[SpaceProgram] Very good news from discussion with the DARPA 100YSS program manager tonight

Sat Jan 7 18:10:27 CET 2012

I've been thinking about how we're going to do this, and here are my
thoughts:

1) *Rewriting the proposal*: I've taken a look at the BAA submission
guidelines and have concluded that major revisions to our document will be
needed to comply with the new requirements. Problem is these BAAs are
tailored for applications with very specific research objectives or
capabilities, which is radically different from our current proposal (i.e.
to create an organization to change the paradigm for space related research
and engineering).* I'd suggest that we bounce an email off Paul to see if
we can be exempt from the requirements to provide Technical Rationale and
Approach*. I can do it by Monday if it's not resolved by then.

2) *DARPA Funding and HSP's Relationship to DARPA*: Let's face it, DARPA is
about the only organization that can quickly provide credibility and
initial funding to start something as insane as this. So, from my
standpoint this argument is pretty much settled for practical and realistic
reasons. Now, if we're still strictly pitching to DARPA an organization to
achieve 100 YSS objectives then generally we're still fine because DARPA is
committed to provide seed funding for that and nothing more. *Some of us
has started to recognize that since we're no longer bound by 100YSS
criteria for our proposal submission, this is a game changer. *To realign
our proposal for relevance to DARPA's objectives yet still remain
'civilian', I'd suggest that we avoid the more tactical focus outlined in
the BAA and pitch the following strategic relevance:

a. Augmenting the 100 YSS effort (since that's still a TTO program) in the
area of open-source, crowdsourced funding, research and engineering.
b. Working towards the: '*strengthening of safety, stability and security
in space*' (via projects on orbital debris surveillance and reduction,
stimulating international coorperation in space on a community level and
promoting the use of space as an 'open' commons) as well as '*Energize the
space industrial base that supports U.S. national security*.' (by
stimulating demand for space and providing an alternative
education/manufacturing base for space technology) as outlined in the
DoD/DNI National Security Space Policy 2011.
c. Supporting the goal of '*Pursue human and robotic initiatives*' as
outlined in the White House National Space Policy 2010 and relevant goals
supported by part b..

Warmest regards,
Huei Ming

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Alex Cureton-Griffiths <alexcg at gmail.com>wrote:

> Are there any existing licenses we could base projects on? This would
> help in setting out rights, legal issues, etc
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM,  <psytek at alphaonelabs.com> wrote:
> > I'd like the document to be more explicit  about ownership of rights.
> > I would like to retain ownership of my part of this.  Especially now
> > that we're opening this up to more potential sponsors.  Thanks.
> >
> > On Jan 7, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Alex Cureton-Griffiths <alexcg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Myself and James Coombs (another Xinchejian'er, who'll be joining this
> >> list soon) were discussing contests/prizes, along the lines of a micro
> >> version of the Ansari Prize. If we had been accepted for 100YSS we
> >> were thinking about (along with other hackerspaces) putting together a
> >> technology tree (like in the game Civilisation) detailing the
> >> technologies needed to get to a starship within 100 years. Prizes
> >> would be awarded for building the technologies on the tree that are
> >> needed to achieve the goal, with achievable milestones set along the
> >> way. Since we're no longer focused on 100YSS we can apply the model to
> >> other goals, e.g. a human habitat on Mars or whatever.
> >>
> >> The above strategy may also have potential to attract sponsorship from
> >> Ansari X Prize Foundation or similar. On the other hand, I think Ricky
> >> mentioned that one of the things DARPA liked about the proposal we
> >> submitted was that it was more about collaboration than competition.
> >> Perhaps we could do both - give some grants for interesting projects
> >> that are already furthering the goal, and award prizes for projects
> >> that "fill in" the holes in the tech tree that aren't being focused
> >> on.
> >>
> >> Agree we should leave out weapons, not just for liability purposes but
> >> also because they are a dividing factor.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Its a little more selective in its space project categories than the
> >>> 100yss. But instead of pursuing a particular project, it would be nice
> >>> to just redistribute the money with our own micro grant process for
> >>> the exact same RFP requirements. So the global hackerspace
> >>> organization could hold contests on projects related to the RFP and
> >>> distribute prizes to winners. We could start small with RFI contests
> >>> with a few 100 bucks or so for the best idea for a particular
> >>> technology track followed for an RFP to match the winning RFI. We
> >>> should leave weapons out for liability purposes (explosives and
> >>> firearms requires federal and state licencing and they should just get
> >>> their own DARPA grant if they are organized enough to get one of
> >>> those) unless it is a non leathal weapon (microwave, foam, whatever)
> >>> or a combat enabling tech such as augmented reality HUD. I think that
> >>> the platform category should however be included in our global
> >>> hackerspace consortium challenges with the space stuff. Many makers
> >>> are already making UAV and FPV aircraft, blimps, balloons, boats,
> >>> tracked vehicles, and other craft.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Luke Weston <
> reindeerflotilla at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> It's worth noting that DARPA contributes to heaps of cutting-edge
> >>>> fundamental research that has no direct, obvious military value. Heaps
> >>>> of civilian scientists at universities across the world are happily
> >>>> involved in valuable civilian basic science and technology research
> >>>> that attracts funding from DARPA and occasionally other DOD agencies
> >>>> such as the Army Research Office, and they're certainly not just
> >>>> building weapons or building better bombs or anything like that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well known examples would include the DARPA Grand Challenge for
> >>>> autonomous vehicle research, and a lot of quantum computing and
> >>>> quantum communications research, for example a lot of the research
> >>>> done by the universities affiliated with the ARC Centre for Quantum
> >>>> Computer Technology in Australia (http://www.cqc2t.org/), as well as
> >>>> this for example:
> >>>>
> http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2010/11/new-initiative-to-develop-a-system-that-controls-prosthetic-limbs-naturally/
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120108/1e198ca4/attachment.html>