|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:09 PM |
Soyuz Relocation Preps Continue; Expedition 10 to Have Quiet Thanksgiving | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | November 25th 04 04:22 PM |