I am listening to some Space Show shows once again

I've listened to two of them and trying to come up with a system that will allow me to review them quickly and easily.  This explains the long lag between posts.  I'm usually busy doing something even though it may appear that I am not.

The amount of information in this mp3 files is tremendous.  It is a great resource and I recommend it highly- that is if you want to get out of the wilderness of our ignorance that is in our modern culture.

Update:
I've been through two of these programs and started in on a third.  What I wrote above about it being a tremendous resource may not always be true.  On this latest show I started on, he seemed to be getting into some quackery stuff about Gaia communication satellite proposal on the show which aired on Nov 1, last year.  He began the show with a speech which closely adheres to what I often complain about here.  To that, I felt very much in harmony and sympathy, but then he makes this huge mistake and starts to talk about this proposition which struck me as ludicrous.

I don't want to be negative, but that's the kind of thing that can hurt you.  It may happen here too when you make just one tiny mistake of one kind or another and totally turn off an audience.  ( I turned the show off.  It may have been a good show, but this one thing bugged me enough to turn off the show.)

Anyway, I'm thinking about how to go forward with the blog now that I've obtained a DBA for it.  It is now, legally a business, but not a corporation.  He requested support for the Space Show and so I think I will try my best to support it as best I can.

Update:

I've listened to it again, and he did preface the remark with a note of skepticism.  Yet, he treats it in such a way that it can be taken as respectable.  That's the mistake.  I realize that I am in the same company as this fellow that I am calling a quack.  But I have always said that I am not a rocket scientist.  My stuff is only ideas that probably won't work for whatever reason.  I put them out there in the hopes that maybe something will work, it only needs to be tried.  (By who? Me? But I can't.  So, should I shut up?) How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

I read this man's proposal.  I bit, but I didn't taste anything but sizzle, no steak.  Nothing to get your teeth into.  By the way, on the Space Show, a rocket scientist named John debunked this idea.  After listening to him, and reading this, I think John is more persuasive to me.

Update:

I am near the end of this show.  Charles, who has called the show many times, and has criticized JP Aerospace, says flatly that the Airship to Orbit will not work.  He believes he's overlooking some basic physics of the problem that he's working on.  I have no dog in this hunt, but I do think he has some ideas that are worth exploring.

Update:

Kelly in Connecticut called.  Can't ignore the physics.  Looking for unobtainium.  Have to find a way to eliminate the "overhead".  Every 29 out 30 dollars spent is overhead.  A more efficient vehicle is not necessarily the answer.  Not cheaper than an aircraft.  Don't have economy of scale.  ( my comment: May never have that).  Looks like an economic problem, not a physics problem, based upon this discussion.

Tony emails note about the Sea Dragon rocket ( on my sidebar  I checked into this, by the way.  A real deal rocket proposal that never flew).   Sea Dragon was talked about before on the Space Show ( I'd be interested in finding that show).  Bill Sprague?  I have to look that up.


After a really slow start, this was another good show.  The callers saved this one.

Update:

He says he treats everyone with respect as a matter of policy.  Nothing wrong with that, but this Steve fellow himself seems not to be properly respectful.  ( in my humble opinion)