Relocate ISS to ME-L1

Wow, I'm impressed at the effective dog-wagging, spin and ongoing
damage-control, of folks retracting their replies as though no one had
ever noticed. This is almost as good as per their evidence exclusions
that helped snooker humanity into thinking we'd walked on the moon.

Here's an honest to God topic that's purely a win-win for science and
humanity, about the laws of physics and the hard-science of relocating
our ISS into the efficient gravity-well of ME-L1, and lo and behold the
all-knowing troops are abandoning ship by removing their replies within
this and any other topic I've provided.

Not surprisingly, of anyone that's suggesting we utilize our moon for
absolutely anything becomes another one of their targets, as another
topic/author that's either summarily banished and/or stalked and bashed
upon anything they might have to say. Thus the 'sci.space.station'
forum absolutely sucks at everything that's attempting to share an
original thought or truth. And, of what's already within the mainstream
as in televised, published and/or being publicly talked about is only
tolerated if it can be reinterpreted to suit their mainstream status
quo agenda of snookering humanity, just like the ongoing global warming
arguments that are in the process of discrediting truths of physics and
hard-science.

It just so happens, besides my external pages, that I still have a few
other ongoing topics that honest folks should seriously attempt to help
me stuff as the truth and nothing but the truth as far up between the
incest infected 'butt-cheaks' of these pro cold-war *******s as
possible. Although, since these borgs can't possibly defend their
NASA/Apollo ruse, much less defend their resident warlord, and for that
I'm being summarily stalked and usually summarily bashed. As having
been another one of their must-kill targets for the past five years and
counting, as being selected and otherwise such attacks are those
identified by their all-knowing typical borg like responses, as
otherwise I'm being directly attacked by such blood and private part
sucking individuals that makes for this and so many other forums
absolutely suck worse off than cabbage flatulence.

So, with all the ongoing LLPOF (cold-war business as usual), perhaps
there are a few honest folks that might not even want to actually mess
around anywhere near their nasty butt-cheaks (I know that I certainly
wouldn't chance it), in which case you can read more within this or
other forums that sucks, or you can go external from this intellectual
cesspool, and going just a little further yet and you can actually call
and/or contact me directly since I actually exist exactly as my account
shows, which is the exact opposit of what's stalking and bashing my
every move.

Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus
Anti-Matter/Photons as Blackholes, or 1e100 photons/atom
The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn
Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM
Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus
Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius
SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding
Terraforming the moon
Relocate ISS to ME-L1
How much of Earth is shrinking; 10 mm/year?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...3 2c1c4830cba

Basic township on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Not bad. All is apparently well within this 'sci.space.station' forum
that sucks, as obviously I'm right more than I'm wrong, and that just
really sucks; doesn't it?

Latest topic;

ISS needs to go to the MOON, with or w/o crew
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...a9c9b47832 e3

-

This portion is my usual closing rant that's contributed for the
ongoing benefit of others (The New York Times, The Washington Post and
any other news media plus whatever general topic newcomers), and not
that any of this topic matters to those without a stitch of remorse
outside of whatever appeases their MI6/NSA pagan NASA/Apollo cold-war
or bust God(s), as in spite of their spermware of flak having the
intent as to kill-off my PC if not myself, within my spare dyslexic
time I've slightly polished on my external 'gv-topics.htm' page, and
I'm remaining intent upon working on other pages as soon to be
improved. As I learn more that can be independently supported by the
regular laws of physics, by sufficient hard-science and subjectively
honest interpretations of whatever I have been given to work with, as
best I'll share that knowledge, which will likely include revisions and
retractions upon any number of what I've offered thus far.
Unfortunately, since I'm unfunded and on the usual 'need-to-know' bases
with regard to anything that might rock a mainstream boat, and that my
PC is being continually attacked with NSA/MI6 spermware, it seems this
process is going to take many thousands of my lose cannon shots before
the truth and nothing but the truth is ever going be told. And I bet
you thought the likes of big and fully loaded aircraft smashing into
fully occupied tall buildings was as bad as it gets; think again.

Basic township that's situated upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Basic LSE (Lunar Space Elevator):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other available topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

How odd, or rather how pathetic as to more of the same topic banishment
as though I'm actually way more right than I'd expected.

Apparently the notion of relocating ISS to the moon is as good as for
my LSE-CM/ISS, and even the notion of terraforming the moon into
sustaining a bit more of an atmosphere is almost as good as for there
being other life upon Venus.

Hopefully whatever other life upon Venus isn't nearly as over-ripe and
as rotten to the core as for what we've got going for us here upon
Earth. I wonder what sort of dog-wagging, hype and spin it's going to
take in order for the mainstream status quo to keep their snookered and
nearly always dumbfounded public focused away from our moon, as well as
away from Venus?
~

The GUTH Venus township, bridge and ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few of my other testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Still no takers for the notion of relocating ISS to the moon, or
perhaps better yet is for station-keeping that sucker at Venus L2 might
actually become a real hoot if it weren't for all of the TBI dosage and
need for another tonne of ductape as stuff passes entirely through ISS.
~

GUTH Venus Township, Bridge & cool Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
BradGuth LSE-CM/ISS Lunar Space Elevator
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Other somewhat testy topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Wow, this topic really sucks.
No takers, and no apparent truth in science and certainly no truth
within anything MI5/NSA.

Topic banishment only proves that I'm right, that it's been entirely
possible to relocate ISS into a station-keeping zone that's within a
mutual gravity-well between us and the moon.

It's doable though somewhat radiation testy but, so what's the
difference?
~

GUTH Venus township, bridge and ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Wow and gosh darn, it seems this perfectly honest ISS topic really
sucks.
With no takers, no contributors on the event horizon and no apparent
truth within science and certainly no truth to being found within
anything MI5/NSA. How the heck does our NASA manage with so many
malfunctioning intellectual space-toilets.

Topic banishment only proves that I'm right, that it's been entirely
possible though somewhat complex to relocate ISS into a safe
station-keeping zone that's somewhat of an interactive phase within a
mutual gravity-well that's situated between us and the moon (roughly
58~64,000 km from the moon).

It's been doable though somewhat radiation testy and exposed to
micro-impacts; so what's the difference?

Getting folks to/from isn't all that technically complex nor extra
spendy, just a we bit TBI intensive unless it's accomplished within the
shadow and via earthshine or totally in the dark with none other than
starshine and less than half moonshine.
~
BTW; I've been noticing all along as to how your you warm and fuzzy
MI5/NSA usenet moles, spooks and borgs have at times been tampering
with whatever I've posted, such as by having corrupting my personal
hot-links and/or forcing such links containing these following words of
suggestions intended for folks that may still be unassimilated into the
mainstream borg collective, as for those few lines of my closing text
getting inappropriately posted at the top of every listing within the
given usenet forum index that sucks. Thus once again, I must be getting
far more things right than even I'd thought, as otherwise why would
these MI5/NSA moles and spooks be bothering with little old me.

My GUTH Venus township, with bridge and ET Park-n-Ride tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
My China/Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few extra hot and testy topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

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


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

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