[SpaceProgram] DARPA-RA-11-70 100YSS Notification

[Jerry Isdale]

How about we colonize 2002 NT7 and alter its orbit (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/hammer.html)?

Jerry Isdale
http://MauiMakers.com
http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/

On Jan 1, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Ricky Ng-Adam wrote:

> Lots of good discussions here! I agree with both Jerry assertion that a permanent space station is better than a lunar base (I never understood the fascination with jumping from one gravity well to the other) and Luke assertion that we should shoot for something that's realistic in the short-term.
> 
> My personal 2 cents (that I've shared this with Alex and is part of the proposal too), is that although we can get a lots of sexy mid-term (space station), long-term (solar system space bases) and very long-term (starship) goals the next step is to thrive to getting a self-sustainable commercial operation in space that can feed other projects. 
> 
> So logically the focus on generating the needed resources (materials, food) in space instead of shipping stuff from earth at a prohibitive cost. Ian idea of demo'ing oxygen generation in space is excellent. What I'd add is focusing on getting material. This means space mining or more realistically in the short-term space recycling, so we can build things in space. 
> 
> An ambitious but achievable goal could be to collect one chunk of space garbage and turn it into a usable pieces of parts for building. Space recycling seems like a sexy enough goal to me and it folds nicely into the trendy "green" movement.
> 
> We can also copy off DARPA's Phoenix project (http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Programs/Phoenix.aspx) and make it our own...
> 
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com> wrote:
> A lunar lander/colony may not be the best goal.  I forgot the source but I recall arguments that a permanent space station is a better first step.  Something more than the current station that doesnt need constant altitude boosts (L point located?)
> 
> Getting there and back avoids the gravity well on the other end - you only have to worry about earth's well and re-entry.
> 
> And a station has lots of the same issues to solve as a ground habitat... with lack of gravity to make things more complicated.
> 
> Jerry Isdale
> http://MauiMakers.com
> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
> 
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Luke Weston wrote:
> 
> >> 2. Mini greenhouse on moon within 2 years - I think we could make this a subgoal/milestone of say 'lunar colony in 20 years' which to me is a sexy goal.
> >
> > But what's the point of having a "sexy goal" if it's not realistic?
> > Marketing or "selling" something to the public (or governments, or the
> > media, or potential benefactors) if you don't have good confidence
> > that you can actually deliver it as promised on the timescale promised
> > really isn't a very good way to go.
> >
> > Better to have goals that are challenging, optimistic, exciting, but
> > still actually within the realm of what you can actually practically
> > build, on schedule. You've got to crawl before you can walk.
> >
> > It's worth noting that the only man-rated operational spacecraft
> > systems in the world at present are the Soyuz and the Long March 2F
> > (and arguably SpaceShipOne, for very brief suborbital ballistic hops
> > just barely above the Kármán line).
> >
> > The only private non-government manned spacecraft capability that has
> > ever been demonstrated is a couple of brief suborbital ballistic hops,
> > just barely above the Kármán line, with SpaceShipOne, and no private
> > corporation or NGO has ever demonstrated manned spacecraft launch
> > capability to Earth orbit.
> >
> > Small moves, Ellie.
> >
> > Let's suppose you want a manned lunar colony. What milestones would
> > you have to hit?
> >
> > Let's consider some plausible milestones:
> >
> > a) Highly reliable unmanned suborbital ballistic rocket launch vehicle
> > capability designed and built and tested extensively and proven
> >
> > b) Highly reliable unmanned launch vehicle capability to Earth orbit
> > designed and built and tested extensively and proven.
> >
> > (Or, you can buy commercial "off the shelf" access to satellite launch
> > vehicles that do (b) and skip (a)).
> >
> > c) Life support and crew support technology designed and built and
> > tested, spacecraft man-rated and certified for manned brief suborbital
> > ballistic spaceflight. (eg. SpaceShipOne)
> >
> > d) As per (c) but extending that to Earth orbit insertion.
> >
> > e) Trans-lunar injection and lunar orbit rendezvous, guidance and docking.
> >
> > f) Lunar landing
> >
> > g) Sustainable life support, energy, safety and habitability for a lunar colony.
> >
> > h) Transport of a large enough mass of materials and equipment and
> > components to the moon to actually build a lunar colony.
> >
> > It's more plausible to work primarily on (a)-(c), or technologies or
> > components of relevance to those milestones, or the other ones,
> > perhaps in parallel, patiently, over time, before the whole thing very
> > slowly starts to become viable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  Luke
> > _______________________________________________
> > SpaceProgram mailing list
> > SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 伍思力 | Ricky Ng-Adam | http://xinchejian.com | (+86) 186-2126-2521
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/spaceprogram/attachments/20120101/7d5838e9/attachment.html>