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
  #1  
Old December 9th 04, 08:23 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Relocation of ISS to ME-L1

This topic of RELOCATING ISS to the moon/Earth L1 (mutual
gravity-well/gateway) position was never something that I'd intended as
an argument as to why it shouldn't or couldn't be accomplished, as I'm
actually looking for the positive side of the many issues which I
believe are surmountable in spite of whatever the mainstream thinks.

This is also about our utilizing and/or making due with what we've got
to work with in a timely and affordable option as to otherwise
continuing down the reentry path of seeing those thousand points of
light that simply will not exist for much longer unless loads of fuel is
delivered to ISS.

This is actually another of my fairly old *can do* topics of applying
the known laws of physics and technology that's been at hand, of
providing a perfectly good and moral as well as scientifically
beneficial alternative to the otherwise spendy LSE-CM/ISS, as well as to
salvaging and thereby fully utilizing our ISS for exactly what it was
intended for, rather than seeing it burn up upon reentry.

I believe relocating ISS into the mutual gravity-well of the ME-L1 zone
is technically doable, though of getting such tonnage there is surely
going to become somewhat testy. Of station-keeping once situated within
this nearby nullification/gateway zone may become a bit complex at
first, though I believe ISS and of it's onboard computers, plus of
everything that's remotely doable from the standpoint of the control
station here on Earth is certainly adaptable for accomplishing exactly
this sort of task.

An honest team of extremely capable Russians, plus ESA and even the
Chinese are becoming fully capable of accomplishing this task within
acceptable safety and cost limitations (NASA need not apply), and the
rewards are certainly many that I can think of. Although, until more
substantial shielding is applied, robotics may have to take all the
credits, as there should be somewhat greater risk for the ISS crew, as
well as for accommodating their to/from commute that'll shift from
minutes to days, but other than that there's only loads of absolute
positives for humanity and thereby of terrific Earth and moon science
that many of us can take to the bank.

BTW; If this isn't a perfectly good topic, or if this one should become
otherwise banished, please feel free as to selecting something other to
focus my attention upon.

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


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #2  
Old December 9th 04, 08:47 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I still believe that many individuals can honestly share and share alike
on the various methods of accomplishing this task of relocating ISS, or
I'll also expect that most of the opposition will remain content as
their usual borg like collectives obstructing at absolutely anything I'm
suggesting. I know darn well that the talents, software and essentially
all the resources are out there, as currently available and as mostly
bought and paid for many times over by the public/taxpayer, including
the resident expertise we've all been paying for over the last 3+decades
that should have been on top of this nearby and easily obtainable quest
as of at least a decade ago.

I have some basic questions;

1) how much energy and for how long in terms of getting ISS to drift
nicely into position at ME-L1 (+/- 2.55%).

2) Since there's going to be so much less friction involved, a
robotically managed zero gravity influence factor, and tidal forces
supposedly working on behalf of ISS; how much station-keeping energy is
this task going to require?

3) deploying a tether to the moon, possibly a javelin probe as being
deployed into the lunar basalt as anchor; how much would this initial
tether need to represent in overall mass?

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


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #3  
Old December 9th 04, 03:45 PM
Tom Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

How about just re-locating it to a better inclination. Since the Russians
are going to star launching Soyuz from South America, there isn't an
awesome reason to keep the ISS going that far north. I haven't bothered to
do the calculations, but to drop it 20deg? Could that be something where
we could attach an upper stage built for sending things to geosynchronous
orbit and that would do it, or is it more of a issue of doing that twenty
times? It would be really nice if it was at a lower inclination, then it
could be the first stepping stone for people on exploration missions. From
there they could transfer to a L1 or Lunar station.
Tom
  #4  
Old December 9th 04, 09:01 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Kent wrote:
How about just re-locating it to a better inclination. Since the Russians
are going to star launching Soyuz from South America, there isn't an
awesome reason to keep the ISS going that far north.


The Russians are going to start launching the Soyuz *booster* from
South America, not the Soyuz *spacecraft*. Despite sharing a name,
one is not the other.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #5  
Old December 9th 04, 11:37 PM
Dr John Stockton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

JRS: In article 2,
dated Thu, 9 Dec 2004 14:45:00, seen in news:sci.space.station, Tom Kent
posted :
How about just re-locating it to a better inclination. Since the Russians
are going to star launching Soyuz from South America, there isn't an
awesome reason to keep the ISS going that far north. I haven't bothered to
do the calculations, but to drop it 20deg? Could that be something where
we could attach an upper stage built for sending things to geosynchronous
orbit and that would do it, or is it more of a issue of doing that twenty
times?


