Relocation of ISS to ME-L1

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 4a)

Somewhat of an improved estimate in order to park ISS into such a nifty
location as offered by this sweet-spot of tidal forces being our mutual
gravity-well zone of ME-L1. At least until I'm informed otherwise, I
tend to believe this is not such an insurmountable task.

Of eventually adding the anchor and subsequent tether by way of
deploying a Javelin Probe with the initial wire/tether associated so
that this penetration probe arrives at perhaps as great as 1000 m/s is
about all it'll take for the composite basalt/silica tether to being
utilized by the ISS for accommodating those gradual though complex
fluctuations in tidal and related Earth/moon gravity forces.

If I even understand this correctly, at dealing with a 5.5% orbital
eccentricity we're having to compensate for 21,142 km that's
transpiring within every 27.3 days, which represents a linear travel
rate of nearly 9 m/s;

21.142e6 m / 2.360621e6 sec. km = 8.956 m/s

Thus upon arriving towards the outgoing sweet-spot at not much greater
than 10 m/s should enable the least amount of retro-breaking, since the
moon is in the receding mode at making nearly 9 m/s, which gets the
differential of our having to parallel park ISS down to roughly 1 m/s.

As for roughly stopping a 275 tonne item that's still managing a
differential headway of essentially 1 m/s is going to take an equal
amount of opposing force, such as .275 tonnes of force applied for 1000
seconds, or .0275 tonnes sustained for 10,000 seconds (2.78 hours), of
which I believe that's something like having to apply 27.5e3 Joules
continuously for 2.78 hours, and I'm not exactly sure of what sort of
rocket engine could sustain that amount of thrust without melting down
in the process.

Of course since everything is still well secured, a few small SRBs
could do the trick of essentially stopping ISS dead in it's tracks,
accomplishing this within as little as 100 seconds of applying 2.75
tones of thrust, and I believe those sorts of extended burn SBRs should
be right off the shelf, and relatively compact at that. As then the
existing thrusters of conventional rocket fuel could manage whatever's
left over, managing the necessary maneuverings for station-keeping
mode.

Within days and preferably during an opportunity of earthshine, the
crew should arrive for unwrapping ISS and getting everything back
online. Although it would have been nice having the shuttle available
for this task, I'm certain that between the Russians and Chinese folks
should be capable of delivering ISS to the ME-L1, plus delivering this
fearless crew, as after all, other than the discomfort and TBI worth of
a much greater commute there's not all that much greater energy demand
for accomplishing that phase of commissioning ISS with multiple crew
members and subsequently reactivating ISS.

Of course, since I'm basically on a need to know basis, thereby if I'm
in error of understanding some of this, or simply being incorrect in my
math, please do suggest your calculations that are more correct, as
I'll give full credit for anyone offering such a positive contribution
instead of the usual all-knowing flak of intentionally bashing this or
any other idea that's outside the mainstream box.

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

ISS/TBI Radiation while station-keeping at ME-L1 (part 5);

I believe that I've seen career TBI(Total Body Irradiation) dosage
limits established as great as 500 rem (5 Sv or 25 rem/yr). However,
the NASA career radiation dosage is perhaps 200 rem (2 Sv or 10
rem/yr). Being that's over a 20 year period, whereas 10 rem/year is
certainly a whole lot less destructive of your DNA than the likely TBI
worth of 50 rem(0.5 Sv) per one year stint of station-keeping ISS at
ME-L1, and I'm not even certain it can be kept that low unless those
extra shielded sleeping coffins are employed so that the worse solar
and cosmic events can be minimized, as well as for those sleep-coffins
being spun at a sufficient speed so that the artificial gravity gives
your bones and mussels a little something to adjust to, such as 100 RPM
might be sufficient.

Packaging the entire crew compartment(s) with another external layer of
that infamous clumping moon-dirt, or perhaps just robotically building
up a nice basalt fiber composite layer of continuous fiber as
robotically being produced directly off the moon itself should prove
somewhat beneficial, as after a year or so of building three grams/cm3
per month could prove downright handy, especially after a depth of 12
cm =3D 36+g/cm2 enables fending off most of whatever debris is passing by
at 30+km/s. Of course keeping the new surface highly reflective may
prove somewhat complex unless a ribbon of mylar follows every applied
layer of basalt composite.

Solar, cosmic plus whatever secondary rads as those being deployed off
the lunar surface represents a truly nasty gauntlet of somewhat bad
times for the DNA likes of an ISS career individual, whereas at that
rate their careers may be cut somewhat short, perhaps 5 years worth if
ISS per 20 year career permits one year out of every four as spent
onboard ISS, and certainly much less if there's EVAs involved
(although, of carefully selected windows of opportunity, and especially
if those external efforts can be scheduled during earthshine, the added
dosage may not become all that excessive).

As your backup or butt salvaging plan-B, the notion of these ISS folks
banking a few kg worth of their bone marrow might not be such a bad
idea, as banked bone marrow is at least one viable alternative to their
slowly dying from the inside out. Actually, should a really big solar
event or of some other nearby supernova transpire (such as Sirius/ab),
the return-home commute isn't all that testy if the 24 hour commute
process is achieved. Or, there may be the option of residing well below
the lunar surface, such as within a hollow rille or perhaps a good
sized geode pocket.

Of course, getting from ISS to the surface has just become a whole lot
simpler with a tether crawling pod that can establish a controlled rate
of travel, as a means of eliminating any chance of otherwise vaporising
yourself upon impact. Especially the down-elevator is actually a energy
gain of whatever the motor/generators are extracting in the way of
kinetic energy that's converted into electrical energy that's in turn
stored as well as reutilized as retro-thrusting by somewhat large ION
or similar engines capable of thrusting whatever mass, such as
vaporised basalt.

At an average descending rate of perhaps 1+km/s, possibly within 18
hours you could be stepping onto the lunar surface where the TBI dosage
is even worse off (0.25~0.5 rem/hr within a good bullet proof
moonsuit). However, once going a few meters underground, not only has
it become far less radiation dosage but, it's certainly a whole lot
cooler by day and otherwise warmer by night. A sufficient deed geode
pocket might even obtain sufficient geothermal heat as to being above
275=B0K, where if there's any chance of trapped water at least it's no
longer frozen. Actually a lunar geode or rille pocket as your abode can
become thermally and atmospherically stabilized as to suit whomever.

BTW; I actually have created several notions for the potential
configuration of those tether pods, and of those auto-balancing and
counter-rotating sleeping coffins that'll offer a good deal of added
shielding as well as a spin cycle for inducing artificial gravity, as
either that or we'll need to add entirely new set of super-shielded
compartment modules to ISS that counter-rotate, at which point the
total ISS package might represent 300 tonnes, although accommodating
more bodies.

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

The ISS should be moved to the L1 point. Russia, China, or ESA could do
it. I don't know of any benefit in doing this.

"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.)

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

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

Now now Derek Lyons,
According to the NASA/Apollo bible, absolutely nothing gets the least
bit fried going through the Van Allen zone of death. Actually a good
amount of ISS electronics and other applied technology should survive
better off than anything Apollo, as many of the ISS compartments are
certainly with improved circuitry as well as shielding.

Of course, after a good heavy-duty foil wrap and chances are that only
a few items will bite the dust. However, many satellites survive as
situated well within some of the worse expanse of those nasty radiation
zones, while others are dying off left and right due to either too much
rads or just from being impacted by whatever's coming along.

Even at 300 tonnes, the sorts of SBRs that could be ductaped to ISS and
of others utilized again for breaking as arriving into the sweet-spot
of ME-L1 is doable. Then if there's anything left of ISS as to call
home, we send our astronauts having the most death wish off for an
extended stay, or perhaps we send terminal cancer patients having
nothing to lose that might actually benefit from such prolonged
exposures.

Revision; "I don't know of any benefit in doing this"

Don't ask why, just share some positive notions as to how this can be
accomplished, as I'm sure there's got to be some remote benefit that
would come to light once you honestly gave it two seconds worth of
thought. Such as claiming this one and only nifty spot for establishing
the LSE-CM/ISS, as establishing all rights for whatever the future has
to offer as an Earth/moon interface and upon providing the one and only
nearby gateway to other worlds. I could share a rather substantial list
of dozens of other can-do and must-do attributes and considerations
associated with establishing this one and only location.

How much applied energy as for getting ISS away from Earth?

As otherwise, with the rapidly collapsing magnetosphere and the
uncertainty of future shuttle capability, what the heck do we have to
lose?

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

If all the PV solar arrays, antenna and any other frail appendages were
secured as best can, and if the rate of acceleration was 0.1 m/s/s, or
possibly as great as 1 m/s/s, as such nothing should rip lose. Unless
volunteers applied, there'd be no onboard crew until safely reaching
ME-L1.

BTW; what's the existing reboost (1.5 to 3 hours) rate of applied
acceleration?

ISS is already making good headway, thus another few km/s should not do
harm nor cause ISS to trek itself off into the sun. I'm assuming that
at some point in the spiral-out progression that an additional kick in
the ISS butt should manage quite nicely at getting it headed towards
the moon (I believe timing is everything).

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

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 6);

Since it's fairly clear that few souls are going to play this game of
share and share alike, except on their usual need-to-know and
disinformation-R-us policy that's orchestrated on behalf their usual
dog-wagging spin and infomercial damage-control on behalf of avoiding
whatever singe factor might inadvertently affect their lord and
master(NASA), in which case I'll just continue offering a few tidbits
of what's possible.

