haym Benaroya | Friday 17 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Dr. Haym BenaroyaZOOM: Dr. Benaroya is here to discuss lunar habitat architecture, policy and lots more.Broadcast 4447: ZOOM Sam Ximenes of Astroport Space Technologies | Sunday 19 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Sam XimenesZoom: CEO & Founder of Astroport Space Tech, Sam Ximenes, is with us to discuss their lunar work, his being featured by National Geographic and more.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless Entertainment Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
John, David and Mark discussed America’s renewed interest in returning to the moon through the Artemis program, comparing it to the 1960s space race and exploring its historical context and potential future goals. They examined the program’s current status, including upcoming missions and challenges, while also discussing the possibility of human missions to Mars and the role of commercial space companies like SpaceX. The conversation concluded with a discussion of the political context surrounding the Artemis program and its future prospects.Mark discussed America’s renewed interest in returning to the moon, comparing it to the 1961 space race against the Soviet Union, now replaced by China. Mark explained that the current Artemis program aims to establish a sustainable human presence on the moon, with the first uncrewed mission, Artemis 1, already completed, and Artemis 2 set to launch in February, which he believes will generate more public interest and debate about the moon mission’s purpose and feasibility.Mark shared a story about Senator Kennedy’s 1960 Democratic nomination campaign, particularly his West Virginia primary against Hubert Humphrey. He recounted how Homer Hickam, the author of Rocket Boys, attended one of Kennedy’s speeches surrounded by coal miners. When asked about his policy preferences, Hickam surprisingly suggested leaving the girls in the middle, which caught Kennedy’s attention and reportedly inspired him to focus on space exploration.John discussed the historical context of the moon landing, highlighting the space race with the Soviet Union and the inspiration behind the decision to go to the moon. He mentioned that mining the moon for valuable resources like titanium, aluminum, and rare earths could be a future focus, along with using water for rocket fuel and establishing a lunar base or colony. John also noted that political considerations, similar to those faced by President Kennedy, could impact the Artemis program.John and Mark discussed the potential for human missions to Mars, with Mark expressing optimism about the goal driven by Elon Musk’s vision and resources. They explored the possibility of a joint NASA-SpaceX undertaking for Mars missions, while all emphasized the moon as a more immediate and achievable goal. Mark suggested that the first Mars settlers would focus on science and survival, with commercial activities likely to follow, and he highlighted the importance of creating a self-sustaining economy on Mars. They also touched on the Artemis program’s cost challenges and the need for careful budget management in Washington.Mark said he is monitoring the development of SpaceX’s Starship, which is planned to be used for the first astronaut mission to the moon during the Artemis III mission. He expressed doubt about SpaceX’s 2027 launch promise and notes that Blue Origin is working on an alternative lunar lander. Mark was also interested in seeing plans to phase out the Space Launch System, which he criticizes for being too expensive and not sustainable for long-term lunar and Mars missions. He emphasized the need for commercial alternatives and calls for SpaceX to release information on their life support systems for Mars missions.All of us discussed the political context of the Artemis program, noting that while Trump initially proposed it, President Biden continued the initiative. He mentioned that Trump is now pushing for the program and has made some mistakes, particularly in selecting an administrator. David expressed that the current political situation does not pose a significant concern for the program’s progress. As we ended, John recommended Mark Whittington’s book for a deeper understanding of the program’s history.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4444: Zoom Joe Carroll | Tuesday 14 Oct 2025 700PM PTGuests: Joe CarrollZOOM: Joe updates us with art. gravity, spin gravity, his work and moreBroadcast 4445: Hotel Mars TBD | Wednesday 15 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David LivingstonHotel Mars TBDBroadcast 4446: ZOOM Dr. Haym Benaroya | Friday 17 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: Dr. Haym BenaroyaZOOM: Dr. Benaroya is here to discuss lunar habitat architecture, policy and lots more.Broadcast 4447: ZOOM Sam Ximenes of Astroport Space Technologies | Sunday 19 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Sam XimenesZoom: CEO & Founder of Astroport Space Tech, Sam Ximenes, is with us to discuss their lunar work, his being featured by National Geographic and more.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use: Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