To change inclination 60 degrees requires as big a velocity change as
the launch velocity; you call for a change of about a third of that.
Launching ISS took several US launches and several Russian ones.

However, for a launch you start with the fuel on the ground, where it is
cheap; for a plane change you start by taking the fuel up there.

Deliverable-to-orbit cargo mass is between one and a few percent of
launch mass.

Therefore, all that is needed is fuel launches (engines can arrive at no
extra cost) numbering a third of twice several times a hundred divided
by up to a few. That is a lot.

You should have bothered to do the approximate calculations.

--
© 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.
  #6  
Old December 11th 04, 06:26 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think you've got a perfectly good point, although there is a rather
nasty dip in the Van Allen zone of death that needs to be avoided like
the plaque. With the magnetosphere of mother Earth failing like no time
ever recorded, chances are that the Van Allen dip has become a rather
large no-fly zone.

Perhaps sending up a few relatively small SBRs offers the most reboost
bang for the almighty buck/euro, as well as achieving best percentage
of delivered energy per launch tonnage. Although, a few extra tonnes of
regular rocket fuel and if need be a spare engine or two is perhaps
their best option.

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

  #7  
Old December 11th 04, 07:03 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Another interesting point about pursuing the more southern orbit of
ISS.

The Van Allen 'South Atlantic Anomaly' isn't getting itself any
smaller. Supposedly this dips to nearly 155 miles (250 km) off the
deck, and in recent years this dip zone has grown measurably, of which
the likes of ISS can't afford the luxury of repeat encounters of such
radiation hits without their crew exceeding their individual career TBI
factor. Although, perhaps foods should stay a bit fresher and a good
number of germs shouldn't stand a chance, thus they might not have to
die while having a nasty cold or from the likes of food poisoning.

QUESTIONS:
How much of an orbit shift can be safely accommodated while avoiding
the "South Atlantic Anomaly"?

Before going to serve onboard ISS, are any of these ISS crew currently
banking their bone marrow?

I believe 1.25 Sv is about maximum dosage if you've got that stash of
banked bone marrow standing by, although that's not reassuring of all
body pars, including the eyes and brain that would become somewhat of
an unknown. Thus perhaps 0.5 Sv is a safe career red-line.

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

  #8  
Old December 11th 04, 07:26 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 3)

ISS at ME-L1 clearly represents no more of that nasty Van Allen zone
fallout, or having to swerve around or keep ducking below whatever's
sagging a bit with regard to the Van Allen 'South Atlantic Anomaly'
that isn't getting itself any smaller or less nasty. Supposedly this
zone of death dips to nearly 155 miles (250 km) off the deck, and
you're still hoping that the next round of nasty TBI worthy solar wind
isn't going to super-charge that already capable zone of death into an
even higher state of becoming even more lethal.

Perhaps if nothing else, team ISS should start charging medical
insurance companies big-time for their clients going to ISS, as for
obtaining their kemotheraphy, as even the secondary radiation of
hard-X-Rays arriving off the moon are most likely going to be similar
if not worse off than residing under the Van Allen belts, and certainly
the cosmic TBI dosage should be interesting next to those dust-bunny
impacts that'll be packing quite a nasty punch at 30+km/s.

Of course being fully exposed to as much as 1200 km/s worth solar flak
isn't going to be any walk in the park, although by adding a few tonnes
worth of that infamous clumping-moon-dirt (apparently retro-reflective
none the less) as could be easily and efficiently transported up to ISS
from the lunar surface via their deployed basalt/silica composite
tether shouldn't be ignored for whatever added worth there is of
accommodating extra density by way of shielding ISS with good old
basalt, of which that nifty 3+g/cm3 stuff can contribute to protecting
those individuals inside of ISS.

Remembering that if situated at ME-L1 there's no longer any ISS size
nor mass limitations, as well as there's not 1% the drag to deal with.

