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

Tue Jan 3 01:46:34 CET 2012

Well these guys aren't planning on using rockets -- you'll have to read
up on the program (they have an excellent book) but basically they are
planning (and building) a really large (over a mile) 'airship'

you are right about the velocity needed -- we are talking 17.5k MPH

however, launching rockets from high altitude is not as crazy as it
sounds -- there's a romanian team competing in the lunar x-prize using
them and the military has used them for decades

  https://www.arcaspace.com/en/haas.htm

there is also a whole slew of amateurs building 'rockoons' which is
basically what it would be

- Ian

On 19:27 Mon 02 Jan     , Atrus wrote:
> What exactly is the benefit of having a high altitude launch platform? You
> would still need to reach essentially the same escape velocity, but only
> have ~half the distance to achieve that velocity. That seems like a worse
> trade off (assuming that your perceived benefit is less air resistance)
> On Jan 2, 2012 7:19 PM, "Ian Eyberg" <ian at flirtrs.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


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