If ISS is currently at the velocity of 7.7 km/s, thus bucking that
fairly hefty headwind and otherwise continually being sucked towards
mother Earth, and if we wanted to make that velocity into 11 km/s, this
means ISS needs to gain 3.3 km/s. The idea being to get ISS headed in
the right direction, and at whatever suitable exit velocity so that by
the time of reaching it's destination (roughly 310,000+km from Earth)
is where it'll be coasting the final few km as sliding gently into home
plate at perhaps not more than 10 m/s, -9 m/s of the outgoing lunar
transition makes the net result of having to deal with 1 m/s that needs
to be counteracted before exceeding the point of no return (that being
the wrong side of the ME-L1 nullification/home-plate whereas the lunar
gravity takes over, which actually isn't all that serious considering
how slight of gravity we're talking about, but certainly becoming a
problematic issue as time passes and the lunar orbit reverts into
trekking itself back closer towards Earth, closing the gap and thus
shifting the ideal ME-L1 position at a fairly respectable rate). If
anything, a little under-shoot can play in favor of giving this task of
parking ISS loads of reserves and options should something run somewhat
amuck (though what could possibly go wrong?).

Ideally ISS station-keeping transition will have 27 days in which to
put-up or summarily die while trying every option at making this
happen.

If the applied thrust for exiting Earth were to be slight as to manage
0.1 m/s/s, obviously we're into 33,000 seconds worth of burn that's
having to deal with the combined ISS and added booster engine(s) and
related fuel of 300 tonnes. I'm not going to suggest what exact amount
of energy or fuel consumption this represents because, I know darn good
and well that it's spendy though doable for 9.17 hours (perhaps 10
hours maximum as for obtaining that extra velocity or compensating for
the net gain in overall mass due to the added payloads of beer and
pizza). If need be a nuclear powered thruster is just the ticket for
accomplishing this task with energy to spare for the secondary task of
parallel parking ISS into the sweet-spot of ME-L1, at which time the
existing onboard thrusters should efficiently manage the remainder of
whatever the variations in orbit and tidal forces that'll need to be
dealt with.

BTW; If I actually obtain some positive feedback and alternative
solutions, as such I'd have to make room within my previously
established papers by way of editing out a good amount of the required
favor-returning flak that I've introduced on behalf of all the warm and
fuzzy folks that had no intentions of ever sharing squat, unless it was
in the form of their usual flak intended to bash and banish whatever I
or anyone other had to offer that wasn't entirely within their
mainstream boat.

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

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.

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 7);

I've previously agreed with many that perceive our extremely old and
mostly cold-war configured shuttles are simply providing more
likelihood of accidents to come, not to mention their truly horrific
impact upon the environment, and that's also excluding the rather pesky
nature of their having to survive our Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL team
being airborne at the same time of their reentry that's only improving
the odds of something much worse going a bit further over the edge of
whatever slim safety margin there is.

The prospects of larger and more capable AI/robotic fly-by-rocket
solutions from Russia or perhaps China are simply a must-have, as even
for the prospects of transporting crew there's no need of the usual
flight crew because, there'd be nothing to do unless all three backup
systems failed. Personal reentry pods or coffins would be included as
last resort, which is far better off than anything shuttle related.
Most of what ISS needs is fuel and spare parts, not a crew change every
few months, as 6+ month durations should be sufficient, though
relocated to ME-L1 might suggest annual crew rotation as being the
norm.

BTW; since this ongoing perverted notion of relocating ISS once and for
all somewhere that it'll actually accomplish the most good for science
as well as humanity is a fairly spendy proposition. However, since
it'll only expedite the eventual replacement by the LSE-CM/ISS, I
thought that perhaps I alone could pay for everything related to
getting ISS relocated to ME-L1, or at least I'd be willing to share and
share alike by way of matching funds.

Of what's needed is something on paper (a few reams might actually
become necessary in this case) that we can each sort of take to the
bank for obtaining the necessary billions as advancements upon whatever
this adventure should require. Actually, since this task is getting us
not only back to the moon in style, but most likely providing the one
and only viable alternative as for our team to be getting itself safely
to/from the lunar surface via tether pods. As such I thought perhaps my
good buddy and friends for life (the GW Bush family and the likes of
Dick's Halburton) would cough up the necessary investment bucks. In
fact, a good portion if not everything can be funded by those Saddam
and Osama bin Laden bank and investment accounts that we supposedly
already have control over, thus not one thin dime need be borrowed from
the privet sector or taxpayers, just the usual insiders like Martha
Stewart, ENRON, Arthur Andersen and lo and behold, we'd subsequently
OWN THE FREAKING MOON!

I mean to say; how absolutely good is that, or what?

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

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....