Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...ts_astronauts/
reports the Russians are mulling one less cosmonaut, with perhaps a
space tourist taking that cosmonaut's place.

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...ts_astronauts/
reports the Russians are mulling one less cosmonaut, with perhaps a
space tourist taking that cosmonaut's place.

rick jones


Yeah, this rumor has been going around for a few months. I think it'll
happen.

Especially once NASA stops having to buy seats, the Russians are going to be
really strapped for cash.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
Yeah, this rumor has been going around for a few months. I think
it'll happen.

Especially once NASA stops having to buy seats, the Russians are
going to be really strapped for cash.

I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians will be discounting seats on
Soyuz considerably at that point. I'm sure there is a lot of padding
in the $70 million (?) figure and they won't be charging more than
half of that or less to a space tourist.

rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:11:56 PM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...ts_astronauts/
reports the Russians are mulling one less cosmonaut, with perhaps a
space tourist taking that cosmonaut's place.

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

That's interesting. NASA, without the space shuttle, or a replacement near term, is thinking about selling its interest out entirely!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...te_enterprise/

Musk is the only buyer I can see. He can then use the ISS to train his crews and clients for moon tours and Mars flights. In fact, well heeled travellers (the 50,000 or so people worth $100 million and more) will likely spend some time on the space station, take a jaunt to the moon, as part of training, before committing to Mars.

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:11:56 PM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...ts_astronauts/
reports the Russians are mulling one less cosmonaut, with perhaps a
space tourist taking that cosmonaut's place.

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

That's interesting. NASA, without the space shuttle, or a replacement near
term, is thinking about selling its interest out entirely!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...te_enterprise/

Musk is the only buyer I can see. He can then use the ISS to train his
crews and clients for moon tours and Mars flights. In fact, well heeled
travellers (the 50,000 or so people worth $100 million and more) will
likely spend some time on the space station, take a jaunt to the moon, as
part of training, before committing to Mars.

Where to begin.
Let's see, by the time NASA wants to sell their interest in ISS, they'll
have been flying their astronauts there on commercial crewed vehicles for
5-7 years. I'd say 2018 is a decent bet and 2019 a pretty sure bet for that
happening.

So lack of a "space shuttle" has nothing to do with the interest.

If Musk wants a space station, he's almost certainly going to build his own,
or more likely buy one from Bigelow. ISS would give him nothing but
headaches. It's not designed for a large crew, it's setup as a science
station, and it's in a far from ideal orbit for his use.

And as far as I know, Musk hasn't really said anything about the Moon, so I
find that pretty doubtful.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:08:59 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 1:11:56 PM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...ts_astronauts/
reports the Russians are mulling one less cosmonaut, with perhaps a
space tourist taking that cosmonaut's place.

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...

That's interesting. NASA, without the space shuttle, or a replacement near
term, is thinking about selling its interest out entirely!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08...te_enterprise/

Musk is the only buyer I can see. He can then use the ISS to train his
crews and clients for moon tours and Mars flights. In fact, well heeled
travellers (the 50,000 or so people worth $100 million and more) will
likely spend some time on the space station, take a jaunt to the moon, as
part of training, before committing to Mars.

Where to begin.
Let's see, by the time NASA wants to sell their interest in ISS, they'll
have been flying their astronauts there on commercial crewed vehicles for
5-7 years. I'd say 2018 is a decent bet and 2019 a pretty sure bet for that
happening.

So lack of a "space shuttle" has nothing to do with the interest.

That's not what NASA people said in 2011.

http://www.space.com/12387-nasa-amer...ure-plans.html

They described adapting to the loss of the Shuttle program as 'hard'. Though administrators put a shiny face on it.


If Musk wants a space station, he's almost certainly going to build his own,
or more likely buy one from Bigelow.

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease buy-back makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they wish to limit their exposure going forward and deal with the politics of letting the station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a hazard if you don't own or operate it.

ISS would give him nothing but
headaches.

It provides a proven platform from which to make gradual advances. That's why there's a new port going on the ISS - look for BA330 modules to be added to the mix. Six of these would permit a dozen rooms for 24 guests in relative luxury, and two more would provide a five star restaurant and a zero gravity gymnasium.

It's not designed for a large crew, it's setup as a science

Correct, and that would be maintained.

station, and it's in a far from ideal orbit for his use.

http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544

Its reachable from all continents and nations, excepting antarctica. So, you'll have to explain why its not ideal. In any 24 hour period, someone will very likely fly over their home town. It is not coplanar with the moon, but, the moon is inclinded 28.68 degrees to the Earth's equator whilst the ISS is inclined 51.64 degrees. Boosting in this higher inclination plane, and coming down on to the moon, obtains a high inclination orbit around the moon, allowing more sights to be visited from lunar orbit. The station itself could easily be boosted to lunar orbit and operated there.

