Relocate ISS to ME-L1

Brad Guth wrote:
Tell us once again, and this time with a straight butt crack, why ISS
can't be relocated to LL-1
-
Brad Guth


Various reasons (look for that thread with the guy who wanted to
take it to Mars, most of them apply)...


1. ISS clearly can't take high thrust maneuvers, you'll get seperated
modules and solar arrays all over LEO in no time. So...

2. Low thrust engines and the power for them required. (This most likely
means ion engines, espically the more efficient DS4G [Dual Stage Four
Grid] design from Europe.)

3. That means slowly spirialing out to the Lagrange points, the Moon, or
elsewhere. That means the worst way through, rather than quickly
straight across the VanAllen Belts (You, Mr. Radiation, should be more
aware of this than most). Humans can't ride it during that time,
solid-state electronics won't like it much, either.

4. Re-supply and crew rotation is now made more difficult (You know full
well Shuttle and Soyuz-as-is, can't get there, you'd need some sort of
seperate tug or transfer vehicle as part of the infrastructure. Which is
a desirable thing for various reasons, but who's paying for all this,
again?)

5. ISS, like most systems designed for LEO are built on the assumption
that they'll be in Earth's shadow slightly less than half the time,
easing their ability toradiate internal heat away. That would now be
gone and you have to make changes for full-time sun exposure.


6. But the most important reason is basically the same reason that I
don't want to be castrated;

The operators want the hardware right where it *is.*

But something else could be put there, if you've got the means to
reach it. Consider these:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...sundancer.html

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...hts-about.html

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...out-lunar.html

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...&o=0&fpart=all

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/187/1

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

"Frank Glover" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
Tell us once again, and this time with a straight butt crack, why ISS
can't be relocated to LL-1
-
Brad Guth

Various reasons (look for that thread with the guy who wanted to
take it to Mars, most of them apply)...

1. ISS clearly can't take high thrust maneuvers, you'll get seperated
modules and solar arrays all over LEO in no time. So...
Where exactly do you come up with "high thrust maneuvers"?

There's hardly any demand of even retro-thrusting once arriving into the
interactive station-keeping zone or sweet spot of LL-1.

I'd thought that Xenon--ion thrusters were somewhat wussy, and I'd also
thought that we had any number of other viable micro rocket thrusters
(such as fueled by h2o2) that could essentially apply whatever gram by
gram worth whatever continuous amount of thrust you'd damn well care to
imagine.

Ice cold Beer--**** alone could otherwise be made into sufficient steam
thrusting; so where's this big ass insurmountable amount of "high
thrust" you're talking about?

What is the current maximum reboost g force that has been applied again
and again?

Doesn't it get so much better off, the further away ISS gets from Earth?

What if just that existing amount of thrust were applied for as many
hours/days as needed?

2. Low thrust engines and the power for them required. (This most likely
means ion engines, espically the more efficient DS4G [Dual Stage Four
Grid] design from Europe.)
I agree, thus why not instead use my [Dual Stage Four Grid]
Ra--LRn--Rn--ion thrusters, instead of those wussy [Dual Stage Four
Grid] Xenon--ion thrusters.

3. That means slowly spirialing out to the Lagrange points, the Moon, or
elsewhere. That means the worst way through, rather than quickly
straight across the VanAllen Belts (You, Mr. Radiation, should be more
aware of this than most). Humans can't ride it during that time,
solid-state electronics won't like it much, either.
Why would ISS have to be manned, and even if it did, there are folks
willing to pay serious bucks in order to die for the once in a lifetime
opportunity, and best of all there'd be no further cost nor much less a
spendy medical and retirement factor to worry about (wouldn't even
require banked bone marrow), just a spare body bag per soul that'll get
tossed out the air-lock once that big sucker is parallel parked within
the LL-1 zone.

4. Re-supply and crew rotation is now made more difficult (You know full
well Shuttle and Soyuz-as-is, can't get there, you'd need some sort of
seperate tug or transfer vehicle as part of the infrastructure. Which is
a desirable thing for various reasons, but who's paying for all this,
again?)
Our Moon's L1/LL-1 zone is actually extremely payload efficient,
especially if there's no robotic fly-by-rocket rush for getting such
supplies to the station, and it's only so much more so doable if taking
that Saturn V performance to heart, whereas at a horrific 30% worth of
inert GLOW and it still managed to get nearly 50t into orbiting our moon
in hardly any time at all, whereas at that impressive 60:1
rocket/payload ratio, that which should by now be capable of
accomplishing at least twice that tonnage if only going to/from LL-1
with a highly composite and modern day alternative to that extremely old
and hefty Saturn V.

