A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 15th 04, 06:22 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's another of my replies that's not been easily getting into GOOGLE
or even MAILGATE. Whereas this time I was attempting to share some of
my usual ulterior motive as feedback into a supposedly open to public
GOOGLE turf, as actually applauding something perfectly terrific as
posted by; The Ghost In The Machine Dec 12, 12:00 pm, offering the
subject: The Ultimate Engine

My ulterior motive was to learn something on behalf of extending the
scope of my topic: Relocation of ISS to ME-L1, persay that of getting
ISS away from mother Earth.

As such, there's still this perfectly good and ongoing topic of a
helium fusion powered rocket engine that's worth yet another good
look-see, as if this method might be applied as to accomplishing
something like moving ISS. I've tried to post into this recent topic
with respect to the possibilities of salvaging something like ISS
(obviously no one within this all-knowing group is the least bit
interested in salvaging any stinking ISS). Although, all that has
transpired is their usual banishment upon absolutely anything having to
do with whatever I'm interested in, or perhaps of anything that might
actually benefit humanity is what's being summarily rejected just out
of spite.

I think I finally realize what my problem is; I'm indirectly asking too
many embarrassing questions that the upper most 0.1% of humanity
doesn't want the rest of the world (lower 99.9% that represents the
apparent scum of the Earth) to ever realize the truth about certain
things, such as the fact that we've all been summarily snookered the
most part by all those nice folks having "the right stuff".

GOOGLE Subject: "The Ultimate Engine"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group

The GOOGLE/MAILGATE version of accessing this same ongoing topic that
I'm not being allowed to participate, but perhaps you can share some
words of wisdom:
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...art&p =1/1126


Taking the absolute positive approach, as to an honest application of
such a fusion rocket engine, such as for the "Relocation of ISS to
ME-L1", as for the initial task getting ISS away from mother Earth. I'm
actually totally impressed by the original context of what this post as
entroduced by "The Ghost In The Machine" is suggesting about "The
Ultimate Engine" but, what I'd really like to know, are we talking of
further R&D of months, years or what?

For just example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing
7.7 km/s. If need be as little as 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours, plus all of
the same as for stopping if we assumed a slight remaining differential
of inbound velocity that'll need to be nullifiied, or else.

I totally agree that appropriate rigging as previously suggested by "Dr
John Stockton", as applied in order to sufficiently brace whatever's
flimsy about ISS is doable, especially if that rate of acceleration
were limited to 0.01 m/s/s, thus taking a bit longer as to bust ISS
lose from Earth's gravity, whereas 1 m/s/s should make things a wee bit
testy, although doable if absolutely everything was secured.

My previously banished and/or ignored questions for this group of
all-knowing wizards discussing "The Ultimate Engine" were as before and
still are;

1) Is there any chance this fusion engine could directly or indirectly
utilize the likes of lunar He3 as fuel?

2) Doesn't the storage of helium (much like hydrogen) or even He3
require a fair amount of space?

3) As for a spacecraft having to take along this required 25 MeV energy
resource into account, what's the net fusion energy per kg of helium
that's actually available or leftover for thrust?

Even frozen/liquid helium should be a rather testy substance, in that a
fairly good amount of insulation becomes a bit more than a slight
issue, as well as for pressurized storage is yet another option. Unless
the few kg worth of said Helium that's supposedly good for the 9e16
J/kg is all that's needed for achieving this rocket engine fuel
requirement, that's solely responsible for creating 603e12 Joules worth
of thrust per kg of said helium is actually obtainable.

It seems as though, coming up with the necessary product of 25 MeV and
of whatever mega+ joules of what that portion represents, as extracted
from some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along
for the ride, that such just might impose another good number of cubic
meters plus whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to
operate all by itself without some negative impact upon the overall
package. I believe the age old physics law of energy input must equal
energy output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite
understand from where's such 25 MeV and the good number of joules that
this fusion energy resource potentially represents is coming from.

An electrodynamic or some other tether dipole energy-extractor might
suggest upon such an alternative as for coming up with the 25 MeV, such
as the one I've associated with the LSE-CM/ISS dipole tether element
having a primary element that's obviously connected to the moon, and
otherwise the other element of this dipole is deployed towards mother
Earth, as coming to within the magnetosphere where the termination CM
or tethered instrument platform that's hosting a few of those 100 GW
laser cannons are situated as cruising perhaps 50,000 km from Earth,
even a bit closer if you'd dare.

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

  #32  
Old December 15th 04, 07:24 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry about the above multiple replies, as I've been having trouble
within the GOOGLE archives using my mds-brad@juno account, whereas
several attempts at getting a given reply to stick just wasn't
happening.

Although, here they are showing up in MAILGATE, and I can't even get
myself back into GOOGLE as to removing the ones that need to be pulled.

Eventually this topic should become more suitable, either that or I'll
have to start this one over from scratch.