And as far as I know, Musk hasn't really said anything about the Moon, so I
find that pretty doubtful.

shrug I doesn't say a lot about many things that interest him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9506963.html

So, the only thing one can do is not worry so much about what Musk might do, but what makes sense given the investments that have been made to date and where that might most profitably be used.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:08:59 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
So lack of a "space shuttle" has nothing to do with the interest.

That's not what NASA people said in 2011.

http://www.space.com/12387-nasa-amer...ure-plans.html

Who cares what they said in 2011. I'm responding to your post about what
they said in 2016.


They described adapting to the loss of the Shuttle program as 'hard'.
Though administrators put a shiny face on it.


If Musk wants a space station, he's almost certainly going to build his
own,
or more likely buy one from Bigelow.

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease buy-back
makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they wish to limit
their exposure going forward and deal with the politics of letting the
station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a hazard if you don't
own or operate it.

This makes no sense at all. The US Government launched most of it. They're
responsible for it no matter what.


ISS would give him nothing but
headaches.

It provides a proven platform from which to make gradual advances. That's
why there's a new port going on the ISS - look for BA330 modules to be
added to the mix. Six of these would permit a dozen rooms for 24 guests in
relative luxury, and two more would provide a five star restaurant and a
zero gravity gymnasium.

No, it would provide them with an aging platform that will increasing need
more and more maintenance.


It's not designed for a large crew, it's setup as a science

Correct, and that would be maintained.


Bull****. You can't keep the micro-g environment while having 24 guests and
things like a zero-g gymnasium. And that's ignoring the new flight
dynamics you include by completely changing the COG and new requirements for
attitude control.


station, and it's in a far from ideal orbit for his use.

http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544

Its reachable from all continents and nations, excepting antarctica. So,
you'll have to explain why its not ideal. In any 24 hour period, someone
will very likely fly over their home town. It is not coplanar with the
moon, but, the moon is inclinded 28.68 degrees to the Earth's equator
whilst the ISS is inclined 51.64 degrees. Boosting in this higher
inclination plane, and coming down on to the moon, obtains a high
inclination orbit around the moon, allowing more sights to be visited from
lunar orbit. The station itself could easily be boosted to lunar orbit and
operated there.

Who gives a **** if it's flying over my house. That's not where I'm going to
launch from. SpaceX wants to minimize costs, which means launching to a
lower inclination when possible. This just reduces payload to orbit and
increases cost.

As for boosting it to lunar orbit.. umm again no. You're not going to get
it through the Van Allen belts w/o serious issues. You either have to go
quickly, which will exceed the structural limits of the station, or slowly
which will fry the electronics (and you won't be able to have a crew board,
and the station was designed to be crew tended).

If you want to put a space station around the Moon, bloody well design one
for just that.


And as far as I know, Musk hasn't really said anything about the Moon, so
I
find that pretty doubtful.

shrug I doesn't say a lot about many things that interest him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9506963.html

So, the only thing one can do is not worry so much about what Musk might
do, but what makes sense given the investments that have been made to date
and where that might most profitably be used.


Right, which basically rules out any idea you've proposed.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Aug/24/2016 at 9:43 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:08:59 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider)
Moore wrote:
So lack of a "space shuttle" has nothing to do with the interest.

That's not what NASA people said in 2011.

http://www.space.com/12387-nasa-amer...ure-plans.html

Who cares what they said in 2011. I'm responding to your post about what
they said in 2016.


They described adapting to the loss of the Shuttle program as 'hard'.
Though administrators put a shiny face on it.


If Musk wants a space station, he's almost certainly going to build
his own,
or more likely buy one from Bigelow.

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease
buy-back makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they
wish to limit their exposure going forward and deal with the politics
of letting the station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a
hazard if you don't own or operate it.

This makes no sense at all. The US Government launched most of it.
They're responsible for it no matter what.


ISS would give him nothing but
headaches.

It provides a proven platform from which to make gradual advances.
That's why there's a new port going on the ISS - look for BA330
modules to be added to the mix. Six of these would permit a dozen
rooms for 24 guests in relative luxury, and two more would provide a
five star restaurant and a zero gravity gymnasium.

No, it would provide them with an aging platform that will increasing
need more and more maintenance.


It's not designed for a large crew, it's setup as a science

Correct, and that would be maintained.