We started the program with discussions about SPACs and space-focused investments, where Andrew shared his expertise on SPAC performance and the UFO ETF’s methodology. The discussion explored various aspects of space industry investment trends, including index criteria, the evolution of space technology, and the intersection of nuclear and space technologies. The conversation concluded with insights about the flow of investment capital between AI and space industries, along with discussions about regulatory changes and the future opportunities in space exploration.After the introductions and announcements, Andrew discussed his experience with SPACs in some detail, noting that while some have been successful, others have not performed well. He explained that SPACs are not inherently good or bad but rather depend on how they are structured and managed. Andrew shared his personal interest in SPACs dating back to his early career and mentioned that his firm had considered launching a space-focused SPAC but ultimately decided against it due to market conditions. He advised potential investors to conduct thorough due diligence and emphasized the importance of believing in the team behind a SPAC.Andrew explained the origin of the ETF’s name “UFO,” which was chosen for its memorable three-letter ticker and availability. He then discussed the fund’s performance, noting that it tracks a rules-based index and has exposure to a diverse range of space-related companies, including both well-known and lesser-known names. Andrew also highlighted the fund’s global approach and the changing landscape of the space industry, which has led to new investment opportunities. He mentioned that the fund currently holds about 47 companies, up from 30 at launch, and has seen some new space names enter the public markets recently.The discussion focused on space investment trends and index criteria. Andrew explained that private space investments grew from $1.1 billion with 8 investors from 2000-2005 to $10.2 billion with 93 investors from 2012-2018, noting that foreign governments are increasingly seeking space solutions independently of SpaceX. John Jossy inquired about index criteria, and Andrew clarified that the index evaluates space revenue metrics, market cap, and liquidity, with companies needing either majority space revenue or specific revenue thresholds to qualify. Andrew also explained that companies can be removed or re-added to the index based on meeting methodology standards, using Avio as an example of a company that was removed but later re-added when it met the criteria again.The discussion focused on comparing SPACs and UFO ETFs, with Andrew explaining that UFO tracks the S Network Space Index, a global space index launched in 2019 that focuses on companies with significant space-related revenues. Andrew emphasized that unlike traditional ETFs like QQQ, UFO has minimal overlap with other funds and is managed by former Space Foundation Director of Research Micha Walter Range, who developed the methodology for quantifying space industry revenues.We put more focus on the UFO index, its methodology, and potential inclusion of private funds like SilverLake. Andrew explained that the index currently only considers publicly traded securities and does not include private investments. He also discussed trends in commercial space investment, noting the impact of geopolitical events on the industry. Andrew highlighted how conflicts and political shifts have created both challenges and opportunities for space technology companies, potentially leading to more nationalistic approaches in the industry.Andrew discussed the importance of national security and defense in space, highlighting the potential for U.S. companies to win contracts for projects like Golden Dome and potentially share technologies with allies. He noted a strong investor appetite for space companies, citing improved fundamentals and better access to investment opportunities. David asked about the impact of Artemis’ success and the race to the moon on investment trends, to which Andrew responded that the moon’s strategic importance could influence access and development, mentioning potential data centers and micro-economies on the moon.Given comments by Dr. Kothari, our discussion focused on the intersection of nuclear and space technologies, with Ajay highlighting the potential for thorium-based molten salt reactors to address both energy and climate challenges, noting significant thorium reserves in the US and China. Andrew acknowledged the potential of these technologies while emphasizing the importance of energy for space exploration and the historical benefit of space technologies transferring to Earth applications. David mentioned the emergence of several potential industries from cislunar development and low Earth orbit manufacturing, emphasizing the need for revenue generation beyond seed capital. Andrew said in some cases the fund lists pre-revenue companies. Don’t miss his comments on this topic.We looked at many of the space-focused companies and their inclusion in investment indices. Andrew explained that while pre-revenue companies could be included if publicly traded, they typically need to meet specific metrics and be publicly traded to be considered. John Hunt mentioned a potential investment opportunity with a PE of 25 and a dividend of 0.9%. Andrew emphasized the importance of finding a reliable index methodology when investing