A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 25th 16, 05:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 3:34:08 AM UTC+12, Alain Fournier wrote:
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.


Correct.

That will get you
through the Van Allen belts at about the same speed as the Apollo
missions.


Correct.

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


Yes, absolutely.


Correct, that also is an option. However, if someone handed you the station for not very much money, you could design a propellant tank, a plumbing system, that would attach to the main truss and and a boost module, that would dock to the station to send it to Lunar Orbit - along with a half dozen BA330 modules.

Alain Fournier


  #12  
Old August 25th 16, 05:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:02:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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


http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-...ation-Contract

There are 15 international partners cited in this press release. I'm sure if you actually went looking for the contracts you'd find them.
  #13  
Old August 25th 16, 03:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:43:08 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

They're
responsible for it no matter what.


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


Even after they sell it. The United States government is responsible
for anything launched from US territory.


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.


NASA spends $2.3 billion a year on ISS support. I'd bet that SpaceX
could build their own station from scratch for less than that.



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.


Because you're not doing the same thing. You've added a bunch of
shifting bouncing mass by adding a bunch of people, which ****s up the
microgravity that you need to do the experiments.

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


Cite?


Newton's Laws.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #14  
Old August 25th 16, 03:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:02:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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?


http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-...ation-Contract

There are 15 international partners cited in this press release. I'm sure if you actually went looking for the contracts you'd find them.


In other words, you've got nothing to add and no cites for 'contracts'
(other than things like launch services to get their pieces up there).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #15  
Old August 25th 16, 04:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:52:17 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:43:08 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

They're
responsible for it no matter what.


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


Even after they sell it. The United States government is responsible
for anything launched from US territory.


As the Government is responsible for everything operated by a commercial carrier. You're absolutely clueless, and confused. The government is responsible for everything that happens inside their territory in the way you're talking.

You sound like you've read some of the OST but you haven't read the licensing agreement you must abide by to be a commercial space operator. Owning a thing makes you liable in ways that not owning it frees from you even though the government administers it in all cases. Sheesh.



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.


NASA spends $2.3 billion a year on ISS support. I'd bet that SpaceX
could build their own station from scratch for less than that.


NASA doesn't know what they spend. NASA reports $2 - $3 billion range depending on how you cut the numbers not $2.3 billion you cite GAO and other watchdogs say its more like $4 billion or $6 billion by the same measure 100% more.

I agree with you that SpaceX will build their own station from scratch for less than the operating costs of NASA one day. A figure about 1/20th the cost NASA spent.

I also believe that if SpaceX owned the station they could get maintenance and operating costs down to the $100 million level, again 1/20th the cost NASA spends - largely by integrating the launch and supply operations from Texas using fully reusable boosters burning $0.15 per kg propellants.

It would be an important move for them politically, and operationally to acquire the ISS and make it pay..

The most important detail is that there are 25,000 people worth over $486 million you could tap into to spend time on board the space station who would be willing to pay top dollar to go there at 1200 people per year and $40 million a pop, that's $48 billion per year - more than NASA begs from Congress each year. The profit from this is enough to fund development of Mars.

The ISS is a known quantity. Buying it (only because NASA is offering it) provides owning the implicit advertising of the past 20 years surrounding it. Its a big deal if it can be done.






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.


Because you're not doing the same thing.


You are obviously not familiar with the 'science' that goes on in the space station are you?

You've added a bunch of
shifting bouncing mass by adding a bunch of people,


They have that now. They also have thermal flexing and reboost. You are obviously not familiar with the microgravity environment of the space station TODAY.

which ****s up the
microgravity that you need to do the experiments.


Bull****. You have no idea of what experiment that could be done on ISS now and could not be done because they have professional cooks on board with twenty-four guests enjoying themselves in their rooms.

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


Cite?


Newton's Laws.


Nonsense. You have no citation. You are spouting bull**** from that ass of a mouth of yours. Do you even know what the biggest contributor to ISS vibration is? NO! You don't. DO you even know how that vibration source compares to crew generated vibration? NO! Do you have any idea what science experiment you're talking about? NO! You are making **** up and pretending its fact.

Here's a picture of the biggest user of power on the station;

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...rces/cycle.gif

There are two channels that generate 11 kW of power. Over half the power is needed to run the freaking life support system. Have you ever listened to a video from the ISS? Do you still have to guess what the biggest user of power is on board? The freaking compressors and fans in the temperature and humidity control unit. Stand next to a 10 KW compressor pump and tell me the cook in a kitchen, or a freaking party in an isolated inflatable ball room is going to be more troubling to your sensitive low gravity experiment which you can't name. Utter bull****.

Look at it this way.

The average human puts out about 80 Watts of power over the course of a day, peaking at about 200 Watts if they're really active and in good shape.

The freaking compressor running 24/7 on the shuttle that keeps the environment cool on the ISS runs at about 6.6 kW!!!