Bull****. You can't keep the micro-g environment while having 24 guests
and things like a zero-g gymnasium. And that's ignoring the new flight
dynamics you include by completely changing the COG and new requirements
for attitude control.


station, and it's in a far from ideal orbit for his use.

http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544

Its reachable from all continents and nations, excepting antarctica.
So, you'll have to explain why its not ideal. In any 24 hour period,
someone will very likely fly over their home town. It is not
coplanar with the moon, but, the moon is inclinded 28.68 degrees to
the Earth's equator whilst the ISS is inclined 51.64 degrees.
Boosting in this higher inclination plane, and coming down on to the
moon, obtains a high inclination orbit around the moon, allowing more
sights to be visited from lunar orbit. The station itself could
easily be boosted to lunar orbit and operated there.

Who gives a **** if it's flying over my house. That's not where I'm
going to launch from. SpaceX wants to minimize costs, which means
launching to a lower inclination when possible. This just reduces
payload to orbit and increases cost.

As for boosting it to lunar orbit.. umm again no. You're not going to
get it through the Van Allen belts w/o serious issues. You either have
to go quickly, which will exceed the structural limits of the station,
or slowly which will fry the electronics (and you won't be able to have
a crew board, and the station was designed to be crew tended).

Your post is mostly correct, but not that point. The station can very
well endure an acceleration of 0.01g for 10 hours. That will get you
through the Van Allen belts at about the same speed as the Apollo
missions.

If you want to put a space station around the Moon, bloody well design
one for just that.

Yes, absolutely.


Alain Fournier

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-08-24 02:03, William Mook wrote:

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease buy-back makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they wish to limit their exposure going forward and deal with the politics of letting the station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a hazard if you don't own or operate it.


Currently, NASA has contractualo obligation towards other partners. So
if they lease back, they have to pay the commercial operator to continue
to provide those obligations to the partners.


Please cite these 'contracts'.


One the ISS contract runs out and is renegotriated, then all bets are
off in terms of who is responsible for what.


What "ISS contract" would that be?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:43:08 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:08:59 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore
wrote:
So lack of a "space shuttle" has nothing to do with the interest.

That's not what NASA people said in 2011.

http://www.space.com/12387-nasa-amer...ure-plans.html

Who cares what they said in 2011.

Everyone?

I'm responding to your post about what
they said in 2016.

I suppose you thing consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds? lol.


They described adapting to the loss of the Shuttle program as 'hard'.
Though administrators put a shiny face on it.


If Musk wants a space station, he's almost certainly going to build his
own,
or more likely buy one from Bigelow.

Or buy one from NASA. The point is, NASA is selling. A lease buy-back
makes the most sense at this juncture, for them - if they wish to limit
their exposure going forward and deal with the politics of letting the
station go. Its far easier to condemn the station as a hazard if you don't
own or operate it.

This makes no sense at all.

Buying something that you want makes no sense? hmm...

The US Government launched most of it.

That's true, which is why they can sell it if they choose. They have said they want to sell it.

They're
responsible for it no matter what.

Until they sell it sure. That's what ownership means.



ISS would give him nothing but
headaches.

It provides a proven platform from which to make gradual advances. That's
why there's a new port going on the ISS - look for BA330 modules to be
added to the mix. Six of these would permit a dozen rooms for 24 guests in
relative luxury, and two more would provide a five star restaurant and a
zero gravity gymnasium.

No, it would provide them with an aging platform that will increasing need
more and more maintenance.

All things age. The platform is older than unproven platforms that is true.. However, using a proven platform to test new ideas can pay dividends by letting you take greater innovation risks leveraging off the proven platform.


It's not designed for a large crew, it's setup as a science

Correct, and that would be maintained.


Bull****.

How is doing the same thing in the future that you're doing now bull****? lol. It isn't.

You can't keep the micro-g environment while having 24 guests and
things like a zero-g gymnasium.

Cite?

And that's ignoring the new flight
dynamics you include by completely changing the COG and new requirements for
attitude control.

The system weighs over 500 tonnes as it is - Each BA 330 masses 20 tonnes. So, six of those is 120 tonnes. Their placement will be symmetrical around S0 - and it is well within the Sager Bhatt gyroscope's capabilities to maintain precise zero propellant attitude control.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5256357/

http://www.caam.rice.edu/tech_reports/2007/TR07-08.pdf


station, and it's in a far from ideal orbit for his use.

http://heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=25544

Its reachable from all continents and nations, excepting antarctica. So,
you'll have to explain why its not ideal. In any 24 hour period, someone
will very likely fly over their home town. It is not coplanar with the
moon, but, the moon is inclinded 28.68 degrees to the Earth's equator
whilst the ISS is inclined 51.64 degrees. Boosting in this higher
inclination plane, and coming down on to the moon, obtains a high
inclination orbit around the moon, allowing more sights to be visited from
lunar orbit. The station itself could easily be boosted to lunar orbit and
operated there.