in specific industries. The conversation also touched on regulatory changes in the ETF industry and Andrew’s advice for young entrepreneurs considering space as an investment opportunity.Andrew summarized the space industry’s opportunities and challenges, emphasizing the importance of capable workforce and diverse investment strategies. He highlighted the potential for unexpected opportunities in the space sector, citing the EchoStar story as an example. The group also touched on the impact of tariffs on the space industry and the shifting investment landscape, with AI being seen as a major competitor for investment dollars.Note that this program is archived both at www.thespaceshow.com and doctorspace.substack.com for audio. The Zoom video is on the same Substack site for this date, Friday, Oct. 10, 2025.pecial thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4443 Jack Kingdon | Sunday 12 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Jack KingdonJack discusses his paper “3 months transit time to Mars for human missions using SpaceX Starship” Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
John Hunt presents to The Space Show are ready! Sunday, 10-5-25For the quick summary, we started our program with John Hunt as the guest talking about nuclear weapons development and space exploration technologies. The Space Show participants in the Zoom meeting explored various aspects of nuclear weapons history, including bomb designs, testing, and strategic implications, while also discussing the potential for nuclear technologies in space missions and propulsion systems. The conversation concluded with discussions about current and future space exploration initiatives, including reactor technologies and launch schedules, with participants expressing concerns about political and technical challenges. Several Space Show participants were with us in the meeting including Marshall Martin, Peter Forman, John Jossy, Dr. Ajay Kothari, Dr. Phil Swan, Dr. James Benford, & Tim WeaverOur more detailed summary follows. John Hunt discussed his presentation on the evolution of nuclear weapons, including its funding and technological aspects. Marshall shared his interest in manufacturing composites and nanocarbon tubes in space, predicting that medical applications and materials science would be the next big cash cows in space development and was looking to connect the dots to the early tech being discussed by John Hunt. We discussed the potential for producing semiconductors and nanotubes in space, with Marshall suggesting that zero-gravity environments could enable the production of longer nanotubes for stronger materials like nanotube rope, which could be used in space elevators.David Livingston introduced the Sunday Space Show program, mentioning upcoming guests and topics, including a discussion on nuclear weapon development and its impact on space with John Hunt. The conversation ended with introductions of various participants and a brief overview of the show’s format.Early on John introduced us to Project Orion as he mentioned his history interest including the work of Freeman Dyson’s son, George Dyson who wrote a book about his fathers work. John Jossy expressed interest in reading the book, and they discussed the now-defunct nuclear space website, which had provided valuable information.Hunt discussed the history and development of nuclear weapons, focusing on the physics behind atomic and nuclear fission, and the creation of the first atomic bombs, “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” used in World War II. He explained the evolution of bomb designs, including the transition from solid to hollow core plutonium spheres for improved yield and the introduction of fusion components in the Teller-Ulam design, which significantly increased explosive power. John also highlighted the Soviet Union’s alternative “layer cake” design, which used a central fission bomb surrounded by a lithium deuteride layer for fusion, and noted the cryogenic technology developed for these weapons, which later found applications in space exploration.Our guest explained the evolution of nuclear weapons, focusing on the development of thermonuclear bombs and their components. He described how lithium deuteride was used in fusion reactions, leading to the creation of tritium and increased yield through fission. The discussion covered various weapon designs, including the Mark 17, Mark 28, and the 25-megaton Mark 41 bomb. John also mentioned Ted Taylor’s contributions to bomb design and his work on the Orion nuclear-powered spacecraft project, which was canceled due to the Test Ban Treaty.The discussion focused on historical nuclear weapons development, John Hunt explaining that Project Orion conducted conventional explosive tests but never pursued nuclear testing. David suggested visiting government nuclear museums across the US, including Las Vegas and New Mexico, which house exhibits and remnants of nuclear testing. The conversation then shifted to the evolution of nuclear weapons, noting that while the Soviet Tsar bomb was primarily a propaganda device, the US responded by developing smaller, multiple-warhead systems to counter potential ABM defenses, leading to a shift from large single-warhead bombs to more numerous but smaller thermonuclear devices, with both countries eventually