Relocation of ISS to ME-L1

Dr John Stockton wrote:

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

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

A long, low thrust acceleration, such as an ion drive, would be easier to
use, as the OP noted in reference to spiralling out, but then you get into
the issue of sun angles and VAB radiation damage.

There's a thread somewhere in which a poster recommends multiple small ion
drives to distribute the loads over the structure in a gentler manner.

/dps

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Dr John Stockton wrote:

Dec 2004 07:57:45, seen in news:sci.space.station, Derek Lyons
posted :
"Revision" k@tdot-com wrote:

The ISS should be moved to the L1 point. Russia, China, or ESA could do
it.

Maybe in about two or three centuries when they have handwavium drives
and unobtanium fuel. Otherwise, the electronics on the ISS are fried
after the transit through Van Allen belts as with current technology
the only way to move something that big and heavy is to spiral out
slowly. (In particular, the solar arrays won't stand much
acceleration.)


With the technology needed to give ISS a significant acceleration, we
would certainly have also the technology to add such rigging as is
needed to rigidise the solar arrays. Consider that the technology of
1805 could brace masts carrying sails against strong winds; and we have
better materials for ropes than they had.

The ropes of 1805 were used to brace stiff masts to stiff decks.
Bracing flexible solar arrays with flexible ropes is quite a different
matter.

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

Since the acceleration, if at all strong, will likely exceed the
structural strength of the station... That's a moot point.

Those who "sail" below the sea may tend to forget what *real* sailors
could do.

Nope. We are quite mindful of what 'real' sailors can do. We are
also quite mindful of reality and engineering.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. / ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

Dr John Stockton wrote:


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


Don't forget a carved figurehead of Mary Shafer attached to PMA-2 (-z
side).

--
Reed

Dr John Stockton,
Clearly there's still an ongoing GOOGLE "Server error" as they'd like
to call it, that which is clearly hindering my posting replies even
into my own topics. In spite of that ongoing orchestrated opposition,
I'll attempt to reply to what "Dr John Stockton" was suggesting as
being a fairly good notion of securing whatever's necessary by using
cables, ropes or whatever is suitable as rigging that'll take all of
the stress that could possibly be induced by continually thrusting ISS
for 10+ hours, or even 100+ hours if limited to 0.01 m/s/s.

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

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

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

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1; as for getting ISS away from mother Earth.

There's an interesting topic ongoing of a helium fusion powered rocket
engine that's worth a good look-see, especially if this technology
might be applied to something like the ISS. I've tried to impose upon
this recent topic with respect to the possibilities of salvaging
something like ISS. Although, all that's transpired is more of their
usual banishment upon absolutely anything having to do with whatever
I'm interested in, or perhaps of anything that might actually benefit
humanity is being summarily rejected just out of spite.

Subject: The Ultimate Engine
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b872da42a00cfd

I'm actually totally impressed but, are we talking R&D of months, years
or what?

For example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing
7.7 km/s. If need be 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours.

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

My previously banished questions for the GOOGLE wizards of "The
Ultimate Engine" topic were and still are;

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

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

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

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

It seems as though, their coming up with the necessary product of 25
MeV and of whatever mega+ joules that portion represents, as extracted
from some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along
for the ride, just might impose another good number of cubic meters
plus whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to operate all
by itself. I believe the age old physics law of energy input must equal
energy output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite
understand from where's such 25 MeV and the good number of joules that
this fusion energy resource potentially represents is coming from.

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

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

Dr John Stockton,
Clearly there's still an ongoing "Server error" as they'd like to call
it, that which is clearly hindering my posting replies even into my own
topics. In spite of that ongoing orchestrated opposition, I'll attempt
to reply to what "Dr John Stockton" was suggesting as being a fairly
good notion of securing whatever's necessary by using cables, ropes or
whatever is suitable as rigging that'll take all of the stress that
could possibly be induced by continually thrusting ISS for 10+ hours,
or even 100+ hours if limited to 0.01 m/s/s.

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

Frankly, I foresee nothing insurmountable about relocating ISS into the
ME-L1 sweet-spot.

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

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1; getting ISS away from mother Earth

There's an ongoing topic of a helium fusion powered rocket engine
that's worth a good look-see if this might be applied to something like
the ISS. I've tried to impose upon this recent topic with respect to
the possibilities of salvaging something like ISS. Although, all that's
transpired is their usual banishment upon absolutely anything having to
do with whatever I'm interested in, or perhaps of anything that might
actually benefit humanity is being summarily rejected just out of
spite.

Subject: The Ultimate Engine
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b872da42a00cfd

I'm actually totally impressed but, are we talking R&D of months, years
or what?

For example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing
7.7 km/s. If need be 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours.

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

My questions for the wizards of "The Ultimate Engine" topic were and
still are;

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

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

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

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

It seems as though, their coming up with the necessary product of 25
MeV and of whatever mega+ joules that represents, as extracted from
some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along for
the ride just might impose another good number of cubic meters plus
whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to operate all by
itself. I believe the physics law of energy input must equal energy
output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite understand from
where's the 25 MeV and the number of joules that this fusion energy
resource represents is coming from.

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

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

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1; getting ISS away from mother Earth

There's an ongoing topic of a helium fusion powered rocket engine
that's worth a good look-see if this might be applied to something like
the ISS. I've tried to impose upon this recent topic with respect to
the possibilities of salvaging something like ISS. Although, all that's
transpired is their usual banishment upon absolutely anything having to
do with whatever I'm interested in, or perhaps of anything that might
actually benefit humanity is being summarily rejected just out of
spite.

Subject: The Ultimate Engine
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b872da42a00cfd

I'm actually totally impressed but, are we talking R&D of months, years
or what?

For example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing
7.7 km/s. If need be 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours.

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

My questions for the wizards of "The Ultimate Engine" topic were and
still are;

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

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

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

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

It seems as though, their coming up with the necessary product of 25
MeV and of whatever mega+ joules that represents, as extracted from
some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along for
the ride just might impose another good number of cubic meters plus
whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to operate all by
itself. I believe the physics law of energy input must equal energy
output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite understand from
where's the 25 MeV and the number of joules that this fusion energy
resource represents is coming from.

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

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

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1; getting ISS away from mother Earth

There's an ongoing topic of a helium fusion powered rocket engine
that's worth a good look-see if this might be applied to something like
the ISS. I've tried to impose upon this recent topic with respect to
the possibilities of salvaging something like ISS. Although, all that's
transpired is their usual banishment upon absolutely anything having to
do with whatever I'm interested in, or perhaps of anything that might
actually benefit humanity is being summarily rejected just out of
spite.

Subject: The Ultimate Engine
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...b872da42a00cfd

I'm actually totally impressed but, are we talking R&D of months, years
or what?

For example, the notion of relocating ISS needs a great deal of
sustained thrust energy, but perhaps only 10 hours worth of .1 m/s/s
acceleration as to obtaining another 3.3 km/s on top of the existing
7.7 km/s. If need be 0.01 m/s/s of 100 hours.

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

My questions for the wizards of "The Ultimate Engine" topic were and
still are;

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

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

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

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

It seems as though, their coming up with the necessary product of 25
MeV and of whatever mega+ joules that represents, as extracted from
some mystical auxiliary power source that's capable of going along for
the ride just might impose another good number of cubic meters plus
whatever tonnes of something other that's not going to operate all by
itself. I believe the physics law of energy input must equal energy
output still holds true. So, I guess that I don't quite understand from
where's the 25 MeV and the number of joules that this fusion energy
resource represents is coming from.

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

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