Who gives a **** if it's flying over my house.

Tourists to pay $40 million to get there,. You've never seriously considered what it means to visit the ISS have you?

That's not where I'm going to
launch from.

If it flies overhead you can launch from it. It flies over all SpaceX launch points, so, there's no trouble for SpaceX to get to it. It also flies over all launch centers throughout the world. So, if SpaceX wants to coordinate with other space launch providers, the ISS makes it especially easy.

If you're a tourist, the view is important. This is a billion dollar view..

SpaceX wants to minimize costs, which means launching to a
lower inclination when possible.

I see orbital mechanics is not your forte! Look, SpaceX has the following launch facilities;

CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 40
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 4 EAST
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, SPACE LAUNCH COMPLEX 39A
SPACEX SOUTH TEXAS LAUNCH SITE

The SpaceX South Texas Launch Site is 26 degrees North Latitude. Anything orbiting with that inclincation or a GREATER inclination can be launched to DIRECTLY. Anything orbiting with LESS than that inclination must involve a PLANE CHANGE maneuver which is very costly!

This just reduces payload to orbit and
increases cost.

Yes, to launch from SpaceX South Texas Launch Site to say an equatorial orbit requires a PLANE CHANGE from the LOWEST INCLINATION you can get, which is your latitutde. 26 degrees in the case of the West Texas Site. That's why the payload to enter an EQUATORIAL orbit is far less than say a 26 degree orbit. Orbits with HIGHER inclination, don't have such penalty since you don't need to do a plane change to enter them, you merely change your ground track and launch at the right time.

As for boosting it to lunar orbit.. umm again no.

Again, your understanding of astrodynamics is fundamentally flawed.

You're not going to get
it through the Van Allen belts w/o serious issues.

Nonsense.

You either have to go
quickly,

Which you will do.

which will exceed the structural limits of the station,

Nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHamp0IIyE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUmrTA7sD28

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...0130013168.pdf

The shuttle's digital autopilot (DAP) supports four reboost configurations, which use either primary or vernier RCS jets (or in one config a combination of both). The vernier-only config uses both forward and aft jets, while the other three use only aft jets. Which reboost config is chosen depends on a variety of factors, including desire to minimize forward RCS usage, availability of vernier RCS, time available for reboost, and shuttle/ISS thermal constraints in the reboost attitude. Today Progress supply capsules and ESA ATV modules provide reboost. The ATV uses four R-4D engines each producing 490 N of thrust a total of 1960 N of thrust. 200 pounds. This produces 1/2000th of a gee - 165 hours to do the TLI boost with a single ATV. The Soyuz TMA module provides 2,942 N of thrust (660 lbs) and provides 1/600th of a gee - and reduces this boost time to 55 hours.


which will fry the electronics (and you won't be able to have a crew board,
and the station was designed to be crew tended).

Wrong on both counts. Apollo made it through the Van Allen belt and its electronics made it as well including the electronics on the Lunar Module. Those electronics of the 1960s weren't as good as the electronics today, built with many decades of experience to refine the designs. The station's pressure vessel is far more robust than the lunar lander, which suffered no ill effects from its traverse of the van allen belt. So, there's no reason to expect the space station would suffer ill effects either.

As the video above shows, reboost witih crew on board is no problem. The only requirement for a trans lunar injection is to supply the station for the trip and put sufficient propellant on board to achieve the required delta vee. As I mentioned this can be achieved with 18 launches of the Falcon Heavy, and a special reboost module can be designed to make use of the propellant.

These would be components of a new station, so a new station would be more expensive than modifying the older station.

If you want to put a space station around the Moon, bloody well design one
for just that.

False choice. Newer stations will be built and deployed, no question about it. Yet, its clear that designing a single ZBO (Zero boil off) LOX/LNG propellant tank of the size and weight indicated, and the plumbing to use it, along with a dragon module that uses it - and is docked to the station the same way the shuttle was docked when it used its OMS to reboost the station

And as far as I know, Musk hasn't really said anything about the Moon, so
I
find that pretty doubtful.

shrug I doesn't say a lot about many things that interest him.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9506963.html

So, the only thing one can do is not worry so much about what Musk might
do, but what makes sense given the investments that have been made to date
and where that might most profitably be used.


Right, which basically rules out any idea you've proposed.

Obvioulsy you know very little about things you apparently care a lot about.. It must be very troubling for you at times to meet someone who really knows something about things you care about. That's not my problem. Its yours.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net