5. ISS, like most systems designed for LEO are built on the assumption
that they'll be in Earth's shadow slightly less than half the time,
easing their ability toradiate internal heat away. That would now be
gone and you have to make changes for full-time sun exposure.
I agree that cooling off ISS would demand an extra amount ice cold beer,
plus an extra tonne of forced thermal heat exchanging, thereby demanding
a greater amount of applied energy, and perhaps even a rather great deal
more energy if considering the reflected and secondary worth of the
IR/FIR influx contributed by the physically dark moon itself. So what?

6. But the most important reason is basically the same reason that I
don't want to be castrated;
But how can you possibly not like something that you haven't tried?

The operators want the hardware right where it *is.*
I believe that's what Hitler may have said, and what good did that sort
of leaving it 'as is - where is' thinking do for those nice Cathars or
for that matter Saddam?

But something else could be put there, if you've got the means to
reach it. Consider these:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...sundancer.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...hts-about.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...out-lunar.html
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...&o=0&fpart=all
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/187/1

Thanks much for all the constructive feedback. I'll further research
and report back.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Frank Glover" wrote in message



Brad Guth wrote:

Tell us once again, and this time with a straight butt crack, why ISS
can't be relocated to LL-1
-
Brad Guth

Various reasons (look for that thread with the guy who wanted to
take it to Mars, most of them apply)...

1. ISS clearly can't take high thrust maneuvers, you'll get seperated
modules and solar arrays all over LEO in no time. So...

Where exactly do you come up with "high thrust maneuvers"?


(sigh) So *you* put a Centaur or some such at one of the docking
ports, light it up and see what happens....

ISS has to be pushed *anywhere* gently, and that's where the
extended time in the Van Allen Belts comes from.


There's hardly any demand of even retro-thrusting once arriving into the
interactive station-keeping zone or sweet spot of LL-1.


Okay, so? I spoke of getting there, not stationkeeping once there.


I'd thought that Xenon--ion thrusters were somewhat wussy, and I'd also
thought that we had any number of other viable micro rocket thrusters
(such as fueled by h2o2) that could essentially apply whatever gram by
gram worth whatever continuous amount of thrust you'd damn well care to
imagine.

Ice cold Beer--**** alone could otherwise be made into sufficient steam
thrusting; so where's this big ass insurmountable amount of "high
thrust" you're talking about?


I didn't say there weren't plenty of options for low thrust
propulsion, and I even mentioned one. The point is, you *must* use one
of them to do this, and that means spiraling gradually out to L-1, not
an Apollo-like TLI burn that gets you through the most dangerous regions
quickly.


What is the current maximum reboost g force that has been applied again
and again?

Doesn't it get so much better off, the further away ISS gets from Earth?

What if just that existing amount of thrust were applied for as many
hours/days as needed?


What are we arguing about? I'm not saying you *can't* do it. I'm
saying you *must* do it, to get ISS to L-1. The technology exists, but
is not quite off the shelf. Expect to pay for it. (but remember,it won't
be your pocket, other than that sliver of tax money)


2. Low thrust engines and the power for them required. (This most likely
means ion engines, espically the more efficient DS4G [Dual Stage Four
Grid] design from Europe.)

I agree, thus why not instead use my [Dual Stage Four Grid]
Ra--LRn--Rn--ion thrusters, instead of those wussy [Dual Stage Four
Grid] Xenon--ion thrusters.


Whatever suits you, as long as you understand that you *have* to go
that kind of route. Which leads us to...


3. That means slowly spirialing out to the Lagrange points, the Moon, or
elsewhere. That means the worst way through, rather than quickly
straight across the VanAllen Belts (You, Mr. Radiation, should be more
aware of this than most). Humans can't ride it during that time,
solid-state electronics won't like it much, either.

Why would ISS have to be manned,


It would not. The point is that it can't be, for the above reaason.


and even if it did, there are folks
willing to pay serious bucks in order to die for the once in a lifetime
opportunity,


Come on. There are people who'd risk their lives to reach the Moon
or elsewhere, but no one will take a lethal dose just to take the long
way to L-1.

