[SpaceProgram] Seasteading crossover options

[cole santos]

I agree with your RV idea. Here is the progression I see for long term type
stuff.

1. Component R&D and construction take place in individual work-spaces via
1-5k GAMBIT grants. In addition we can throw a few competitions into the
mix for fun and try and get some cool prizes to be donated. Successful
projects will most likely leverage multiple funding sources, crowd, grants,
etc.

2. Next scale is working projects into some kind of  land based closed
cycle habitat. RV, container, whatever. It should double as a mobile
makerspace (tooling, advanced manufacturing, etc).

3. Scale up and move the land based technologies into the ocean and sub
ocean. This serves to weatherize/ air proof/ etc our technologies.

4. Stage four is gravity proofing. Zero G pumping, vibration, liquid air
separation, temp swing, and many other problems are then solved
and integrated into existing open source products.

 This is a big step, from here we bring sustainable biopod hackerspaces to
space.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Felix Hamilton <fhamilton at gmail.com>wrote:

> Even better than a closed cycle boat (from a ground up perspective) might
> be doing a cut at a closed cycle RV/modular trailer system. Not only would
> it be quite cheap to put together from the ground up, but it could be moved
> around easily for collaborative and experimental purposes ... There is lots
> of crossover here with various sustainable living research areas, so it
> could be a very useful and low overhead way to get something hackerish
> going ...
>
>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:05:40 -1000
>> From: cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com>
>> To: railmeat at gmail.com, Hackerspaces Space Program communication list
>>         <spaceprogram at lists.hackerspaces.org>
>> Subject: Re: [SpaceProgram] Project Management, Starships, and the
>>         Failure of Modern Physics - YouTube
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CABSLL0qCSXXwZBNxq=Rr4m+9qJF7SE+4fe5n2f=e=
>> u94ND_vvg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Sea-steading crossover would be in certain systems. Sustainable habitat
>> design with a small footprint, waste management, food production, and
>> small
>> scale replication of industrial processes. If you look at their website
>> their goal is to be independent of land based infrastructure. As an avid
>> diver, I can tell you that the underwater environment is about as close to
>> weightlessness as you can get. The issues of decompression, bends, and
>> other pressure sicknesses apply in space as much as underwater. Thier
>> habitats must be water proof, and if its water proof its air proof. Think
>> about a sail boat. How long can you last without going ashore for fuel and
>> water, dumping waste(assuming you dont use the ocean as a dumping ground,
>> hence the sustainble part)? One stepwise goal could be to design a close
>> cycle boat for 1 man and send him around for a while. Initial projects
>> could be aspects of that entire system. Toilets, waste processing, micro
>> showers, food production systems, air handling systems, ect. You would
>> need
>> to process waste, capture water, control atmosphere, do hydroponics, ect
>> in
>> space and seasteaders would need similar tech. This would allow us to test
>> habitat level 1 tech readiness technology without the cost of booting it
>> to
>> space. First test on ground, then at sea, then in space. NASA does the
>> same
>> thing that's what Aquarius was for. Navel engineering is not even close to
>> the state where it can be considered a closed ecological system. They dump
>> their waste at sea, they burn insane amounts of fuel to make water, cook
>> food, ect. They desalinate water instead of processing their waste water,
>> ect.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:00 AM, Matt Johnson <railmeat at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Cole, I cannot think of much tech that could cross over from
>> > seasteading to spacesteading. The seasteaders have it easy they rely
>> > on navel architecture, as well understood and established engineering
>> > domain. Not much technical research is required.
>> >
>> > They are much more ambitious in the political, legal, social and
>> > economic realms. I am sure spacesteaders will be able to learn a lot
>> > from seasteaders in those areas.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Matt Johnson
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:08 PM, cole santos <cksantos85 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > Seasteading has almost identical needs as spacesteading in theory it
>> > easyer
>> > > to develop. Perhaps it could be a stepwise goal. A lot of tech could
>> > cross
>> > > over.
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jerry Isdale <jerry at mauimakers.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> There was an interesting talk at 100YSS on SeaSteading ...
>> homesteaders
>> > >> going to sea... or under it.
>> > >>     http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seasteading
>> > >>
>> > >> Definitely an option to investigate.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jerry Isdale
>> > >> http://MauiMakers.com
>> > >> http://www.mauimakers.com/blog/thursday-public-meeting/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120925/e50ce7aa/attachment.html>