Now, divide 6600 by 33 - which is the expanded crew and guests. If they were jumping like madmen tearing all over the station - and if it were the same size and not larger, if new parts weren't isolated through the docking port suspension - they'd still put less power in the truss system and affect the station less than the freaking compressor in the temperature control unit keeping the station at a comfortable temperature in space.

Freaking moron.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

  #16  
Old August 25th 16, 04:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:02:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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?


http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-...ation-Contract

There are 15 international partners cited in this press release. I'm sure if you actually went looking for the contracts you'd find them.


In other words, you've got nothing to add and no cites for 'contracts'
(other than things like launch services to get their pieces up there).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn


In other words there are 15 international partners that have signed a contract with NASA on the station. Your previous comment suggested there weren't any. You freaking moron.
  #17  
Old August 26th 16, 01:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:52:17 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:43:08 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

They're
responsible for it no matter what.


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


Even after they sell it. The United States government is responsible
for anything launched from US territory.


As the Government is responsible for everything operated by a commercial carrier. You're absolutely clueless, and confused. The government is responsible for everything that happens inside their territory in the way you're talking.

You sound like you've read some of the OST but you haven't read the licensing agreement you must abide by to be a commercial space operator. Owning a thing makes you liable in ways that not owning it frees from you even though the government administers it in all cases. Sheesh.


Which part of Article VII has left you confused this badly?




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.


NASA spends $2.3 billion a year on ISS support. I'd bet that SpaceX
could build their own station from scratch for less than that.


NASA doesn't know what they spend. NASA reports $2 - $3 billion range depending on how you cut the numbers not $2.3 billion you cite GAO and other watchdogs say its more like $4 billion or $6 billion by the same measure 100% more.


You're disagreeing just to be disagreeable. You've done this several
times now, along with a number of "me too" verbose postings just to
listen to yourself talk. $2.3 billion seems to fit quite neatly into
your "$2 - $3 billion range". I "cut the numbers" based on what they
actually spend directly on ISS.


I agree with you that SpaceX will build their own station from scratch for less than the operating costs of NASA one day. A figure about 1/20th the cost NASA spent.

I also believe that if SpaceX owned the station they could get maintenance and operating costs down to the $100 million level, again 1/20th the cost NASA spends - largely by integrating the launch and supply operations from Texas using fully reusable boosters burning $0.15 per kg propellants.


You no doubt also believe in unicorns and magic pixie dust.


It would be an important move for them politically, and operationally to acquire the ISS and make it pay..


Hogwash.


The most important detail is that there are 25,000 people worth over $486 million you could tap into to spend time on board the space station who would be willing to pay top dollar to go there at 1200 people per year and $40 million a pop, that's $48 billion per year - more than NASA begs from Congress each year. The profit from this is enough to fund development of Mars.


Let's do the math there. You fantasize 1200 'tourists' a year to ISS.
In reality there probably aren't that many people TOTAL willing to pay
$40 million, but let's pretend. Dragon V2 can carry a maximum of 7
people. Let's assume you'd want at least one person on there who
wasn't a 'tourist', so that's six 'tourists' per launch. This leads
directly to 200 launches per year to get your 1200 'tourists' per year
up there. That's more than one every other day. Not gonna happen,
but again, let's pretend.

How long are these people staying? Surely more than a day or two,
given the price tag. So where do you put them? Maximum occupancy of
ISS is about 9 people for any length of time. You can jam 13 in
there, but if that lasts for more than a couple weeks you're going to
start to have problems with life support, waste management, etc.
Present tourist stays are on the order of 1.5 to 2 weeks. If we
assume they are having two week stays, that says that at any given
time there are around 46 of them on ISS (plus, presumably, the working
crew).

Given that number of people, you need around nine times as many
resupply flights to make up 'consumables'. Absolute minimum looks to
be about three launches per year to keep 3-6 people up there. Actual
launch schedule tends to be much more frequent than that; around 8-9
per year with a constant 6 people. Assuming you're not going to put
your 'tourists' under prison camp conditions, use the latter number
and figure you now need around 72 supply launches per year to support
the crew plus your 'tourists'. That's one around every 5 days. Where
do all those supplies get stored? Who humps them off the cargo craft
and into storage? Who gets them to where they're needed for use? If
you don't press your 'tourists' into working parties (hard to do when
you're charging them $40 million for the trip), you need a lot more
crew just to handle supplies. But again, let's pretend that's not a
problem.

