The Space Show by Dr. David Livingston

Hotel Mars, Weds, Nov. 5, 2025 Guest Dr. Ajay Kothari Summary: 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 Entertainment Our 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 89135 Upcoming Programs: Broadcast 4458 ZOOM Open Lines Discussion | Sunday 09 Nov 2025 1200PM PT Guests: Dr. David Livingston Zoom: 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, 11-2-25 David 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...

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, 10-28-25 Quick 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 Summary David 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...

Bill Gowan, Tuesday, 10-28-25 Quick 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 Summary David 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...

Pending Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

Open Line Discussion – 4451 10-26-25 Quick 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...

The Space Show presents Phil Swan, Friday, 10-24-25 Quick recap The 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,...

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 Entertainment Our 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 89135 Upcoming Programs: Broadcast 4455 ZOOM: Arkisys CEO David Barnhart | Sunday 02 Nov 2025 1200PM PT Guests: 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...

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 Entertainment Our 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 89135 Upcoming Programs: Broadcast 4450 ZOOM Phil Swan | Friday 24 Oct 2025 930AM PT Guests: Phil Swan Zoom: Phil talks about going to Mars with kinetic energy Broadcast 4451 Zoom OPEN LINES | Saturday 25 Oct 2025 1200PM PT Guests: Dr. David Livingston, The Space Show Zoom Team & Zoom callers ZOOM 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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

John Hunt presents to The Space Show are ready! Sunday, 10-5-25 For 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 Weaver Our 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...

Summary is pending as is the Zoom video which will be on doctorspace.substack.com

Hotel Mars, Weds, Oct. 1, 2025 with Joel on Little Red Dots and JWST Our 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 Entertainment Our Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223 For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.com 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 89135 Upcoming 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. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit doctorspace.substack.com