

German hackers plan DIY space program - bootload
http://www.popsci.com.au/technology/space/german-hackers-plan-diy-space-program

======
rycs
I always thought that a parallel-independent-underground network is inevitable
and if it's achieved succesfully I think the ramifications could be huge, it
could be the first step towards seriously thinking about the posibility of
leaving Earth and start to colonize the space, if you can have a reliable
network out of a DIY space program, I can't think why in 100 years they
wouldn't start a colony outside to basically move further away from the rules
of goverments on Earth.

------
bobowzki
Surely nothing could go wrong!

------
_k
What's the cost per kg to get a satellite into space and how do you solve that
problem, knowing there's no financial ROI ?

~~~
mkn
The cost per kg currently around $10k, about half what it cost on the shuttle.
If you assume a payload mass fraction of 2% and a vehicle mass fraction of
10%, you have a fuel-to-weight ratio of 44:1. So, it takes--switching to
English units because milk is in gallons--44 pounds of fuel to launch 1 pound
into orbit on current launch vehicles. Fuel is roughly as dense as water and
roughly the same cost as milk. So, about 6 gallons of fuel at $3.50/gallon.
$21 in fuel for 1 lb of payload, then.

How do you solve this problem? You work on the difference in engineering cost
between $21/lb and $5k/lb, say by simplifying systems, building them more
robustly so the $30k paper trail that guarantees that the otherwise $700 part
will perform exactly as advertised goes away, or aiming for reusability.

Of course, if you did that on a large enough scale, you'd be Elon Musk.

------
smoyer
Cool ... this project requires specialized skills for some aspects but it
would be great if even those tasks could be crowd-sourced.

Good luck guys!

------
Zirro
"But should a nation like China decide it doesn't want uncensored Internet
streaming to its shores from space, there's nothing really stopping it from
blasting the satellites out of the sky either."

After the recent events, I wouldn't be completely surprised if the US decided
to claim them to be "a threat to national security" (which translates to
enabling copyright infringement) as well, in a not too distant future. It may
sound too extreme today, but so did SOPA ten years ago.

~~~
bitcracker
Is this story really true? If so then I am amazed that hackers could be so
naive at all.

~~~
Zirro
If you mean that it is possible to "blast satellites out of space", then yes,
it is true. China used it on one of their own satellites to test with, and
considering other nations were not informed, the US-government was outraged.

~~~
bitcracker
> if you mean that it is possible to "blast satellites out of space", then
> yes, it is true

No I meant the story about the hackers. No doubt about it that the nations
could (and would) blast their satellites out of space. I wonder how these
hackers can be so stupid to even think about such a crazy idea.

------
jdwhit2
Can anyone attempt to send a rocket into space? Or are there designated launch
pads and clearance times?

~~~
pdelgallego
It is possible, and the Copenhagen suborbital hackers launch a rocket last
summer. YOu can read more about it in their website.

<http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/>

~~~
sorenbs
The CS team circumvented the launch area problem by going out in international
sea. Getting permission to launch on land was just too much work. To make it
just a bit more awesome, they use a home build submarine to transport the
rocket to the launch area.

------
killnine
I am very curious as to how much truth there is behind the statement
"unregulated nature of space" and especially curious, if true, how long it
will be before governments start attempting to

~~~
icegreentea
For all it worth, right now most anti-satellite weapons are limited to low
earth orbit (useful for knocking out satellites looking at stuff you don't
want). Most communications satellites will be a much higher altitude.

While there is no fundamental reason why governments couldn't create ASAT
weapons to reach higher altitudes, the costs go on significantly. Previous
(like cold war era) attempts at high altitude weapons pretty much just
strapped a big nuke to a full out launch vehicle. For reference, the weapon
used by the US in their ASAT kill in 2006 was made using a modified ballistic
defense missile (the SM-3). Your Aegis equipped warships can carry a -lot- of
them.

Anyhow, it'd be far easier for governments to attempt to regulate the
receivers and transmitters than to shoot down the satellite. Also, it would be
easier for them to deny launch privileges than wait till after they launch.
They might not own space, but they own their airspace.

~~~
lunarscape
I'm not familiar with the area but aren't anti-satellite weapons forbidden
under certain treaties, similar to how nuclear weapons in space are banned?
The US spun their test as preventing damage from a bad satellite and the
Chinese said something similar.

~~~
icegreentea
Nope. The Outer Space Treaty forbids many things, but does not forbid anti-
satellite weapons, especially if those weapons are not based on orbit. In
fact, the Outer Space Treaty does not even forbid conventional weapons in
orbit. It basically only bans WMDs in space, and forbids military use of other
celestial bodies (nothing about space itself).

Anti-satellite weapons were largely held in check by technical issues, cost,
as well as avoiding escalation/arms race. The recent weapons test are an
example of that. Once you start actively developing these weapons again,
everyone else who can will follow to protect their interests. Both of their
spins are largely for PR, not legal/treaty reasons.

~~~
caf
The other thing that has put a brake on too much ASAT exuberance is the large
amount of long-lived debris that kinetic ASAT kills create. It wouldn't take
many kinetic ASAT shots before LEO was entirely unuseable for years to come,
an outcome which (so far) has been sobering for all concerned.