To reach anything placed there (or the Moon) would again involve the
sort of high thrust Earth escape burn described above. Ships that can do
that have been done, and are not a (very) big deal. But taking something
not designed for it, would be.


and best of all there'd be no further cost nor much less a
spendy medical and retirement factor to worry about (wouldn't even
require banked bone marrow), just a spare body bag per soul that'll get
tossed out the air-lock once that big sucker is parallel parked within
the LL-1 zone.


Are you done?


4. Re-supply and crew rotation is now made more difficult (You know full
well Shuttle and Soyuz-as-is, can't get there, you'd need some sort of
seperate tug or transfer vehicle as part of the infrastructure. Which is
a desirable thing for various reasons, but who's paying for all this,
again?)

Our Moon's L1/LL-1 zone is actually extremely payload efficient,
especially if there's no robotic fly-by-rocket rush for getting such
supplies to the station, and it's only so much more so doable if taking
that Saturn V performance to heart, whereas at a horrific 30% worth of
inert GLOW and it still managed to get nearly 50t into orbiting our moon
in hardly any time at all, whereas at that impressive 60:1
rocket/payload ratio, that which should by now be capable of
accomplishing at least twice that tonnage if only going to/from LL-1
with a highly composite and modern day alternative to that extremely old
and hefty Saturn V.


Fine. Just be prepared to also develop the hardware to do all that.
(which also comes not for free, or out of your pocket). ISS is reachable
where it is, with what's operational right now.

And as it provides a justification for COTS, this is yet another
good thing.


5. ISS, like most systems designed for LEO are built on the assumption
that they'll be in Earth's shadow slightly less than half the time,
easing their ability toradiate internal heat away. That would now be
gone and you have to make changes for full-time sun exposure.

I agree that cooling off ISS would demand an extra amount ice cold beer,
plus an extra tonne of forced thermal heat exchanging, thereby demanding
a greater amount of applied energy, and perhaps even a rather great deal
more energy if considering the reflected and secondary worth of the
IR/FIR influx contributed by the physically dark moon itself. So what?


Of course it can be done. And it's more R&D time, effort and money
that those who own and operate ISS see no need to spend on it.


6. But the most important reason is basically the same reason that I
don't want to be castrated;

But how can you possibly not like something that you haven't tried?


You know, one of the reasons we have language is to benefit from the
experience and knowledge of others. Therefore, I know what testicles do.
I rather like what mine do for me (Most of it, anyway. I had a vasectomy
long ago, and do not miss fertility....but I *would* miss the effects of
testosterone.), and I know it'll stop happening if they're somewhere
other than their current location...

I don't have to try cutting off my fingers, to know it would make
keyboards less useful to me. Y'see?


The operators want the hardware right where it *is.*

I believe that's what Hitler may have said, and what good did that sort
of leaving it 'as is - where is' thinking do for those nice Cathars or
for that matter Saddam?


???

Exactly WHAT does that have to do with taking a space station meant
to do assorted research in LEO (some of it involving Earth observation,
some of it involving microgravity work, where being at L-1 confers no
advantage) and putting it where it will be more difficult to do the
observational work, and more difficult to reach for re-supply, crew
rotation and service? It can't do what it was meant to do at L-1,
anymore than my balls being in the next room can benefit me.

THAT, in a nutshell, is why it won't be done. (which was your
original question) Why should NASA, the Russians and all else concerned,
spend lots of bucks and do some difficult things (and I carefully
spelled out what those things are), to make a marginally useful
station...even *less* useful?

I'm all in favor of change, Brad, but only if they're positive
changes. Putting ISS farther away, would *not* be one of them.

A useful facility *can* be put there, now mind you. (as noted in the
links below) And it should. I'm all for that. But design and build it to
do those useful things at L-1, from the start.



But something else could be put there, if you've got the means to
reach it. Consider these:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...sundancer.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...hts-about.html
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.co...out-lunar.html
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...&o=0&fpart=all
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/187/1


Thanks much for all the constructive feedback. I'll further research
and report back.
-
Brad Guth



Yeah. I can hardly wait... (yes, that's sarcasm)

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Frank Glover wrote in
:

Brad Guth wrote:
"Frank Glover" wrote in message



Brad Guth wrote:

Tell us once again, and this time with a straight butt crack, why
ISS can't be relocated to LL-1
-
Brad Guth

Various reasons (look for that thread with the guy who wanted to
take it to Mars, most of them apply)...

1. ISS clearly can't take high thrust maneuvers, you'll get seperated
modules and solar arrays all over LEO in no time. So...

Where exactly do you come up with "high thrust maneuvers"?