How many docking ports do you have? There are currently 4 docks (all
Russian side and Russian vehicles only) plus 3 PMAs on the US side.
You can't 'dock' to a PMA. You have to be handled into place by the
station's arm. One of the PMAs was recently converted to a docking
adapter for Dragon V2, I think. You have to assume the four Russian
adapters are full almost all the time with either Soyuz or Progress
docked to them (the Progress cargo modules are kept around because
they're used for garbage disposal, being filled up and then reenter
and burn up, garbage and all). With over 50 people on ISS, you need
'lifeboat' space for all of them. That means you need eight Dragon V2
docking ports plus one more for 'musical capsules' and new arrivals.
Plus ports for cargo arrivals and unloading. Call it ten Dragon
docking ports plus at least three Russian ports. Where do all those
get put? But again, let's pretend...

How do you get rid of all the garbage? You don't burn the Dragons up
(even the cargo ones), so you need a lot more Progress 'trash trucks'
or, more likely, some new dedicated way to get rid of the garbage.

Electrical power, life support, ...

Starting to get a clue yet, Mr Mook?


The ISS is a known quantity. Buying it (only because NASA is offering it) provides owning the implicit advertising of the past 20 years surrounding it. Its a big deal if it can be done.


Utter hogwash. It is a hugely expensive white elephant.





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.


Because you're not doing the same thing.


You are obviously not familiar with the 'science' that goes on in the space station are you?


You're obviously not familiar with Newton's Laws, are you?


You've added a bunch of
shifting bouncing mass by adding a bunch of people,


They have that now. They also have thermal flexing and reboost. You are obviously not familiar with the microgravity environment of the space station TODAY.


And you don't think having 9x as many people, most of them tourists,
has any impact at all on that? More Mookie Magic Pixie Dust...


which ****s up the
microgravity that you need to do the experiments.


Bull****. You have no idea of what experiment that could be done on ISS now and could not be done because they have professional cooks on board with twenty-four guests enjoying themselves in their rooms.


There are no microgravity 'professional cooks', you idiot. Tourists
pay $40 million to just be locked in a cocoon? Yeah, right. And
you're apparently only giving your 'guests' a week for their $40
million.

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

Cite?


Newton's Laws.


Nonsense. You have no citation. You are spouting bull**** from that ass of a mouth of yours. Do you even know what the biggest contributor to ISS vibration is? NO! You don't. DO you even know how that vibration source compares to crew generated vibration? NO! Do you have any idea what science experiment you're talking about? NO! You are making **** up and pretending its fact.


Wow, Mookie thinks I've 'made up' Newton's Laws of motion.
Astonishing!


Here's a picture of the biggest user of power on the station;

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...rces/cycle.gif

There are two channels that generate 11 kW of power. Over half the power is needed to run the freaking life support system. Have you ever listened to a video from the ISS? Do you still have to guess what the biggest user of power is on board? The freaking compressors and fans in the temperature and humidity control unit. Stand next to a 10 KW compressor pump and tell me the cook in a kitchen, or a freaking party in an isolated inflatable ball room is going to be more troubling to your sensitive low gravity experiment which you can't name. Utter bull****.

Look at it this way.

The average human puts out about 80 Watts of power over the course of a day, peaking at about 200 Watts if they're really active and in good shape.

The freaking compressor running 24/7 on the shuttle that keeps the environment cool on the ISS runs at about 6.6 kW!!!

Now, divide 6600 by 33 - which is the expanded crew and guests. If they were jumping like madmen tearing all over the station - and if it were the same size and not larger, if new parts weren't isolated through the docking port suspension - they'd still put less power in the truss system and affect the station less than the freaking compressor in the temperature control unit keeping the station at a comfortable temperature in space.

Freaking moron.


No need to sign your comments. We know what you are.

So Mookie is comparing apples and aardvarks again (and apparently
believes that tourists don't require life support, either).

Mook, you idiot.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #18  
Old August 26th 16, 01:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:54:50 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 4:02:20 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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?


http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-...ation-Contract

There are 15 international partners cited in this press release. I'm sure if you actually went looking for the contracts you'd find them.


In other words, you've got nothing to add and no cites for 'contracts'
(other than things like launch services to get their pieces up there).


In other words there are 15 international partners that have signed a
contract with NASA on the station. Your previous comment suggested
there weren't any. You freaking moron.


Nope. Those contracts are 'dead'. Again, you've got nothing to add
and no cites for 'contracts' that can 'run out'. I know you can't
read for context, but could you at least get someone to help you, you
****ing lunatic?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #19  
Old August 26th 16, 02:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

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.


You can't even get the quote right. But regardless, I'm pointing out that
your statements make no sense.



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...


No, but they don't want it. Buying something you don't want and don't need
and that will potentially bankrupt you makes no sense.
Musk has made some mistakes, but few and most aren't obvious ones.


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.


No. They're responsible for it. End of story. Now, they can require an
potential buyer to have a deorbit plan (which will simply drive up the cost)
but at the end of the day, they're still responsible for it in the end.




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.


Huh? I'm not sure I can make sense of that word salad.



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.


it's NOT doing the same thing in the future. You want to turn it into a
tourist station.