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




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #33  
Old December 15th 04, 07:35 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's another of my reply that's not been getting properly set into
GOOGLE. If given the opportunity I'll eliminate a good number of such
duplicate replies that somehow only ended up as being recorded within
the MailGate index and not otherwise recorded by GOOGLE. This time I was
merely attempting to share some of my usual ulterior motive as feedback
into a supposedly open to public GOOGLE turf, as actually applauding
something perfectly terrific as posted by; The Ghost In The Machine Dec
12, 12:00 pm, offering the subject: The Ultimate Engine

My ulterior motive was to learn something on behalf of extending the
scope of my topic: Relocation of ISS to ME-L1, persay that of getting
ISS away from mother Earth.

As such, there's still this perfectly good and ongoing topic of a helium
fusion powered rocket engine that's worth yet another good look-see, as
if this method might be applied as to accomplishing something like
moving ISS. I've tried to post into this recent topic with respect to
the possibilities of salvaging something like ISS (obviously no one
within this all-knowing group is the least bit interested in salvaging
any stinking ISS). Although, all that has transpired is their usual
banishment upon absolutely anything having to do with whatever I'm
interested in, or perhaps of anything that might actually benefit
humanity is what's being summarily rejected just out of spite.

I think I finally realize what my problem is; I'm indirectly asking too
many embarrassing questions that the upper most 0.1% of humanity doesn't
want the rest of the world (lower 99.9% that represents the apparent
scum of the Earth) to ever realize the truth about certain things, such
as the fact that we've all been summarily snookered the most part by all
those nice folks having "the right stuff".

GOOGLE Subject: "The Ultimate Engine"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...rch+this+group

The GOOGLE/MAILGATE version of accessing this same ongoing topic that
I'm not being allowed to participate, but perhaps you can share some
words of wisdom:

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...art&p =1/1126

Taking the absolute positive approach, as to an honest application of
such a fusion rocket engine, such as for the "Relocation of ISS to
ME-L1", as for the initial task getting ISS away from mother Earth. I'm
actually totally impressed by the original context of what this post as
entroduced by "The Ghost In The Machine" is suggesting about "The
Ultimate Engine" but, what I'd really like to know, are we talking of
further R&D of months, years or what?

For just example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing 7.7
km/s. If need be as little as 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours, plus all of the
same as for stopping if we assumed a slight remaining differential of
inbound velocity that'll need to be nullifiied, or else.

I totally agree that appropriate rigging as previously suggested by "Dr
John Stockton", as applied in order to sufficiently brace whatever's
flimsy about ISS is doable, especially if that rate of acceleration were
limited to 0.01 m/s/s, thus taking a bit longer as to bust ISS lose from
Earth's gravity, whereas 1 m/s/s should make things a wee bit testy,
although doable if absolutely everything was secured.

My previously banished and/or ignored questions for this group of
all-knowing wizards discussing "The Ultimate Engine" were as before and
still are;

1) Is there any chance this fusion engine could directly or indirectly
utilize the likes of lunar He3 as fuel?

2) Doesn't the storage of helium (much like hydrogen) or even He3
require a fair amount of space?

3) As for a spacecraft having to take along this required 25 MeV energy
resource into account, what's the net fusion energy per kg of helium
that's actually available or leftover for thrust?

Even frozen/liquid helium should be a rather testy substance, in that a
fairly good amount of insulation becomes a bit more than a slight issue,
as well as for pressurized storage is yet another option. Unless the few
kg worth of said Helium that's supposedly good for the 9e16 J/kg is all
that's needed for achieving this rocket engine fuel requirement, that's
solely responsible for creating 603e12 Joules worth of thrust per kg of
said helium is actually obtainable.

It seems as though, coming up with the necessary product of 25 MeV and
of whatever mega+ joules of what that portion represents, as extracted
from some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along
for the ride, that such just might impose another good number of cubic
meters plus whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to
operate all by itself without some negative impact upon the overall
package. I believe the age old physics law of energy input must equal
energy output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite
understand from where's such 25 MeV and the good number of joules that
this fusion energy resource potentially represents is coming from.

An electrodynamic or some other tether dipole energy-extractor might
suggest upon such an alternative as for coming up with the 25 MeV, such
as the one I've associated with the LSE-CM/ISS dipole tether element
having a primary element that's obviously connected to the moon, and
otherwise the other element of this dipole is deployed towards mother
Earth, as coming to within the magnetosphere where the termination CM or
tethered instrument platform that's hosting a few of those 100 GW laser
cannons are situated as cruising perhaps 50,000 km from Earth, even a
bit closer if you'd dare.

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


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #34  
Old December 15th 04, 08:23 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dr John Stockton" wrote in message


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

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


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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soyuz TMA-5 transport spacecraft relocation to the ISS module Zarya Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 6th 04 09:09 PM
Soyuz Relocation Preps Continue; Expedition 10 to Have Quiet Thanksgiving Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 November 25th 04 05:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.