(sigh) So *you* put a Centaur or some such at one of the docking
ports, light it up and see what happens....

ISS has to be pushed *anywhere* gently, and that's where the
extended time in the Van Allen Belts comes from.

Frank, you're wasting your time - Brad Guth is *seriously* mentally ill,
and continuing to reply to him is not going to make him better.

Look in Google - I had this same argument with him *years* ago.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:18:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(sigh) So *you* put a Centaur or some such at one of the docking
ports, light it up and see what happens....

ISS has to be pushed *anywhere* gently, and that's where the
extended time in the Van Allen Belts comes from.

Frank, you're wasting your time - Brad Guth is *seriously* mentally ill,
and continuing to reply to him is not going to make him better.

Yes. He should be in everyone's killfile.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Frank Glover wrote in
:


Brad Guth wrote:

"Frank Glover" wrote in message
m



Brad Guth wrote:


Tell us once again, and this time with a straight butt crack, why
ISS can't be relocated to LL-1
-
Brad Guth

Various reasons (look for that thread with the guy who wanted to
take it to Mars, most of them apply)...

(snip)

Frank, you're wasting your time - Brad Guth is *seriously* mentally ill,
and continuing to reply to him is not going to make him better.

Look in Google - I had this same argument with him *years* ago.


I did. I see. I give up. (Not that I shouldn't have known better
already.)

It was also interesting to re-visit the thread I referred to, with
the guy who wanted to take ISS to Mars. As I remembered (I was using a
pseudonym then), many of the arguments were unavoidably the same:

http://www.spacebanter.com/archive/i...p/t-45923.html



--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

"Frank Glover" wrote in message


What are we arguing about? I'm not saying you *can't* do it. I'm
saying you *must* do it, to get ISS to L-1. The technology exists, but
is not quite off the shelf. Expect to pay for it. (but remember,it won't
be your pocket, other than that sliver of tax money)
Why have you thaken any of this as an argument? I'm pro damn near
everything under the sun, except for that of being another old fart of a
stick in the mud like yourself. I'm even pro intelligent design, pro
ETs and very much pro Venusians to boot. How about yourself, besides
Bigelow’s perfectly nifty Nautilus station (aka POOF), got anything else
that's specifically yaysay to offer?

Don't you have a little room for even one constructive alternative
that's on behalf of a given topic that's other than your own, that's
within your mostly naysay mindset?

BTW; 400 kgf is not exactly all that wussy, especially if the burn was
for an hour, or given sufficient fuel for accomplishing whatever burn
time it would take in order to get ISS up to a sufficient exit speed.
Once past 1.5r, the second engine puts that boost up to 800 kgf.

Come on. There are people who'd risk their lives to reach the Moon
or elsewhere, but no one will take a lethal dose just to take the long
way to L-1.
Lets put it up for grabs on eBay, and see what happens. Folks risk it
all and subsequently die for far less noble reasons all the time, such
as having been onboard the wrong exit flight as that of TWA flight 800,
or that of within countless other oops fiascos, not to mention getting
nailed by lightning simply because God thought you needed to be
seriously butt kicked to hell.

Besides, with an extra bucket load of steroids and that of your banked
bone marrow, you might even survive the trip. Of course you could
always go in a water coffin, or perhaps within a large keg that'll have
a few good meters worth of beer between yourself and those bad gamma and
hard-X-rays.

To reach anything placed there (or the Moon) would again involve the
sort of high thrust Earth escape burn described above. Ships that can do
that have been done, and are not a (very) big deal. But taking something
not designed for it, would be.
You're saying that ISS is not designed for space travel?

With a few upgrades and some thermal and rad-hard rated ductape, ISS
should be good for go.

The environment within L1, other than being physically hotter and butt
loads of being damn pesky gamma and hard-X-ray nastier than hell, should
otherwise be a whole lot better off than where it's crusing at right
now.

Fine. Just be prepared to also develop the hardware to do all that.
(which also comes not for free, or out of your pocket). ISS is reachable
where it is, with what's operational right now.
As is where is, as in god forbid, whatever you do don't ever rock thy
boat or change whatever works, and thereby don't ever expect myself to
support such a certified stick in the mud naysayer as yourself,
especially of those muddy sticks that seem afraid of their own shadows.

And as it provides a justification for COTS, this is yet another
good thing.
I'm so terribly sorry, as L1/LL-1 is simply good for nothing except
absolute zero-G sex and radiation treatments at the same time. How much
is that worth?