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


Cite?


Reality. As Fred said, Newton's laws. For one thing as you have your
guests bouncing off the walls, it's going to transmit vibrations.
And of course dockings and berthings will be a huge issue.

In addition, the by adding more mass, you change the "sweet-spot" for
micro-gravity, and in fact may end up moving it outside of the science
modules.


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.


Symmetrical around S0? Where exactly. There aren't 6 docking ports and a BA
330 has a fairly large diameter, which means your truss in the way.



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?


I really don't think tourists care to see my house.


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.


And again, why would SpaceX want to do this? You're completely imagining
things now. SpaceX has made it fairly clear they want vertical integration
with as little dependence on others a possible.

So if they build a space station they're going to want it in a orbital
that's compatible with their existing launch sites where they can launch the
most mass at the lowest cost. There's no real advantage to them to launch to
a higher than required latitude.


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


Yes, and I'm going to see plenty from pretty much any orbit SpaceX launches
to.


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


Yes exactly, and what's the highest latitude of any of those?

And Vandenberg does them no good to get to ISS.
And they have yet to launch from South Texas.


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!


So why launch to anything lower for a space station. Launch to 26 degrees,
or if you want, 28 so you can match LC-39.

Again, there's no benefit for SpaceX if they're building their own space
station to go to a higher inclination.

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.


Umm, no, you lose the benefit of the Earth's rotation. And again, you're the
one fixated on an Equatorial orbit for a space station. I have no idea why.


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


Again, your understanding of astrodynamics is fundamentally flawed.


Umm, Yes.


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.

Wow.. magical powder, Your Soyuz TMA can now provide thrust for 55 hours.
I'm impressed.


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.


The Apollo electronics were designed with the Van Allen belt in mind. The
ISS were designed to stay below it with the occasional issue in the SAA.
And today's electronics are more sensitive to various radiation issues
because of their shrinking sizes. As for the lunar lander, I'm pretty sure
it was basically powered down during the trip through the belts, so that's
pretty irreveent.



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.


And with 18 launches of Falcon Heavy I can simply fly a brand new station to
the Moon. Why you continue to do things the hard way is beyond me.


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


Again, word salad that makes no sense.


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


More word salad.

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.


No, actually I love meeting people who really know things. I don't care for
people who claim to be smart that overcomplicate things and think that
simply because they can do math that they're brilliant. You remind me of the
person that mathematically "proved" to me that I couldn't see any of Long
Island from the CT shore, despite myself and numerous people having done so.
I never really bothered to point out to him his mistake since I really
didn't care. But he was quite happy that he had "proven" to me that I had
never seen anything on Long Island.

You're much like that. Just because you can add and multiply numbers doesn't
mean your math reflects reality.
For example, your business models are mathematically correct, but have no
basis in reality. You're not going to be launching 1200 space tourists a
year at $40M/pop.


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

  #20  
Old August 26th 16, 03:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Soon to be less borscht at the ISS?

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 12:22:49 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 2:52:17 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:43:08 AM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

They're
responsible for it no matter what.


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


Even after they sell it. The United States government is responsible
for anything launched from US territory.


As the Government is responsible for everything operated by a commercial carrier. You're absolutely clueless, and confused. The government is responsible for everything that happens inside their territory in the way you're talking.

You sound like you've read some of the OST but you haven't read the licensing agreement you must abide by to be a commercial space operator. Owning a thing makes you liable in ways that not owning it frees from you even though the government administers it in all cases. Sheesh.


Which part of Article VII has left you confused this badly?


I'm not confused you are since you think it refers to the responsibilities of ownership rather than responsibility to regulate.




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.


NASA spends $2.3 billion a year on ISS support. I'd bet that SpaceX
could build their own station from scratch for less than that.


NASA doesn't know what they spend. NASA reports $2 - $3 billion range depending on how you cut the numbers not $2.3 billion you cite GAO and other watchdogs say its more like $4 billion or $6 billion by the same measure 100% more.


You're disagreeing just to be disagreeable.


Since I agreed with your notion that SpaceX could build a station for 1/20th the cost NASA did, this statement is false. I'm AGREEING with you. Obviously, You're projecting again.

You've done this several
times now, along with a number of "me too" verbose postings just to
listen to yourself talk.


Bull****.

$2.3 billion seems to fit quite neatly into
your "$2 - $3 billion range". I "cut the numbers" based on what they
actually spend directly on ISS.


NASA doesn't know what they actually spend that's the point of the GAO report. One thing is for certain. You don't know the numbers either.

This inability to fix a budget and stick to it is a principal reason Congress doesn't trust NASA figures. Its very likely one reason NASA has ISS up for sale.


I agree with you that SpaceX will build their own station from scratch for less than the operating costs of NASA one day. A figure about 1/20th the cost NASA spent.