Of course, since there wouldn't hardly be any gravity whatsoever for
the ISS crew, this is where their extra shielded sleeping coffins/pods
would have to be spun at a sufficient rate as to induce an artificial
source of gravity, thus bone loss and mussel tone shouldn't be even as
bad off as what they're having to deal with right now. Of course, if
you get half a dozen of these coffins spinning and each a little off
balance could eventually shake a few nuts and bolts lose, thus pairs of
counter-rotating coffins as essentially floating within ISS might be
necessary as these sleep-units somewhat tethered though drifting about
within their respective ISS compartment.

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

  #9  
Old December 11th 04, 08:02 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 3)

ISS at ME-L1 clearly represents no more of that nasty Van Allen zone
fallout, or having to swerve around or keep ducking below whatever's
sagging a bit with regard to the Van Allen 'South Atlantic Anomaly'
that isn't getting itself any smaller or less nasty. Supposedly this
zone of death dips to nearly 155 miles (250 km) off the deck, and
you're still hoping that the next round of nasty TBI worthy solar wind
isn't going to super-charge that already capable zone of death into an
even higher state of becoming even more lethal.

Perhaps if nothing else, team ISS should start charging medical
insurance companies big-time for their clients going to ISS, as for
obtaining their kemotheraphy, as even the secondary radiation of
hard-X-Rays arriving off the moon are most likely going to be similar
if not worse off than residing under the Van Allen belts, and certainly
the cosmic TBI dosage should be interesting next to those dust-bunny
impacts that'll be packing quite a nasty punch at 30+km/s.

Of course being fully exposed to as much as 1200 km/s worth solar flak
isn't going to be any walk in the park, although by adding a few tonnes
worth of that infamous clumping-moon-dirt (apparently retro-reflective
none the less) as could be easily and efficiently transported up to ISS
from the lunar surface via their deployed basalt/silica composite
tether shouldn't be ignored for whatever added worth there is of
accommodating extra density by way of shielding ISS with good old
basalt, of which that nifty 3+g/cm3 stuff can contribute to protecting
those individuals inside of ISS.

Remembering that if situated at ME-L1 there's no longer any ISS size
nor mass limitations, as well as there's not 1% the drag to deal with.

Of course, since there wouldn't hardly be any gravity whatsoever for
the ISS crew, this is where their extra shielded sleeping coffins/pods
would have to be spun at a sufficient rate as to induce an artificial
source of gravity, thus bone loss and mussel tone shouldn't be even as
bad off as what they're having to deal with right now. Of course, if
you get half a dozen of these coffins spinning and each a little off
balance could eventually shake a few nuts and bolts lose, thus pairs of
counter-rotating coffins as essentially floating within ISS might be
necessary as these sleep-units somewhat tethered though drifting about
within their respective ISS compartment.

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

  #10  
Old December 11th 04, 08:19 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 (part 4)

What if everything was to be wrapped up tight, all somewhat duct-taped
after extra loads of industrial grade aluminum foil was applied for
covering up the PV cells and of anything other that's potentially
radiation sensitive.

Then strapping on a few SBRs after packing perhaps another 10+ tonnes
of regular unleaded rocket fuel onboard, plus loads of whatever other
essential supplies of beer and pizza. Thus with nearly 15 tonnes of
rocket fuel for accommodating the final navigation as ISS slides slowly
into the gravity-well/sweet-spot, say ideally arriving at one meter per
second, with the refitted ISS having loads of extra fuel and extra
provisions established as 275 tonnes (entirely remote controlled plus
AI/robotic as having no crew onboard), the questions are;

1) If planning upon arriving into the nullification zone of ME-L1 at 1
m/s, how long would that transition take from the time of accelerating
on behalf of exiting Earth by way of exceeding the escape velocity?

2) How much retro-thrust energy as to parking ISS should the remaining
velocity be down to 1 m/s?

Obviously an arrival at 10+m/s is more likely. However, the necessary
breaking thrust for something weighing in at 275 tonnes is going to eat
rocket fuel and burn up engines like there's no tomorrow. Of course, I
believe the +/- 2.55% variation of the ME-L1 zone and related tidal
force could certainly be utilized for accommodating most everything
that's arriving upon the initial outgoing tide if the remaining ISS
velocity is not much greater than 8 m/s.

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

 




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 12:47 PM.


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.