Of course it can be done. And it's more R&D time, effort and money
that those who own and operate ISS see no need to spend on it.
Where did I ask for their money. I'll pay for 100%, and then some, as
long as I can claim the one and only high ground of our moon-L1/LL-1 as
being all mine.

Exactly WHAT does that have to do with taking a space station meant
to do assorted research in LEO (some of it involving Earth observation,
some of it involving microgravity work, where being at L-1 confers no
advantage) and putting it where it will be more difficult to do the
observational work, and more difficult to reach for re-supply, crew
rotation and service? It can't do what it was meant to do at L-1,
anymore than my balls being in the next room can benefit me.
You obviously have no imagination nor even speculation worth, and I'm
not even sure if there's a gram of remorse or any humor in there to
spare. If you don't already know exactly what L1 is good for, then
what's the point?

If you're so absolutely negative, why bother getting out of bed? Any
damn fool can qualify as a naysayer that refuses to put forth an
alternative or better idea.

You also know next to nothing about advanced science observations and of
serious space exploration, not to mention the true worth of what the
moon L1 has to behold.

THAT, in a nutshell, is why it won't be done. (which was your
original question) Why should NASA, the Russians and all else concerned,
spend lots of bucks and do some difficult things (and I carefully
spelled out what those things are), to make a marginally useful
station...even *less* useful?
You're absolutely right as rain, whereas dumb old China or perhaps it's
something ESA can manage to obtain and hold onto our moon's L1, that's
otherwise too complex for our NASA.

BTW; why would you call global domination as something "marginally
useful"?

I'm all in favor of change, Brad, but only if they're positive
changes. Putting ISS farther away, would *not* be one of them.
No you are not for change, as otherwise you'd be helping instead of
procrastinating your butt off.

Obviously you must realize that I'm just kidding at relocating ISS,
whereas there's no way in hell that sucker has sufficient shielding for
anything except the most rad-hard and thermally tolerant robotics.

A useful facility *can* be put there, now mind you. (as noted in the
links below) And it should. I'm all for that. But design and build it to
do those useful things at L-1, from the start.
I totally agree. So, what do you honestly think of my substantial
LSE-CM/ISS?

LSE = Lunar Space Elevator
CM/ISS at 1e9 m3 usable abode at 256e6t
plus a few nifty extras that are absolutely top secret (aka need to
know)

I have lots more specs, although for such an all-knowing naysay wizard
as yourself, so what's the difference?

You've got your focus and that's that, end of discussion. Whereas I've
got dozens of nifty focus points and a few too amny lose cannons to
boot.

Why is Jorge R. Frank and Rand Simberg telling you what you can or can't
do? And, are there others that'll pull your strings?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Frank Glover,
I see that your puppet strings are easily pulled. That's too bad.

I have no arguments against Bigelow’s proposed Nautilus station (aka
POOF), as I'm fairly certain that the 'play it safe' LEO application is
perfectly doable, even if it's somewhat wussy and of hardly any value
compared to my LSE-CM/ISS that's going to kick serious butt with it's
1e9 m3 interior, plus offering so many extra features that'll be
knocking socks off for centuries to come.

Our moon's L1 is not another toy story, nor is it for those still using
LeapFrog, whereas it's the absolute holy grail of high ground and so
much more. The likes of Clarke Station could be parallel parked at the
tethered 1280 meter CM/ISS, for obtaining various servicing and
upgrades, along with unlimited to/from access of the moon's surface,
obtaining of essential provisions, refuelings such as He3/fusion energy,
plus whatever crew and passenger exchanges along with a fresh supply of
ice cold beer, pizza and the best smut in the solar system. Banked bone
marrow could also be safely kept on hand for those in need.

The CM/ISS could deploy dozens if not a hundred such POOFS per year, for
accomplishing missions going off in all directions such as Earth, moon,
Mars, Venus and you name it, whereas the station-keep holding energy per
POOF is perhaps all of one joule per thousand tonnes, and the launch or
release energy demands at roughly one joule per tonne seems pretty
nifty.

I see that you have a fully robust 3D CAD system, with the all important
3D visualisation tools that's probably fully animated for creating those
interactive fly-by and fly-throughs along with custom surround sound
tracks, and I'd bet there's loads of other special infomercial affects
to boot.

Would you and those of your POOF team be at all interested in depicting
my not so little LSE-CM/ISS. Should only take a few terabytes worth of
your supercomputer. I could even do the drafting myself.