I also believe that if SpaceX owned the station they could get maintenance and operating costs down to the $100 million level, again 1/20th the cost NASA spends - largely by integrating the launch and supply operations from Texas using fully reusable boosters burning $0.15 per kg propellants.


You no doubt also believe in unicorns and magic pixie dust.


Nonsense. I'm agreeing with you that SpaceX could likely build a space station for 1/20th the price NASA did. Clearly SpaceX could operate a station at 1/20th the cost too.

What makes you think SpaceX couldn't review the cost centres of the ISS today and similarly reduce costs there as well? Plainly given the reductions in cost their process and product improvements in space launch have demonstrated, SpaceX could cut operating costs on the ISS too and if they decide to buy the ISS, they WILL. You are just being disagreeable to be disagreeable as you said.


It would be an important move for them politically, and operationally to acquire the ISS and make it pay..


Hogwash.


Look at their backlog of launch bookings over time, and their launch site acquisition timing. Acquiring these landmark assets,

Cape Canaveral Complex 40
Vandenberg Complex 4 East
Kennedy Space Center Complex 39 A

Were all acquired in addition to;

SpaceX South Texas Launch Site

http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities

This is part of their marketing programme! It is well thought out and pays huge dividends.

They buy premiere space properties, and improve them, and THEN build their own...

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/te...-one/89230076/

The propensity for SpaceX to do this, and to leverage these highprofile properties to build their backlog of orders, is well known to NASA at this juncture. It is very likely the reason NASA is offering a trial balloon for the ISS NOW. There is no real reason for SpaceX not to seriously consider the offer, and how to make use of it to build its business of growing commercial space tourism.

Its a proven market, and has been done already - all that's required is for Musk to use the skill sets organised at SpaceX to reduce costs and improve revenues to make them outrageously profitable.

https://www.rt.com/news/160852-space-trip-costs-soyuz/

http://www.space.com/11492-space-tou...nnis-tito.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/russi...e-tourism-2018

As SpaceX does that, it would be very similar to the other things Musk does in this arena. He would add to it and innovate it in low-cost low-risk ways that are highly profitable and game changing.



The most important detail is that there are 25,000 people worth over $486 million you could tap into to spend time on board the space station who would be willing to pay top dollar to go there at 1200 people per year and $40 million a pop, that's $48 billion per year - more than NASA begs from Congress each year. The profit from this is enough to fund development of Mars.


Let's do the math there.



You fantasize 1200 'tourists' a year to ISS.
In reality there probably aren't that many people TOTAL willing to pay
$40 million, but let's pretend.


Let's do something you are wont to do - let's look at the numbers;

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/...uals-uhnwi.asp

To quote:

As of 2015, the UHNWI population has 172,850 people among its ranks, a number 61% higher than 10 years earlier, and 1,844 of these individuals have over $1 billion, an 82% increase over the number of billionaires in the previous decade. Together, these individuals hold $20.8 trillion. Although they constitute only 0.003% of the world’s population, they hold 13% of the world's total wealth.

The numbers;

Knowing this is the top 0.003% we can use the distribution of income over everyone to estimate the numbers between these two figures, using our knowledge of the Gauss curve. Its easy to see that 25,000 people have a net worth in excess of $489 million.

Market Penetration;

Now the handful of millionaires who have already taken the trouble to meet Russia's strict protocols, have spent far more than 8% of their wealth on these once in a life-time trips. More would spend less percentage if certain barriers to entry were taken away.

A 5% market penetration each year in any well defined population, for a period of 12 or 15 years (60% to 80% total penetration) - is easily achieved in any well concieved marketing campaign.

5% of 25,000 persons is 1,250 persons per year. Divide by 52 weeks in a year, with a one week residency on the station, that's 1248 persons per year.. At $40 million per person - that's $49.92 billion per year. That's 2.7x NASA's budget and larger than ALL space budgets in the world today. We're asking people worth $489 million to spend 8% of their wealth in a well designed well crafted programme with equipment designed and promoted in ways that appeal to this target audience - and are expecting 5% of the target audience to buy in each year, over 12 to 15 year period.

These numbers are quite reasonable - and compelling.

Dragon V2 can carry a maximum of 7
people.


6 passengers and 1 crew in my commentary. Yes.

Let's assume you'd want at least one person on there who
wasn't a 'tourist', so that's six 'tourists' per launch.


Correct.

This leads
directly to 200 launches per year to get your 1200 'tourists' per year


Correct. You need four launches per week to sustain the $49.92 billion revenue stream.

up there. That's more than one every other day.



Not gonna happen,
but again, let's pretend.


Let's see what Elon Musk, SpaceX founder, CEO, has to say;

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/02/...k-interview-2/

He would like to see DAILY space launch - as a means to cut price.


How long are these people staying? Surely more than a day or two,


A week as I mentioned.

given the price tag.


Yes, they will spend a week.

So where do you put them?


You put twenty four guests on six BA-330 modules docked to the station. You have two spare BA-330 modules - one as a restaurant another as a gymnasium - as I mentioned.

Maximum occupancy of
ISS is about 9 people for any length of time.


Correct. This would remain largely unaffected and be the place for crew members. The cook staff would live in the kitchen module. The activity staff would live in the gym module. Pilots, station crew and researchers, live in the ISS historic section.

You can jam 13 in
there,


There's a total of 33
- 7 in the historical section - 4 pilots, 3 station crew (which include researchers)
24 in four B330 modules docked to the ISS.
1 professional chef - in one B330 module docked to the ISS configured as a 5 star restaurant
1 medical person - in one B330 module docked to the restaurant as an activity and medical centre.

The pilots and crew are hired as needed by the chef and doctor

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/...bitat-mock-up/


but if that lasts for more than a couple weeks you're going to
start to have problems with life support, waste management, etc.


Each B330 module is equipped as the Shuttle was, with the ability to supply and be supplied power - and each has its own life support and solar power capacity and even navigational capacity independent of the station - capable of supporting eight people - however in these three configurations they are configured as three suites - each - 12 suites altogether - double occupancy - and the medical and restaurant sections support only one each with an office and medical suite in combination with a large activity room - and an office and kitchen and supply room - with a dining facility.

Present tourist stays are on the order of 1.5 to 2 weeks. If we
assume they are having two week stays, that says that at any given
time there are around 46 of them on ISS (plus, presumably, the working
crew).


Guests and their crew stay only one week and leave.

Given that number of people, you need around nine times as many
resupply flights to make up 'consumables'.


Consumables are launched with each tourist capsule. That way tourists pick their menu over the coming week.

Absolute minimum looks to
be about three launches per year to keep 3-6 people up there.


Four launches per week to keep 24 guests up there and four crew members - one for each of the B330 module.

Actual
launch schedule tends to be much more frequent than that; around 8-9
per year with a constant 6 people.


Details count. Details you apparently know nothing about.

Look at the capacity of the Dragon Capsule. It supports 7 people for two weeks all by itself. So there is no reason to believe that 7 people wouldn't be launched to orbit ALONG WITH ALL THE SUPPLIES THEY NEED FOR A WEEK - in a Dragon capsule. This means that 4 launches per week support 24 tourists aboard 4 B330 modules attached to the station. The Dragon capsule attaches to one end of the B330 and the B330 attaches the ISS at the other end. A new group of tourists arrive as the old group leave.

Assuming you're not going to put
your 'tourists' under prison camp conditions,


Look at the Dennis Tito interview. He loved it, despite harsh conditions.

use the latter number
and figure you now need around 72 supply launches per year to support
the crew plus your 'tourists'.


Why would SpaceX use outmoded and outdated supply techniques? It makes no sense! The Dragon capsule is perfectly capable of launching 7 people and all the supplies and toys they need for 7 days, and then taking them away as the next dragon capsule comes up. These dock directly with a B330 module which is itself docked to the ISS. You are making up things that have no bearing on reality.

That's one around every 5 days. Where
do all those supplies get stored?


Each B330 module has two ports - they are attached to the ISS at one end and a Dragon capsule attaches to the other.. The supplies are stored aboard the capsule and transferred to the B330 as needed.

Who humps them off the cargo craft


The crew

and into storage?


Obviously, you know about as much about logistics as anything else. You only touch it when you need it and move it once.

Who gets them to where they're needed for use?


The capsule crew handles the movement of their tourists. The doc handles the movement of medical and activity gear. The chef handles the movement of food. The station crew handles station supplies.

If
you don't press your 'tourists' into working parties (hard to do when
you're charging them $40 million for the trip),


Clearly you haven't read Dennis Tito's interview, and have no idea what people who pay for this experience want or don't want. You only imagine what an ass you'd be if you had power or money. Which is not a good guide.

you need a lot more
crew just to handle supplies.


If you were managing the logistics, sure. If you had a good plan from the beginning, as SpaceX does with their Dragon capsule, not so much.

But again, let's pretend that's not a
problem.


The only thing we're pretending is that you actually understand what you're talking about - moron.

How many docking ports do you have? There are currently 4 docks (all
Russian side and Russian vehicles only) plus 3 PMAs on the US side.


If Musk purchased ISS obviously the 15 other international partners would have to be brought into the negotiations. However on 14 Feb 2011 six vehicles were docked at the ISS.

The Russian side has 4 docking ports. and occupied by 3 Soyuz and 1 Progress freighter and an ESA ATV vehicle. The US side has three PMAs (Pressurized Mating Adapters). One connects the US and Russian segment together and is permanently occupied. One is on the far end of the Harmony node where the shuttle used it to dock. STS-133 and HTV-2 were docked.

The PMAs adapt a CBM (Common Berthing Module) port, to an APAS port that the shuttle can use. The current crop of cargo vessels, using the US side (HTV, Cygnus, Dragon, thus excluding the ESA's ATV), use a CBM since the 'door' is wider and they are berthed by the Canadarm2.

The planned CCiCAP/Commercial crew vehicles all plan to use the PMA (after SpaceX delivered an adapter on a Dragon flight in 2014) for docking.

The four B330 tourist modules use the two PMA converted to CBM ports on the tourist side and the two B330 activity modules (restaurant and gym) use one Russian port where the ATV now docks. Since Each B330 has two ports, they are linked together in pair, and present a docking port in the last module in the pair - so all ports may continue to be used. The tourist Dragons are attached to the two B330 ports available from the two ports on the US side. The in that mode.

Now, if Axiom Space and others have their way, an extended adapter may be attached to any one of the US modules, to provide a one to many capability in each of these ports.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-id...-docking-port/

You can't 'dock' to a PMA.


Which is why the CBM was developed duh!

You have to be handled into place by the
station's arm. One of the PMAs was recently converted to a docking
adapter for Dragon V2, I think.


Two years ago yes.

You have to assume the four Russian
adapters are full almost all the time


If you put an Axiom Space adapter, you can multiply ports. If you put a B330 with two ports on one port, you have the other port available.

Cleaerly you have no idea how these things work.

with either Soyuz or Progress
docked to them (the Progress cargo modules are kept around because
they're used for garbage disposal,


and storage containers - since the people who design the work loads actually understand the logistics of only touching a thing once when you need it.

being filled up and then reenter
and burn up, garbage and all).


Dragon will haul supplies and tourists up, and garbage and tourists down. Nothing is trashed in this way.

With over 50 people on ISS,


33 on ISS *plus* SIX B330 modules.

you need
'lifeboat' space for all of them.


The ship they arrive on is docked to their habitat until they leave.

That means you need eight Dragon V2


No, you need four Dragon capsules for the 24 tourists and 4 crew. You need one dragon capsule for the five station crew members - this is five of six available port - assuming no twinning of port with a many to one adapter.

docking ports plus one more for 'musical capsules' and new arrivals.


Again your lack of understanding of logistics is apparent. All hotel rooms have check out times and check in times. It is the same here. The switch over is well defined and unremarkable.

Plus ports for cargo arrivals and unloading.


Tourists and crews arrive once every 42 hours - they stay a week and leave three hours before the next tourist and crews arrive. An Axiom Space Module or something similar is docked to the end of a pair of B330 - so each capsule stays docked to the B330 module it is attached to with supplies inside..

Call it ten Dragon
docking ports plus at least three Russian ports. Where do all those
get put? But again, let's pretend...


Youre the only one pretending -

How do you get rid of all the garbage?


You've never camped in a national park have you? Whatever you pack in you pack out. Same here. You bring your supplies, you take away your waste.. Period.

You don't burn the Dragons up
(even the cargo ones), so you need a lot more Progress 'trash trucks'


Absolute nonsense. You are so full of crap its hard to understand how you live with yourself.

or, more likely, some new dedicated way to get rid of the garbage.


Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Dragon is advertises to support 7 people for 14 days on its own, with no ejection of garbage. Clearly it is easily equipped to carry 7 people (1 crew and 6 tourists) for 7 day stay in a B330 module to which it docks. The B330 itself is docked either to another B330 or the ISS directly through one of the ports. Another adapter at the space end of the B330 provides a 3 to 1 multiplier for the two Dragon capsules, and a spare port - so NONE OF THE PORTS ARE LOST. The supplies and power flow into the B330 from the Dragon service module solar panels - and are controlled through a common network control - the same one that allowed the space shuttle to control the station from the command deck of the shuttle. Supplies for each group are withdrawn from the capsule, and made available where appropriate. Water and air are automatically transferred. Food items are hauled by the chef which also has attached special preparation instructions. Other items are handled by the doctor or capsule chief.

One capsule arrives every 42 hours - which is easy duty. Garbage items - are crushed and packaged and put back into the capsule's empty storage closet. Human waste is recycled into oxygen, fresh water, and any remaining residual is vacuum dried, vacuum bagged and put back into the appropriate capsule for disposal on Earth.


Electrical power, life support, ...


All adequate to the needs of the crew aboard each Dragon, all avaiable at all times during the stay of the tourists and crew at the associated B330.


Starting to get a clue yet, Mr Mook?


A big one - which is - you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


The ISS is a known quantity. Buying it (only because NASA is offering it) provides owning the implicit advertising of the past 20 years surrounding it. Its a big deal if it can be done.


Utter hogwash. It is a hugely expensive white elephant.