deploying around 100,000 strategic warheads each by the mid-1980s.The discussion focused on nuclear weapons and missile defense systems. Hunt explained that Soviet ICBM deployments were initially vulnerable to Minuteman III counterforce capabilities, but Russian silo hardening and U.S. missile number limitations led to Russian achievement of assured destruction capability. The group then discussed a 1957 nuclear test where a manhole cover was launched at escape velocity speeds, with guest James noting this was a deliberate test and not accidental. The conversation concluded with a discussion of current missile defense systems, including the Golden Dome concept using hit-to-kill interceptors, and concerns about North Korea’s development of MERV missiles.Next up was a discussion regarding the strategic implications of nuclear weapons, particularly focusing on the challenges of responding to a North Korean attack due to the complex geopolitical landscape involving Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea. They explored the potential electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects of nuclear weapons on satellite systems like Starlink and the historical development of anti-ballistic missile systems, including exo-atmospheric and microwave-induced detonation technologies. James shared insights from his experience with Soviet microwave weapons research, noting that while these systems were studied extensively, they were never deployed. The conversation concluded with a question about the transition from using nuclear power in satellites to planning for its use on the surfaces of the moon and Mars.We also talked about the history and future of nuclear technology in space exploration, with James noting that nuclear rockets could enable substantial payloads for solar system exploration. They explored how nuclear technology developed from weapons to civilian power, with Hunt suggesting that without the military budget, space program development would have been slower. Ajay raised questions about Russia’s Burevestnik nuclear-powered missile program, which James and Hunt explained was similar to a canceled US program but deemed impractical due to radioactive contamination risks.Ajay focused on nuclear reactor technologies, particularly molten salt reactors and uranium isotopes. Dr. Kothari explained that molten salt reactors using uranium-233 could be safer in the event of an accident as the molten salt would freeze and become non-fissile upon contact with the ground. Hunt noted that uranium-233’s higher radioactivity makes it difficult to handle, while confirming it produces similar energy output to other isotopes. The conversation concluded with a discussion about the feasibility of gun-launched space missions, with several participants expressing skepticism about spin launch concepts due to drag issues at high speeds, while Phil suggested that robust propulsion technology could handle high G-forces.The feasibility of hypersonic velocities and space travel was brought up with Phil asserting that it’s possible to achieve orbital velocity despite atmospheric drag, while others, including and James, disagreed, citing significant challenges. The conversation shifted to the potential of nuclear technologies for space travel, with Phil suggesting underground nuclear explosions to power rockets, though Jossy noted legal and operational limitations. James highlighted the need for high-thrust rockets for interplanetary travel. They mentioned a promising paper on a centrifugal liquid-fuel propulsion system with a high specific impulse, which could be a significant advancement for space travel.We had much to say about nuclear rockets, with Phil explaining that nuclear rockets face challenges with the Oberth effect due to their inability to provide short, high-thrust bursts compared to chemical rockets. Marshall raised concerns about the potential impact of nuclear rocket launches on space stations, but Phil suggested that the radiation environment in space would make astronauts less concerned about nuclear launches. Hunt provided insights into contemporary nuclear weapons, noting that most are thermonuclear and that Russia is attempting to become a near-parity power with the U.S. and China. The discussion concluded with John explaining the potential risks and political implications of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons, emphasizing the importance of avoiding an escalation to full-scale nuclear war.Before ending we discussed nuclear power options for space missions, particularly focusing on a 100-kilowatt fission reactor planned for the moon by 2030. Marshall and others debated whether government or commercial entities should develop these reactors, with Marshall suggesting a public-private partnership might be best. The conversation concluded with a discussion about Artemis II’s February 5th launch date, with participants expressing skepticism about whether it would actually proceed as scheduled, given NASA’s history of delays.This program is audio archived at www.thespaceshow.com and doctorspace.substack.com for this program date. The Zoom video is also archived on our Substack site.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantle
Hotel Mars, Weds, Oct. 1, 2025 with Joel on Little Red Dots and JWSTOur guest for this Hotel Mars program was Dr. Joel Leja, a cosmologist at Penn State University. Dr. Leja discussed the discovery of mysterious red dots observed in the first images from the James Webb Space Telescope. These dots, initially thought to be tiny galaxies or massive structures, presented a puzzle as they were brighter and redder than expected, challenging existing cosmological models. Despite the initial surprise, further data analysis revealed that these objects were likely extremely compact systems, much smaller than the Milky Way, which Joel and his team are still working to understand fully.The three of us discussed the James Webb Space Telescope’s discovery of distant objects, estimating their existence around 11.9 billion years ago, with some as early as 5.7 billion years. Dr. Leja noted that these objects primarily exist in the early universe, with one rare exception in the nearby universe. The discussion focused on the mystery of these objects’ existence, given the limited time available for their formation, and the need to determine their nature and origin.Joel also discussed the discovery of bright objects in the early universe, initially thought to be galaxies but later identified as supermassive black holes due to the presence of hot swirling gas. Despite this explanation, several mysteries remain, including how these massive black holes formed so quickly and their unusual lack of expected features like glowing cosmic dust. Joel noted that while the black hole hypothesis is the leading explanation, numerous other theories exist, making it an exciting time in astrophysics.Our guest discussed the concept of “little red dots” in the early universe, which may be supermassive black holes surrounded by dense gas, resembling stars. John, in the last segment of the program, asked what he would do with an unlimited budget. Our guest explained that this hypothesis, known as the black hole star hypothesis, is the only one that currently aligns with observed data. Joel expressed interest in exploring this idea further, potentially with an enhanced version of the James Webb Space Telescope, to understand the formation and properties of the first stars in the universe. He also mentioned using the unlimited budget to build many more JWST’s.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:See The Upcoming Show Menu on the right side of our home page, www.thespaceshow.com for the details for programming the week of Oct. 6, 2025. Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Open Lines Discussion are ready!The program began with introductions and discussions about space settlement, including challenges and opportunities in the trillion-dollar market. The group explored various space-related topics including NASA’s stance on space settlement, recent UAP hearings in Congress, and updates on the Artemis missions, while also addressing technical issues with the Space Show’s format and programming. The conversation ended with discussions about military aircraft technology, Ajay’s art exhibition, and NASA’s budget situation, including potential funding cuts and future plans for space exploration.After early program announcements by David, John Jossy introduced Alan Linton, a software engineer from Waterloo, Canada interested in space development, and mentioned the diverse perspectives and opinions that could be expected during the discussion. David then highlighted the presence of various participants, including AJ, known for his space vision plans and connections, and John Hunt, interested in UAPs and physics.In response to one of my questions, Alan discussed the decline in Canadian participation in space-related activities, which he attributed to factors other than politics. I emphasized that space enthusiasts tend to transcend political boundaries and remain interested in space exploration regardless of political changes. I also made an early announcement re our recent website problems involving the issue of website scraping from China, where 20-30 IP addresses from Alibaba created a denial of service attack by overwhelming our website. The Space Show will soon be implementing Cloudflare filtering to address this for the future.Turning the mic over to John and Alan, they introduced his new YouTube channel focused on space settlement interviews, having already interviewed John Jossy and Ruben from France. The group discussed space settlement challenges, with Alan identifying launch costs and robotic mining as major obstacles, while suggesting that space settlement could be a trillion-dollar market if homes could be sold to the million people interested in living in space.We discussed NASA’s current stance on space settlement, with Marshall noting that government bureaucracy and the small size of the space lobby make significant policy changes unlikely. Bill shared that early speculation about Elon Musk’s involvement with the administration leading to government support for Mars efforts did not materialize. The conversation then focused on NASA’s announcement of potential life signs on Mars, with Bill and others agreeing that this was driven by scientific analysis rather than an attempt to hinder Mars and space exploration. The discussion concluded with updates on NASA’s Viper mission with Blue Origin, which is scheduled for the first quarter of next year, and the group acknowledged that while the discovery of life on Mars would be exciting, it would likely not significantly impact plans for human colonization.We switched over and discussed the recent UAP hearings in Congress, where witnesses shared experiences of unidentified aerial phenomena, including military encounters and classified programs. John Hunt explained that the hearings were led by junior House members and focused on protecting witnesses from reprisals, though he noted that senior officials like the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor could influence disclosure. I expressed frustration about the lack of meaningful progress on UAP disclosure despite presidential promises, while John Jossy suggested changing the subject as the UAP topic had become exhausted. I asked John why he does not like the UAP topic. Do listen for his response.Moving to another topic, we started talking about the Artemis II mission being moved up to February 2024, with most agreeing it will likely proceed as scheduled but could face minor delays. Concerns were expressed about the Artemis III mission in 2027, particularly regarding SpaceX’s HLS lander’s stability on the moon and the need for multiple refueling, even suggesting it may not succeed by 2028. Bill proposed considering Blue Origin’s Mark II lander as an alternative to SpaceX’s HLS, noting its better center of gravity and design for early Artemis missions. I raised concerns about the lack of tangible progress and testing timelines for both SpaceX and Blue Origin’s hardware, emphasizing the need for clear business plans and testing schedules before investing in such ambitious projects. I suggested that we need less uncertainty if that is possible.The group discussed space settlement and lunar habitats, with John Jossy explaining that National Space Society defines a settlement as biologically self-sustaining and permanent for families, while current lunar habitats are considered outposts due to rotating crews. The discussion explored Al Globus’s proposal for low-radiation habitats in low Earth orbit, but John Jossy confirmed there are no current plans or market interest in this concept, citing the need for real estate and safe habitats. I mentioned the Musk challenges with launch site logistics and supply lines, which led to the abandonment of Kwajalein Island as a launch site.We also talked about military aircraft and space technology, especially stealth. John Hunt explained that the F-22 and B-21 serve different missions, with the F-22 focused on air-to-air combat and the B-21 on bombing, and described plans to upgrade the F-22 with technologies from the F-35 as a stopgap until the F-47 becomes operational. The discussion then shifted to the feasibility of drones flying on the moon, with Ajay explaining that while traditional flight is impossible due to lack of atmosphere, hopping movements could be achieved using engines like Draco, though with limited flight duration. John Jossy shared a link to Intuitive Machines’ lunar hopper technology.We then turned to Ajay’s art exhibition, which is currently on display until October 4th and the Zoom video is archived on Substack from Tuesday. I reported that Ajay had given a compelling 5-minute presentation connecting his art and vision for space exploration to NASA leadership during a recent Senate hearing simulation. Ajay discussed offering a 30-40% discount on the paintings, with the gallery retaining their 20% commission plus $500 per wall. Several members expressed interest in purchasing paintings. I identified several favorites including a Mars painting and Native American piece. Marshall praised Ajay’s ability to convey complex space concepts through visual art, suggesting it could be a valuable addition to Marshall’s office decor.Nearing the end of the program, we discussed NASA’s budget situation, with Bill updating that the NASA budget approved by the House Appropriations Committee for science, was a cut from the previous year’s total but better than the proposed 50% cut. A key development was Sean Duffy directing NASA to move forward with the House figure. I made a fundraising pitch for the non-profit Space Show, and the conversation ended with discussion of upcoming guests and potential appearances. For our Substack listeners and viewers, given that The Space Show is a nonprofit, we launch an end of the year fund raising campaign around Thanksgiving. We promote donations to PayPal, Zelle and check. If you like what we do, please donate and help us out. If you are a federal tax payer, you get a tax deduction for your gift. See the PayPal button on the right side of our home page, www.thespaceshow.com.Thank you.Dr. SpaceSpecial thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4438 ZOOM Matt Billie, Rachel Tillman | Tuesday 30 Sep 2025 700PM PTGuests: Matt Bille, Rachel TillmanZOOM: Space history, space project retrieval, Vanguard 1 and more!Broadcast 4439 Hotel Mars: Dr. Joel Leja | Wednesday 01 Oct 2025 930AM PTGuests: John Batchelor, Dr. David Livingston, Dr. Joel LejaHotel Mars addresses red dots’ in early universe may be ‘black hole star’ atmospheres,Broadcast 4440 ZOOM JOHN HUNT | Sunday 05 Oct 2025 1200PM PTGuests: John HuntZoom: The physics & development of nuclear weapons & connecting dots to space, energy, planetary settlement Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe
Aynjill
My opinion only. Boring!