Search for snoopy

On Sep 28, 9:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...



some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likely the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. *The benefit would be
infinitesimal. *It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

get it above geo sync and it will be available indefinetely.

at some point space tourism will take off, it would be nice if they
have something to go visit

On Sep 28, 3:15*pm, bob haller frakking
moroned:
On Sep 28, 9:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likely the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. *The benefit would be
infinitesimal. *It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

get it above geo sync and it will be available indefinetely.

How much fuel and thrust will be needed, AND what will the
effects on the ISS structure be, during that thrust ?

SHOW YOUR WORK, as it is YOUR CLAIM.

at some point space tourism will take off, it would be nice if they
have something to go visit

Your meds have failed.

Andre

On Sep 28, 10:27*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:
On Sep 28, 3:15*pm, bob haller frakking
moroned:





On Sep 28, 9:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likely the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. *The benefit would be
infinitesimal. *It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

get it above geo sync and it will be available indefinetely.

How much fuel and thrust will be needed, AND what will the
effects on the ISS structure be, during that thrust ?

SHOW YOUR WORK, as it is YOUR CLAIM.

at some point space tourism will take off, it would be nice if they
have something to go visit

Your meds have failed.

Andre- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

low thrust over many years should do the job....

space tourism is coming, its just a matter of time

In article 6fb4a2c9-cb53-4bb5-8db0-
, says...

On Sep 28, 9:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...



some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likely the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. *The benefit would be
infinitesimal. *It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

get it above geo sync and it will be available indefinetely.

But getting it there would be absolutely hideously expensive. The US
can't afford anymore stupidity like this.

at some point space tourism will take off, it would be nice if they
have something to go visit

The US Government isn't going to pay billions now for a "future" tourist
destination.

You sound like some drunk who thinks he's hit upon an idea that's pure
genius. Fortunately for the drunk, he'll eventually sober up and
realize that the idea is just stupid. Unfortunately for the rest of the
readers of the sci.space groups, I don't think you're ever going to
think rationally enough to realize just down stupid this idea of
"preserving ISS" really is.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article 8203b4bc-3b11-45c6-aaaf-
, says...

low thrust over many years should do the job....

No, it won't. You've been told *REPEATEDLY* that the radiation in the
van-allen belts will fry the solar arrays and the electronics of both
ISS and whatever is powering and controlling the "low thrust engine".
THIS APPROACH WILL NOT WORK!

You've got to use conventional propellants and engines to get this done.
This either means using storable liquid propellants or solids. I'd
suggest solids for this, since there were "off the shelf" solid upper
stages for GEO birds launched on the shuttle. We'll ignore whether or
not they're still in production and just assume you can order them for
what they cost in the 1980's and 1990's. We'll also ignore the problem
of how to attach them to ISS and how to control them all. We'll just
assume that the existing upper stage design will work for this job.

Now, you need to DO THE FRACKING MATH to determine how many you'd need
to get the job done. That math is super simple and would give you an
idea of just how expensive this would be. Start with the cost of the
solid stages and add in the cost of getting those solid stages into
orbit. Use the cheapest launch provider you can (Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy). You'll quickly find out how hideously expensive this would be
even without solving the problem of getting the stages to ISS, attaching
them all, controlling them all, and etc.

But I bet you won't even attempt to do the math since you're too lazy or
stupid to do so. Aerospace engineering isn't something you can do by
hand waving. You have to DO THE FRACKING MATH, even for initial napkin
drawings like Mook likes to play with.

THIS IS YOUR STUPID IDEA, SO DO THE FRACKING MATH!

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Sep 29, 6:23*am, bob haller bullshat:
On Sep 28, 10:27*pm, Andre Lieven wrote:

On Sep 28, 3:15*pm, bob haller frakking
moroned:

On Sep 28, 9:10*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likely the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. *The benefit would be
infinitesimal. *It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

get it above geo sync and it will be available indefinetely.

How much fuel and thrust will be needed, AND what will the
effects on the ISS structure be, during that thrust ?

SHOW YOUR WORK, as it is YOUR CLAIM.

at some point space tourism will take off, it would be nice if they
have something to go visit

Your meds have failed.

Andre

low thrust over many years should do the job....

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed
without evidence.-

space tourism is coming, its just a matter of time

Ibid. You and your insanity are dismissed.

Andre

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:10:01, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likeky the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. The benefit would be
infinitesimal. It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

ISS's US solar panels give a little more than 30kW, and the Russian
panels also give some. Of that, 50+-50% is not needed if experiments
are turned off and crew depart. Assume that a little under the middle
figure, 15kW, becomes spare on average.

If VASIMR works, it should be possible to install a 15kW VASIMR on ISS.
How would the thrust of such an engine compare with the atmospheric drag
on ISS, I have estimated that drag as 0.133 N from the rare of drop of
altitude, but ICBW.

OTOH, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasimr more-or-less answers the
question, favourably.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

In article id,
says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:10:01, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likeky the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. The benefit would be
infinitesimal. It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

ISS's US solar panels give a little more than 30kW, and the Russian
panels also give some. Of that, 50+-50% is not needed if experiments
are turned off and crew depart. Assume that a little under the middle
figure, 15kW, becomes spare on average.

If VASIMR works, it should be possible to install a 15kW VASIMR on ISS.
How would the thrust of such an engine compare with the atmospheric drag
on ISS, I have estimated that drag as 0.133 N from the rare of drop of
altitude, but ICBW.