There used to a joke told in the old Soviet Union. Obviously you've never heard it. It goes like this;

Did you hear?
What?
USSR just invaded the Sahara Desert!
Really, what did they find?
A shorage of sand!

Fact is, ISS *is* a white elephant under NASA adminstration. This has little to do with what someone like Musk can do with it. Which is something you don't understand. You accept that SpaceX can build a space station for 1/20th the cost of NASA's hundred billion dollar budget for the ISS. There is no reason to believe that SpaceX couldn't take ISS as is, and operate it for 1/20th the cost it now costs NASA - and generate revenue from the top 25,000 people on Earth that is 3x the budget of NASA today, and use that money and experience and fame, to carry on with the colonisation of Mars well before NASA would ever take us there to visit.





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.


Because you're not doing the same thing.


You are obviously not familiar with the 'science' that goes on in the space station are you?


You're obviously not familiar with Newton's Laws, are you?


Very. They have real application in astrodynamics and mechanical engineering. Obviously you never got beyond the three laws to these more nuanced understandings.


You've added a bunch of
shifting bouncing mass by adding a bunch of people,


They have that now. They also have thermal flexing and reboost. You are obviously not familiar with the microgravity environment of the space station TODAY.


And you don't think having 9x as many people, most of them tourists,


33 people spread across six added B330 modules do nothing to degrade the quality of 'micro-gee science' as presently practiced aboard the ISS.

has any impact at all on that? More Mookie Magic Pixie Dust...


There you go again making **** up. You haven't even described one experiement and how its perfectly okay in the present ISS environment with big ass compressors keeping the air cool - running noisily at 6.6 kW - but not okay with someone quietly enjoying a meal in an inflatable restaurant at the opposite end of the station.


which ****s up the
microgravity that you need to do the experiments.


Bull****. You have no idea of what experiment that could be done on ISS now and could not be done because they have professional cooks on board with twenty-four guests enjoying themselves in their rooms.


There are no microgravity 'professional cooks', you idiot.


There will be moron. You don't think some very high profile cooks wouldn't jump at the chance to develop historic dishes that they could promote in their restaurants on Earth? Sheez.

Tourists
pay $40 million to just be locked in a cocoon? Yeah, right.


Obviously you didn't read Dennis Tito's interview did you?

And
you're apparently only giving your 'guests' a week for their $40
million.


You have no idea what you're talking about. Millionaires spend $200,000 to jump off cliffs without parachutes, or millions to jump out of tin cans at 100,000 feet - for the thrill. There's plenty that can be done in low Earth orbit.

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

Cite?


Newton's Laws.


Nonsense. You have no citation. You are spouting bull**** from that ass of a mouth of yours. Do you even know what the biggest contributor to ISS vibration is? NO! You don't. DO you even know how that vibration source compares to crew generated vibration? NO! Do you have any idea what science experiment you're talking about? NO! You are making **** up and pretending its fact.


Wow, Mookie thinks I've 'made up' Newton's Laws of motion.
Astonishing!


No, you apparently cannot read, and you obviously have no idea what the vibration environment is in ISS and what it must be to do microgravity science and what it would be with 33 persons on board instead of 7.

In short, you're making **** up and pretending it has real meaning. Which is typical for you your fraud.



Here's a picture of the biggest user of power on the station;

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...rces/cycle.gif

There are two channels that generate 11 kW of power. Over half the power is needed to run the freaking life support system. Have you ever listened to a video from the ISS? Do you still have to guess what the biggest user of power is on board? The freaking compressors and fans in the temperature and humidity control unit. Stand next to a 10 KW compressor pump and tell me the cook in a kitchen, or a freaking party in an isolated inflatable ball room is going to be more troubling to your sensitive low gravity experiment which you can't name. Utter bull****.

Look at it this way.

The average human puts out about 80 Watts of power over the course of a day, peaking at about 200 Watts if they're really active and in good shape.

The freaking compressor running 24/7 on the shuttle that keeps the environment cool on the ISS runs at about 6.6 kW!!!

Now, divide 6600 by 33 - which is the expanded crew and guests. If they were jumping like madmen tearing all over the station - and if it were the same size and not larger, if new parts weren't isolated through the docking port suspension - they'd still put less power in the truss system and affect the station less than the freaking compressor in the temperature control unit keeping the station at a comfortable temperature in space.

Freaking moron.


No need to sign your comments. We know what you are.


Give me a citation to a micro-gravity experiment that is done successfully on ISS today that would not be done when configured as I've described. You can't because you're blowing smoke out of that ass you call a mouth.

So Mookie is comparing apples and aardvarks again


No.

(and apparently
believes that tourists don't require life support, either).


Nonsense. I've detailed precisely how 33 people are maintained.


Mook, you idiot.


You are the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. I do.



--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine


You obviously didn't read the Boeing link I provided. So, what you say makes no sense in the context of actual data.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 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.