Re: What would it take to convert ISS to an interplanetary mission?
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Oct 2005 16:36:54 -0700
Bob Haller;
>scrap the modules as designed, with a heavy lifter large ones launched
>full up....
>basically ISS is a first model of station.
I agree that ISS is basically a minimal effort that absolutely requires
shelter from the solar and cosmic storm that's rather nicely provided
by way of the Van Allen zone of death, as well as otherwise it needs
mother Earth for cooling itself off 50% of the time. However, with only
a few billion worth of improvements including a very large area PV
array that can act as an artificial and interactive solar tracking
shade might be just the ticket. Then giving their re-orbit engines the
extra fuel capacity for migrating ISS at a moderate velocity through
the Van Allen badlands. Once establishing the halo like station-keeping
mode that's somewhat of an interactive situation, and subsequently
cutting the time of crew rotation down to 30 days might keep their need
of banked bone marrow down to a dull roar.
>number 2 if it ever gets built will be very different
I totally agree. That's why I've suggested my LSE-CM-ISS that'll
provide a good 50t/m2 worth of a basalt and perhaps the likes of
JB-WELD as a tough composite level of protection surrounding a 1e9 m3
ISS abode within. That's roughly a 1.28 km diameter and perhaps looking
somewhat as a borg-like sphere that gets tethered to the moon. Of
course, in order to start the LSE phase we'll need something (damn near
anything) situated at the one and only ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet spot, so that
a small initial tether can get deployed and anchored into the moon.
This need not even be manned, since robotics and a 100% terrestrial
based ground control can more than accommodate the task at hand.
>just as a shuttle 2 would be different..... of course it wouldnt get
>built in my lifetime, and probably not yours, even if you are 10
Again, I couldn't agree more, nor could many others that have been
suggesting upon all sorts of nifty and doable alternatives, including
one of mine as having those LRn-->ion thrusters instead of the SSMEs,
although we'll likely still need a couple of those massive SRBs, except
as constructed of a basalt composite at roughly half the inert mass.
I'm going for 100+t as delivered to 400+km or perhaps 50+t as going all
the way to/from the ME-L1/EM-L2 zone that's supposedly situated at
roughly 84% the distance towards the moon (mostly a shuttle/spaceplane
situation of efficiently coasting to/from that mutual
gravity-well/nullification), then possibly using the moon as a get home
acceleration method of orbiting the spaceplane down to within as little
as 10 km off the lunar deck before giving that final
return-to-home-world thrust. Otherwise, just a slight thrust away from
ME-L1 towards mother Earth and eventually you'd be arriving back home
no matters what (dead or alive).
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: It's just wierd
- Next by Date: Re: Magnetic levitation for launch ?
- Previous by thread: Re: What would it take to convert ISS to an interplanetary mission?
- Next by thread: Re: What would it take to convert ISS to an interplanetary mission?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