OTOH, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasimr more-or-less answers the
question, favourably.

From the Wikipedia article:

The first VASIMR engine model VX-50 proved to be capable of
0.5 newtons (0.1 lbf) thrust.[citation needed] Published data
on the VX-50 engine, capable of processing 50 kW of total
radio frequency power, showed thruster efficiency to be 59%
calculated as: 90% NA coupling efficiency × 65% NB ion speed
boosting efficiency. It was hoped that the overall efficiency
of the engine could be increased by scaling up power levels.
[citation needed]

That is enough thrust to raise the orbit of ISS if you assume the vast
majority of ISS's solar array output is fed to the VASMIR engine.

But this WILL NOT WORK for the purpose of moving ISS to an orbit above
GEO, which is what Bob is advocating. The relatively low power
available from the ISS solar panels means a very low thrust VASMIR
engine is all you could realistically install. This would mean a very
slow traversal of the van-Allen radiation belts, which would fry the
ISS's solar panels. Reducing power means less VASMIR thrust, which
means an even longer traversal which means more radiation damage which
means less power...

In other words, the reduced power from the solar panels means the VASMIR
engine eventually quits working and all of the electronics on ISS fry
since it's now stuck in the van-Allen radiation belt. I don't think
high radiation is going to be a selling point for a commercial tourist
wanting to visit ISS.


The *only* way VASMIR could work for this task would be using a big
honking nuclear reactor to produce orders of magnitude more electricity
than the ISS solar arrays produce. And it means using several big
VASMIR engines in order to traverse the van-Allen belts quick enough
that ISS's solar panels and electronics don't fry.

This is obviously going to be far too expensive to be practical. Yes
you could do it in theory, but it would cost tens of billions of dollars
to develop the reactor and the big VASMIR engines.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

Jeff Findley ) writes:
In article id,
says...

In sci.space.history message -
september.org, Wed, 28 Sep 2011 09:10:01, Jeff Findley
posted:

In article d392c631-e05d-45ca-b238-f4c134eec084
, says...

some things should remain for historic purposes.......

But ISS isn't one of those things, given that your plan would probably
cost more than building it in the first place.

the first multinational long term operational space station, and
likeky the last is not historic?

The cost of preserving ISS would be quite high. The benefit would be
infinitesimal. It's not like you're going to be able to open it up for
tourists who would pay for the continued preservation through an
admission fee or donations.

ISS's US solar panels give a little more than 30kW, and the Russian
panels also give some. Of that, 50+-50% is not needed if experiments
are turned off and crew depart. Assume that a little under the middle
figure, 15kW, becomes spare on average.

If VASIMR works, it should be possible to install a 15kW VASIMR on ISS.
How would the thrust of such an engine compare with the atmospheric drag
on ISS, I have estimated that drag as 0.133 N from the rare of drop of
altitude, but ICBW.

OTOH, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasimr more-or-less answers the
question, favourably.

From the Wikipedia article:

The first VASIMR engine model VX-50 proved to be capable of
0.5 newtons (0.1 lbf) thrust.[citation needed] Published data
on the VX-50 engine, capable of processing 50 kW of total
radio frequency power, showed thruster efficiency to be 59%
calculated as: 90% NA coupling efficiency × 65% NB ion speed
boosting efficiency. It was hoped that the overall efficiency
of the engine could be increased by scaling up power levels.
[citation needed]

That is enough thrust to raise the orbit of ISS if you assume the vast
majority of ISS's solar array output is fed to the VASMIR engine.

But this WILL NOT WORK for the purpose of moving ISS to an orbit above
GEO, which is what Bob is advocating. The relatively low power
available from the ISS solar panels means a very low thrust VASMIR
engine is all you could realistically install. This would mean a very
slow traversal of the van-Allen radiation belts, which would fry the
ISS's solar panels. Reducing power means less VASMIR thrust, which
means an even longer traversal which means more radiation damage which
means less power...

In other words, the reduced power from the solar panels means the VASMIR
engine eventually quits working and all of the electronics on ISS fry
since it's now stuck in the van-Allen radiation belt. I don't think
high radiation is going to be a selling point for a commercial tourist
wanting to visit ISS.


The *only* way VASMIR could work for this task would be using a big
honking nuclear reactor to produce orders of magnitude more electricity
than the ISS solar arrays produce. And it means using several big
VASMIR engines in order to traverse the van-Allen belts quick enough
that ISS's solar panels and electronics don't fry.

This is obviously going to be far too expensive to be practical. Yes
you could do it in theory, but it would cost tens of billions of dollars
to develop the reactor and the big VASMIR engines.

What about simply keeping the ISS in (fairly low) stable orbit, by
counteracting the drag (which may have been the OP's intention)?

--John Park

In article ,
says...
What about simply keeping the ISS in (fairly low) stable orbit, by
counteracting the drag (which may have been the OP's intention)?

Possible, but would require that ISS continue to operate and be supplied
with fuel for the VASIMR engine. Yes VASIMR would be more efficient
than the current liquid fueled engines (which use hypergolic, storable
propellants), but it still needs reaction mass.

In other words, VASIMR might be o.k. for keeping ISS in orbit when it's
manned, but it's not a solution for keeping ISS in its current LEO orbit
after the last crew leaves and isn't available anymore to keep things
working properly. In particular, if pretty much anything related to the
ISS electrical system fails, VASIMR stops working.

That's why Bob keeps saying ISS ought to be moved to an orbit higher
than GEO. If you do that, it will never reenter.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker