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

Tue Jan 10 04:47:26 CET 2012

Some ideas on early asteroid targets and how to go beyond on the quick and
dirty.
Scientific American - The Future of Deep-Space Exploration
http://www.scientificamerican.com/report.cfm?id=mars-manned-exploration

Scientific American - This Way to Mars: How Technologies Borrowed from
Robotic Missions Could Deliver Astronauts to Deep Space
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=this-way-to-mars&print=true

New Scientist - Hundreds of tiny moons may be orbiting Earth
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328464.600-hundreds-of-tiny-moons-may-be-orbiting-earth.html

And yep, I've also read Kurzweil's books.

Warmest regards,
Huei Ming

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Alex <alexcg at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120110/de0ec684/attachment-0001.html>