Relocation of ISS to ME-L1

JRS: In article , dated Sun, 12
Dec 2004 07:57:45, seen in news:sci.space.station, Derek Lyons
posted :
"Revision" k@tdot-com wrote:

The ISS should be moved to the L1 point. Russia, China, or ESA could do
it.

Maybe in about two or three centuries when they have handwavium drives
and unobtanium fuel. Otherwise, the electronics on the ISS are fried
after the transit through Van Allen belts as with current technology
the only way to move something that big and heavy is to spiral out
slowly. (In particular, the solar arrays won't stand much
acceleration.)


With the technology needed to give ISS a significant acceleration, we
would certainly have also the technology to add such rigging as is
needed to rigidise the solar arrays. Consider that the technology of
1805 could brace masts carrying sails against strong winds; and we have
better materials for ropes than they had. Since the acceleration, if at
all strong, need only be relatively brief, it should be perfectly
possible to work with only the solar energy from fixed arrays.

Those who "sail" below the sea may tend to forget what *real* sailors
could do.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

With the technology needed to give ISS a significant acceleration, we
would certainly have also the technology to add such rigging as

Look the ISS was a poorky designed poorly implemented mess that requires way
too many daily repairs.....

I think its better to ditch it and start over. Why move a bad design to a new
location, its bad noo matter where its at..
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....

Dr John Stockton wrote:

[...] Since the acceleration, if at
all strong, need only be relatively brief, it should be perfectly
possible to work with only the solar energy from fixed arrays.

A brief (as in less than 1 day) period of acceleration would require
considerable effort to brace. The solar arrays have detectable responses
to docking and reboosts as it is. I suspect that any "chemical rocket"
type of boost of sufficient magnitude for journey would be tough on the
joints even with the solar arrays removed.

A long, low thrust acceleration, such as an ion drive, would be easier to
use, as the OP noted in reference to spiralling out, but then you get into
the issue of sun angles and VAB radiation damage.

There's a thread somewhere in which a poster recommends multiple small ion
drives to distribute the loads over the structure in a gentler manner.

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

JRS: In article opsiyna7ptemtzlb@d3h1pn11, dated Mon, 13 Dec 2004
11:05:21, seen in news:sci.space.station, D Schneider
posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:

[...] Since the acceleration, if at
all strong, need only be relatively brief, it should be perfectly
possible to work with only the solar energy from fixed arrays.

A brief (as in less than 1 day) period of acceleration would require
considerable effort to brace. The solar arrays have detectable responses
to docking and reboosts as it is. I suspect that any "chemical rocket"
type of boost of sufficient magnitude for journey would be tough on the
joints even with the solar arrays removed.

In FFU, the speed change needed would be of the order of 25000-18000 =
7000 mph = 10000 fps; spread over a day, that's only a little over a
tenth of a gee.

That may well be hard to accommodate by bolt-on reinforcement, but it
would be trivial to deal with if proper nautical-type rigging were used.
ISS would be fitted with a long bowsprit, itself braced with spreaders
and rigging, and lines would go from the end of that to points on the
solar arrays - along the centre line, and along the edges too if needed
- with further stays running aft, etc.

We're assuming the ability to launch 10000 fps * 500 tons of propulsion;
the mast and rigging would be an insignificant added burden; consult the
designers of the current holder of the America's Cup.

One would want the new engine system to be gentle in starting and
stopping.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. / ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

Dr John Stockton wrote:


That may well be hard to accommodate by bolt-on reinforcement, but it
would be trivial to deal with if proper nautical-type rigging were used.
ISS would be fitted with a long bowsprit, itself braced with spreaders
and rigging, and lines would go from the end of that to points on the
solar arrays - along the centre line, and along the edges too if needed
- with further stays running aft, etc.


Don't forget a carved figurehead of Mary Shafer attached to PMA-2 (-z
side).

--
Reed

Dr John Stockton,
Clearly there's still an ongoing GOOGLE "Server error" as they'd like
to call it, that which is clearly hindering my posting replies even
into my own topics. In spite of that ongoing orchestrated opposition,
I'll attempt to reply to what "Dr John Stockton" was suggesting as
being a fairly good notion of securing whatever's necessary by using
cables, ropes or whatever is suitable as rigging that'll take all of
the stress that could possibly be induced by continually thrusting ISS
for 10+ hours, or even 100+ hours if limited to 0.01 m/s/s.

If need be, I'll edit this into my growing topics page or create yet
another entirely specific report as to addressing these and other
issues, whereas there's darn little if anything the mainstream status
quo can manage as to foil my efforts at sharing upon whatever I believe
is worth doing, or at least openly discussing.

Frankly, I and apparently a few others thar reside outside of the
NASA/Apollo box foresee nothing that's insurmountable about relocating
ISS into the ME-L1 nullification sweet-spot. However, it's as though
our NASA want's nothing better than seeing the likes of ISS and Hubble
bite the dust. Perhaps they're wagering good odds on the failure of the
next resupply mission, and if need be their Boeing/TRW Phantom Works
ABL team could perhaps accomplish some of their field testing that'll
essentially kill off two birds with one friendly cannon shot.

Regards, Brad GUTH / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Dr John Stockton,
Clearly there's still an ongoing "Server error" as they'd like to call
it, that which is clearly hindering my posting replies even into my own
topics. In spite of that ongoing orchestrated opposition, I'll attempt
to reply to what "Dr John Stockton" was suggesting as being a fairly
good notion of securing whatever's necessary by using cables, ropes or
whatever is suitable as rigging that'll take all of the stress that
could possibly be induced by continually thrusting ISS for 10+ hours,
or even 100+ hours if limited to 0.01 m/s/s.

If need be, I'll edit my growing topics page or create yet another
entirely specific report as to addressing these and other issues,
whereas there's darn little if anything the mainstream status quo can
do as to foil my efforts at sharing upon whatever I believe is worth
doing, or at least openly discussing.

Frankly, I foresee nothing insurmountable about relocating ISS into the
ME-L1 sweet-spot.

Regards, Brad GUTH / GASA~IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"Dr John Stockton" wrote in message


JRS: In article opsiyna7ptemtzlb@d3h1pn11, dated Mon, 13 Dec 2004
11:05:21, seen in news:sci.space.station, D Schneider
posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote:

[...] Since the acceleration, if at
all strong, need only be relatively brief, it should be perfectly
possible to work with only the solar energy from fixed arrays.

A brief (as in less than 1 day) period of acceleration would require
considerable effort to brace. The solar arrays have detectable responses
to docking and reboosts as it is. I suspect that any "chemical rocket"
type of boost of sufficient magnitude for journey would be tough on the
joints even with the solar arrays removed.

In FFU, the speed change needed would be of the order of 25000-18000 =
7000 mph = 10000 fps; spread over a day, that's only a little over a
tenth of a gee.

That may well be hard to accommodate by bolt-on reinforcement, but it
would be trivial to deal with if proper nautical-type rigging were used.
ISS would be fitted with a long bowsprit, itself braced with spreaders
and rigging, and lines would go from the end of that to points on the
solar arrays - along the centre line, and along the edges too if needed
- with further stays running aft, etc.

We're assuming the ability to launch 10000 fps * 500 tons of propulsion;
the mast and rigging would be an insignificant added burden; consult the
designers of the current holder of the America's Cup.

One would want the new engine system to be gentle in starting and
stopping.


Dr John Stockton,
Clearly there's still an ongoing GOOGLE "Server error" as they'd like to
call it, that which is clearly hindering my posting of replies even into
my own topics. I can't get myself back into the ones that I've repeated,
as to removing all those that need not remain as for showing up in
MAILGATE but not in the original GOOGLE format.

It seems that I'm being banished once again. Either that or the GOOGLE
wizards have things really messed up. For some reason I can't seem to
publicly reply to your comments via GOOGLE, such as to the appropriate
usage of rigging on behalf of shipping ISS off to visit the wizard of Oz
at ME-L1, in which case I'll just have to try this MAILGATE method out
for size.

In spite of such methods of ongoing orchestrated opposition, I'll
attempt to reply to what "Dr John Stockton" was suggesting as being a
fairly good notion of securing whatever's necessary by way of using
cables, ropes or whatever is suitable as rigging that'll take all of the
stress that could possibly be induced by continually thrusting ISS for
10+ hours, or even 100+ hours if limited to 0.01 m/s/s. Of course, the
EVAs for applying such rigging should be a real nasty TBI dosage, though
perhaps via moonshine might cut those extra rads down to a survivable
factor.

Frankly, I and apparently a few others that reside outside of the
NASA/Apollo box foresee nothing that's insurmountable about relocating
ISS into the ME-L1 nullification sweet-spot. However, it's as though our
NASA want's nothing better than seeing the likes of ISS and Hubble bite
the dust. Perhaps they're wagering good odds on the failure of the next
resupply mission, and if need be their Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL team
could perhaps accomplish some of their field testing that'll essentially
kill off two birds with one friendly cannon shot.

BTW; Dr John Stockton seems to offer a rather interesting URL that's
absolutely chuck full of interesting items.
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/

Any chance you could help with the notion of terraforming our moon, and
otherwise of dealing with what's supposedly so hot and nasty about
Venus?

If need be, I'll have to start editing this one into my growing topics
page, or create yet another entirely specific report as to addressing
these and other issues, whereas that way there's darn little if anything
the mainstream status quo can manage as to foil my efforts at sharing
upon whatever I believe is worth doing, or at least openly discussing.

Regards, Brad GUTH / GASA~IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm


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

Dr John Stockton wrote:

Dec 2004 07:57:45, seen in news:sci.space.station, Derek Lyons
posted :
"Revision" k@tdot-com wrote:

The ISS should be moved to the L1 point. Russia, China, or ESA could do
it.

Maybe in about two or three centuries when they have handwavium drives
and unobtanium fuel. Otherwise, the electronics on the ISS are fried
after the transit through Van Allen belts as with current technology
the only way to move something that big and heavy is to spiral out
slowly. (In particular, the solar arrays won't stand much
acceleration.)


With the technology needed to give ISS a significant acceleration, we
would certainly have also the technology to add such rigging as is
needed to rigidise the solar arrays. Consider that the technology of
1805 could brace masts carrying sails against strong winds; and we have
better materials for ropes than they had.

The ropes of 1805 were used to brace stiff masts to stiff decks.
Bracing flexible solar arrays with flexible ropes is quite a different
matter.

Since the acceleration, if at all strong, need only be relatively brief, it
should be perfectly possible to work with only the solar energy from fixed
arrays.

Since the acceleration, if at all strong, will likely exceed the
structural strength of the station... That's a moot point.

Those who "sail" below the sea may tend to forget what *real* sailors
could do.

Nope. We are quite mindful of what 'real' sailors can do. We are
also quite mindful of reality and engineering.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL