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

Tue Jan 3 01:18:49 CET 2012

Yeh I think we are converging on two points here:

1) Need something that is easily achievable within a year or two.

2) Need something that is financially self-sustaining (basically it
needs to have some form of revenue, not necessarily profit but just
something that it's not a one shot deal)

There's definitely a lot of crap floating around that could be
'recycled' although it seems to me that to make use of it would require
human intervention of some kind.

maybe w/this new crowdfunding bill it'd be easier to raise initial funds
for one of the near term goals

if the goal was to have a hackerspace in space it needs stuff like
electricity, water, air, food, etc. -- these type of things can easily
be experimented with remotely w/out having to send humans up right away
thus making their cost extremely cheap

an immediate near term goal might simply be pushing out some large solar
panels to generate electricty, then maybe pushing out something else,
etc. until you have a lot of essentials there

I know a lot of ppl on this list are probably familiar with
http://jpaerospace.com/ but for those who aren't they have plans to do
high altitude platforms as kind of a half-way point between the ground
and space -- this would be something that is very easy to do in the
short term w/enough support and could be a great stepping stone forward

commercially speaking it could definitely generate cash as soon as it
is up

- Ian

On 15:41 Mon 02 Jan     , 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

-- 
web: https://flirtrs.com
email: ian at flirtrs.com
phone: 573.219.0658
skype: ian.eyberg