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

Mon Jan 9 10:31:58 CET 2012

I'm really digging your sequence of events. I'm an advocate for including habitats in our goals since its something that people can relate to, and means we can thus get a larger proportion of mankind involved. That's vital for a project like this.

Your list also makes it pretty straightforward to put in place an overarching goal for the vision (say, a habitat around another star?) and milestones along the way, from which we can better develop the tech tree needed.

On 8 Jan 2012, at 06:11 AM, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Asteroids or bust. Here is a sequence of events that makes sense to me.
> 
> Pre-1 Lift all the stuff you need to LEO for cheap. (thats the hard part atm)
> 1. L points are first for staging, materials refining, construction,
> etc. Its like the hubs of operations. I have a book by Gerard K. Oneil
> called the high frontier. We need one of his giant habitats in one of
> these locations eventually.
> 2. Next is nickel nea asteroids for platinum and other Pt group
> metals. During this stage a platinum based corp like debeers would be
> possible and the first trillionaires are made. Leftover iron slag
> would be used later for in-space construction. This is the space "gold
> rush period"
> 3. Carbonaceous asteroids NEAs are next for volatiles (you could
> switch this with metal ones if you dont have nuclear  by then.)
> 4. Then main asteroid belt and a mars tunnel habitat.
> 5. Then Jupiter's atmosphere and Trojans.
> 6. Then interstellar with uploaded consciousness.
> 
> Has anyone here read Ray Kurzweil?
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Huei Ming Tan <tanhueiming at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jerry,
>> 
>> " 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?)"
>> I've came across the same argument before too. Essentially why bother
>> climbing down the gravity well to an airless and barren piece of rock. And
>> it seems to me that the space exploration community is largely in favor of
>> going straight to the asteroids first.
>> 
>> Artus: Cole has a point. A rocket needs to carry its own fuel to above
>> 50,000 feet which is the stage where rocket engines are least efficient, are
>> dependent upon favorable weather at the launchpad and not reusable. The mass
>> savings can be considerable and you can compare the Pegasus rocket and the
>> Falcon I for a rough idea in the difference between the launch masses for
>> bringing the same payload to LEO. The only big minus point in not using
>> rockets all the way would be cost (at least till air launched systems
>> mature).
>> 
>> Warmest regards,
>> Huei Ming
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alex Cureton-Griffiths <alexcg at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm a fan of the one man closed habitat idea - once we achieve that
>>> it's something we could scale to larger habitats, plus it's something
>>> that the average person (i.e. non-hacker) can relate to and thus more
>>> likely to find funds via kickstarter, etc
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:08 PM, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> JP Aerospace is a perfect example of hackerspace possible projects.
>>>> 
>>>> I have some ideas for near term projects that can generate cashflow
>>>> with productization,
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) generator for extracting power from
>>>> rocket exhaust. (help out JP, not much cash here though)
>>>> 2. One man closed habitat - Pressurized co2 enriched algae tanks to
>>>> process co2 and provide food. Biogas to process waste and create
>>>> rocket fuel. Also methane for power using solid oxide fuel cells
>>>> 3. Using hydrogen sulfide from biogas to leach ore. (used for asteroid
>>>> mining with human waste by products)
>>>> 4. Electrostatic confinement fusion (see project promethius)
>>>> 5. Mini chloralkali electrolysis as well as mini haber-bosch for
>>>> in-situ chemical synthesis
>>>> 6. Aeroponic Aquaponics using biogas effluent as a nutrient source.
>>>> 
>>>> Long term projects should center around mining asteroids for platinum
>>>> everything else is just science and misplaced dreams. Going down a
>>>> gravity well for no apparent reason besides exploration seems silly to
>>>> me.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Atrus <atrus6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Except, there really isn't that much difference in gravity from the
>>>>> surface
>>>>> of the earth, 10km or in orbit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> g on the
>>>>> 
>>>>> surface: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5Bg+%3D+%286.67*10%5E-11+*+5.9442*10%5E24%29+%2F+%286378100%29%5E2%2C+g%5D
>>>>> 
>>>>> g 10km
>>>>> 
>>>>> up: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5Bg+%3D+%286.67*10%5E-11+*+5.9442*10%5E24%29+%2F+%286378100%2B10000%29%5E2%2C+g%5D
>>>>> 
>>>>> ISS orbit (410 km up)
>>>>> 
>>>>> : http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+%5Bg+%3D+%286.67*10%5E-11+*+5.9442*10%5E24%29+%2F+%286378100%2B410000%29%5E2%2C+g%5D
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is why launching rockets on a platform will only make the actual
>>>>> launch
>>>>> more difficult. You still have to reach escape velocity to obtain
>>>>> orbit, the
>>>>> only thing you would be doing by launching a rocket at a higher
>>>>> altitude
>>>>> would be the face that you would have to hit that velocity in a shorter
>>>>> distance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tim Butram
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Stuart Young <cefiar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2012 11:27 AM, "Atrus" <atrus6 at gmail.com> 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).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Benefits (apart from air resistance):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Less gravity to escape (inverse square law).
>>>>>> 2. Less fuel to carry in the actual rocket (less mass to move to get a
>>>>>> payload to escape velocity), which should make things simpler (no need
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> multiple stages, simpler avionics).
>>>>>> 3. Less differences in engine design (high/low atmospheric pressure
>>>>>> compensation in design not necessary) which simplifies engine and
>>>>>> avionics
>>>>>> design.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And that is just the ones that I can think off of the top of my head.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Btw: Written from my phone, while on site at a client, so pls excuse
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> errors in the text.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cef
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> SpaceProgram mailing list
> SpaceProgram at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/spaceprogram