If you'll accept my IOU, I'll even pay for everything, and then some.
How does a deposit IOU of 10 billion sound? (that'll obviously have to
include whatever interest)
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Frank Glover,
Thanks for all of your reasonably constructive though somewhat
uninformative feedback.

I see that your puppet strings are going to be rather easily pulled.
That's too bad.

I have no arguments against Bigelow’s proposed Nautilus station (aka
POOF), as I'm fairly certain that the 'play it safe' LEO application is
perfectly doable, even if it's somewhat wussy and of hardly any value
compared to my LSE-CM/ISS that's going to kick serious butt with it's
1e9 m3 interior, plus offering so many extra features that'll be
knocking socks off for centuries to come.

Our moon's L1 is not another toy story, nor is it for those still using
LeapFrog, whereas it's the absolute holy grail of high ground and so
much more. The likes of Clarke Station could be parallel parked at the
tethered 1280 meter CM/ISS, for obtaining various servicing and
upgrades, along with unlimited to/from access of the moon's surface,
obtaining of essential provisions, refuelings such as He3/fusion energy,
plus whatever crew and passenger exchanges along with a fresh supply of
ice cold beer, pizza and the best smut in the solar system. Banked bone
marrow could also be safely kept on hand for those in need.

The CM/ISS could deploy dozens if not a hundred such POOFS per year, for
accomplishing missions going off in all directions such as Earth, moon,
Mars, Venus and you name it, whereas the station-keep holding energy per
POOF is perhaps all of one joule per thousand tonnes, and the launch or
release energy demands at roughly one joule per tonne seems pretty
nifty. Obviously nifty doesn't count for all that much.

I see that you have a fully robust 3D CAD system, with the all important
3D visualisation tools that's probably fully animated for creating those
interactive fly-by and fly-throughs along with custom surround sound
tracks, and I'd bet there's loads of other special infomercial affects
to boot.

Would you and those of your POOF team be at all interested in depicting
my not so little LSE-CM/ISS. Should only take a few terabytes worth of
your supercomputer. I could even do the drafting myself.

If you'll accept my IOU, I'll even pay for everything, and then some.
How does a deposit IOU of 10 billion sound? (that'll obviously have to
include whatever interest)
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:

Come on. There are people who'd risk their lives to reach the Moon
or elsewhere, but no one will take a lethal dose just to take the long
way to L-1.

Lets put it up for grabs on eBay, and see what happens.

They won't sell outright suicide. A slow passage through the
VanAllen Belts is exactly that.


To reach anything placed there (or the Moon) would again involve the
sort of high thrust Earth escape burn described above. Ships that can do
that have been done, and are not a (very) big deal. But taking something
not designed for it, would be.

You're saying that ISS is not designed for space travel?

I'm saying it's not designed for high acceleration, and you don't
need an engineering degree to know that, just one good look at its
configuration. (And what happened to one of Skylab's solar panels when
it prematurely opened on ascent, should also be a clue.) Even a
Bigelow-type station would inflate *after* arrival at L-1.

I wouldn't push a fully deployed TDRSS satellite very hard for
the same reasons. (Now go find a picture of one, for a sense of why.)



You obviously have no imagination nor even speculation worth

(LOL!) No one who knows me well, would ever accuse me of that.


If you're so absolutely negative, why bother getting out of bed? Any
damn fool can qualify as a naysayer that refuses to put forth an
alternative or better idea.

I directed you to some better ideas. After that, it's up to you.


I'm all in favor of change, Brad, but only if they're positive
changes. Putting ISS farther away, would *not* be one of them.

No you are not for change, as otherwise you'd be helping instead of
procrastinating your butt off.

No, what you proposed, meets my definition of non-positive change.


Obviously you must realize that I'm just kidding at relocating ISS,
whereas there's no way in hell that sucker has sufficient shielding for
anything except the most rad-hard and thermally tolerant robotics.

If all this was an exercise at humor, it was well disguised.


Why is Jorge R. Frank and Rand Simberg telling you what you can or can't
do?

A little reminder didn't hurt.

I've dealt with you before, I've seen others deal with you. That's
enough to bring me to my own conclusions. And the Google Usenet Archives
don't lie. It shows what I've said, as well, even under a pseudonym, for
a couple years. Some of it to you.


And, are there others that'll pull your strings?

Several. But no one that you (or they) have met, even on Usenet.

I'm busy now. See ya...

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking