Relocate ISS to ME-L1

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

Brad Guth wrote:

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.

Moi? I wish I did. I play around a little with Blender3d, Daz3d
(both free) and a feature-limited demo of Lightwave. (full version
extremely *not* free) that's all. Don't have those talents yet. Can't
help you.

Bye.

--

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


Moi? I wish I did. I play around a little with Blender3d, Daz3d
(both free) and a feature-limited demo of Lightwave. (full version
extremely *not* free) that's all. Don't have those talents yet. Can't
help you.

That's too bad because, that's about all that ever impresses anyone
these days, is the knock your socks off worth of visual 3D graphics and
whatever eye popping candy and those NOVA class of special infomercial
affects via hypology that'll entertain and thus impress the rest of us
dumbfounded village idiots.

Perhaps we need the power and vast scope of DreamWorks Animation to
share and share alike. Most corporate rusemasters like Boeing seems to
have those supercomputers and fully interactive simulators, as well as I
believe several government and publicly funded institutions. Even most
commercial advertisements are being fully 3D animated. Therefore,
there's got to be a few spare supercomputers and their 3D/CAD software
that's bought and paid for by those public tax dollars, or otherwise
having been entirely depreciated so that private and public corporations
can keep their offshore bank accounts seriously over stuffed with mostly
our loot.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Frank Glover" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
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.
If they're essentially dead anyway, so what's the difference, and what a
nifty way to go. Though it might even become the ultimate cure-all for
certain cancers that are proven as curable via radiation, steroids and a
little bone marrow transplant. I believe some of those cancer treatment
dosage amounts are fairly horrific, though not generally of TBI dosage.

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.
But 400 kgf is currently doable and more than sufficient if using mother
Earth itself as a booster shot, then shortly thereafter bringing on the
second 400 kgf for a total of 800+ kgf seems perfectly doable. As I'd
said before, that the passage through our vast expanse of those VanAllen
badlands is doable as 100% robotic, after all, ISS would never be out of
sight and thus remotely pilotted via Earth command is also 100% doable.
Therefore, so what if it takes weeks in order to get it there?

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.)
Ductape and various other proven guy-wire stay methods could make ISS as
robust and stiff as you'd like.

You obviously have no imagination nor even speculation worth

(LOL!) No one who knows me well, would ever accuse me of that.
Then show us your stuff, much like POOF seems pretty nifty and/or a wee
bit iffy since it does't incorporate a sufficient radiation shield nor
has it sufficient cooling for the moon L1 application. As I'd said
before, I like your POOF and even that of our "tomcat" composite fat
waverider of a spaceplane that's capable of going out of this world via
thermal nuclear and steam-rockets.

I directed you to some better ideas. After that, it's up to you.
Those were in fact terrific ideas that are similar though somewhat wussy
to those of mine.

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.
Gosh, why am I not the least bit surprised, that my LSE-CM/ISS isn't
sufficiently positive. Tell us what's so negative or even neutral about
the lunar space elevator and of what it subsequently represents to
humanity, our environment and of what little future is left.

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.
It was also dyslexic encrypted humor.

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.
In other words, you don't seem to mind being a good little puppet?

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

Several. But no one that you (or they) have met, even on Usenet.
That's really all that I ever needed to know, that you haven't an actual
mind of your own. In your status quo mindset, all is sufficiently
orchestrated and/or scripted by others that you admire regardless of
their ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, including
the ongoing pillaging, plundering and raping of mother Earth for all
she's worth.
-
Brad Guth


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