June 5, 2018 Zimmerman/Batchelor podcast


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Embedded below the fold in two parts.

Share

5 comments

  • Localfluff

    Same episode posted twice here. I heard the other one at John Batchelor.

    So they brag about “international cooperation” with the LOP-G. This is the danger with lousy space advocacy. It is unfortunately a standard argument that space flight improves international cooperation (since the Apollo-Soyuz docking). But that means that LOP-G is great even if it is nowhere doing nothing, because it delivers diplomacy! That’s the purpose of space flight, space advocates have argued, not space exploration.

    Another self destructive argument is spin off effects. Right. So if we get better kitchen utensils by going to the Moon, then maybe we get to the Moon by investing in feminist studies? Feminism as a way to the Moon, space advocates say. At least that’s what their audience hear.

    Diplomacy, space unrelated spin offs, high paying jobs. All threr right. What’s wrong with the LOP-G, politicians wonder after having listened to space advocates.

  • Localfluff: Thank you. The first podcast has been corrected.

  • Localfluff

    Reusing the fairing for F9 seems long winded with parachutes, cold gas thrusters, guidance system and two special ships. I wonder if the motive, rather than saving on the costs of the current fairing, is to develop much more advanced fairings. If it is reusable one can make it more expensive to provide better protection for the valuable payload, saving costs and time for the customers. Maybe a spacecraft suspended in the fairing could be isolated from vibrations.

  • Edward

    LOP-G is unnecessary for going back to the Moon, as Robert stated. Robert Zubrin — known for his advocacy of going to Mars in a direct and inexpensive way — has a suggestion for going directly to the Moon.
    http://spacenews.com/op-ed-moon-direct-how-to-build-a-moonbase-in-four-years/

    Zubrin mentions polar peaks that always receive light, “where sunlight is accessible all the time, as well as permanently shadowed craters nearby where water ice has accumulated.

    However, as J Fincannon mentioned in another post a week ago, these are hypothetical at best and likely only receive light 90% of the time. I read a similar analysis of these “areas of eternal light,” too, that they receive light most but not all of the time. This is still much better than 1/2 the time, and other than that, Zubrin’s case seems feasible — and it does not use a lunar space station as a way point.
    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/may-29-2018-zimmerman-batchelor-podcast/#comment-1053520

    Perhaps in the far distant future a way point lunar space station will be useful for refueling and allowing for a lighter lunar landing shuttle along with a larger low-Earth-orbit to lunar-orbit shuttle with sleeping quarters and other amenities for the longer voyage, but for the next couple of decades we are unlikely to use a lunar way station to get to or from the Moon.

  • Localfluff

    As always Zubrin goes for the most minimal doable mission to the Moon, which is great as a kind of reference for realistic missions. He wants to set up infrastructure so that astronauts can go to the Moon and back with a single F9 and Lunar refueling. But launching a second F9 would be easily motivated to improve everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *